I thought this a decent, straightforward guest editorial on the natural persuasiveness of Intelligent Design.
UPDATE 2/21/06 - Here's a writer who objects to the previous writer using the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an argument against evolution. Most letters to the editor also criticize the argument.
UPDATE 3/8/06 - Ron Mitchell, the original writer, answers his critics persuasively.
The problem with most of the arguments that were made in AC-T recently, countering my little faux discussion between intelligent design and science is that they refuted an argument that I never made.
Pretty easy to win an argument that way, as most politicians know. Let me explain.
Their argument is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLOT) applies only in a closed system, and, as such, would not be applicable when considering the formation and evolution of planet earth, since earth is, in fact, acted on by outside forces and is, therefore, not a closed system.
I agree. But my argument was not for planet earth, but for the entire universe, as I stated in the very first sentence of my piece, and that is a closed system where SLOT indeed does apply. That’s Physics 101.
I also referred to this closed system when, further down, I used the phrase “when left to themselves,” referring to things effected by SLOT.
I put it that way to make it more clear to readers who might not know what “closed system” means. So, hey, fellas, argue fairly, and only with statements that I actually made, OK?
And regarding the big bang, the First Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that you can’t get something from nothing, and that’s exactly what happened in the big bang. That’s also Physics 101, and you can’t spin your way out it, PhD or not.
Regarding Darwinian evolution, let’s deal with the incredible coincidences of random (read “chance” or “pure accident”) mutation that would have to have taken place just to bring the simple honeybee into being.
Fact is, it’s not so simple. There are dozens and dozens (the exact number probably isn’t even known) of specialized modifications that it must have in order to take care of its business of making honey, which means sustaining the species.
Without any one of them, it couldn’t conduct its business, and there would be no line of honeybees. And all of these specialized mutations would have had to come into play at the same time, or it would have to find something else to do for a living.
What are the odds of that coincidence happening? If you have faith enough to buy that that just happened to have come about by pure chance, enjoy yourself. I don’t.