Arguments that won't go away

Kathleen Newman of Flagstaff, AZ recently recently wrote a letter to the editor at the Arizona Daily Sun stating that evolution is no more than a belief and further stating that "both laws of thermodynamics contradict the theory of evolution."

(AZ Daily Sun archives its stories after only a few days. Please see the complete text copied below)

I don't know why this particular "argument" won't go away. It was first proposed in the early 80's and quickly dismissed as yet another attempt to unjustly use science against itself. Realizing the folly of their arguments, creationists are now trying to unite evolution and creationism by creating something new - ID. Kathleen may never read my blog, but we'll cover the 2nd law one more time.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in short, states that disorder, or entropy, increases over time in any system free from outside influence. Creationists state that evolution proposes more order over time - that things become more organized and this is in direct conflict with the above law. Actually, evolution proposes adaptability by those species which are able to change the fastest relative to their environment, but for sake of this piece, we'll stick with disorder.

Creationists who use this argument always make one very large and very false assumption: that our environment is free from outside influence. Increasing disorder in a "closed" system is inevitable and is what the 2nd Law addresses. However, we are not in a "closed" system, we have a very large outside influence. Locally, our own star provides us with a sustainable energy input. With the Sun's energy, we move from a "closed" system to an "open" system. As long as the Sun is there and we don't blow ourselves up, life will continue to adapt to its environment, with or without Homo Sapiens. The 2nd Law doesn't apply.

Anyway, that particular creationist postulate is pure bullshit. I don't know why she brings the 1st Law into question. I've never heard that one before, so please pass it on to me if you have.

Kathleen states that "Natural selection does not prove macro-evolution...but rather the amazing ability for a species to change within its own kind to adapt to the environment."

She only addresses the part of the theory that makes sense to her. I doubt that she has examined the evidence, else she would have seen many examples of transitional data to backup "macro-evolution". Or, perhaps more likely, she doesn't have an adequate understanding of the scientific method and what the word "theory" truly means in the case of evolution and science in general.


Text from the Arizona Daily Sun follows:

Evolution not a fact

10/09/2005

To the editor:
Joan Ryan in her Oct. 2, 2005 editorial manages not only to state belief as fact but also criticizes those with beliefs other than her own. The theory of evolution is no more than a belief. It has not and cannot be proven through the scientific method, nor is there any "corroborating" evidence for the theory. The creation of the world or life cannot be recorded or observed by scientists and therefore cannot be proved. Modern scientists have stated that there are less transitional forms in the fossil record than in Darwin's time, yet Darwin said that he had none.

Natural selection does not prove macro-evolution, as Ms. Ryan indicates, but rather the amazing ability for a species to change within its own kind to adapt to the environment. Furthermore, both laws of thermodynamics contradict the theory of evolution. These few facts, and hundreds of other evidences, create a "legitimate dispute." It further amazes me that evolutionists cannot defend their belief without name calling or slander of those who believe differently. I would much rather be a "wing nut or boob" than ignorantly believe an absolute negative. It is a known fact that an absolute negative cannot be proven. If anyone out there can prove without a shadow of a doubt that there is not an intelligent creator, I would love to hear.

KATHLEEN NEWMAN Flagstaff

Today's "Bushism"

These folks have done a fantastic job of documenting our president's linguistic ineptitude.

I once had a friend try to explain to me that Bush often seems flustered and incoherent when speaking because there is so much going on in the man's mind that he is always thinking several steps ahead. With a noticeable absence of compelling evidence to support that hypothesis, I must disagree and offer the following statement for your enjoyment.

Here, our president explains the benefits of privatizing social security. I implore you to comment if you can decipher what the hell he is saying.

"Because the-all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those-changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be-or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the-like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate-the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those-if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."-Explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

Welcome

Welcome to my blog. I don't have a lot to say, but what I do have to say is important to me. That doesn't mean that it should be important to you or even that you should agree with it, but it should be fun nonetheless!