Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Response to Scordova

UPDATE: In his comment #9 below, Sal Cordova says he doesn’t believe that a backward running tornado, turning rubble into houses and cars, would violate the second law either (more precisely, he says the burden of proof is on me to show mathematically that it would, as though I were the first to claim this). So, no, if you don’t think the second law should be used in any application that isn’t quantifiable, and there are others with this point of view, you aren’t going to think it has anything to do with evolution either, that’s about all you need to know about our disagreement. My point of view, and that of most general physics textbooks (thermodynamics texts, on the Read More ›

Smallest Fly Discovered: Practically Invisible Yet it Has Wings, Eyes and Complete Organ Systems. And One More Thing …

Scientists and engineers building miniaturized airborne vehicles might want to look to nature for their next breakthrough. At 0.40 mm Euryplatea nanaknihali is a technological wonder that dwarfs even the closest man-made competition.  Read more

Evolutionist: Plants Are “Driving Me Nuts!”

The abrupt appearance of many plant species was, for Charles Darwin, extraordinary. But the fossil record is not the only problem with plants. Plants also don’t fit into the evolutionary tree very well. Their DNA comparisons are inconsistent with their visible features, as discussed in the Nova documentary, First Flower:  Read more

2nd Law of Thermodynamics — an argument Creationists and ID Proponents should NOT use

ID proponents and creationists should not use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to support ID. Appropriate for Independence Day in the USA is my declaration of independence and disavowal of 2nd Law arguments in support of ID and creation theory. Any student of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics will likely find Granville Sewell’s argument and similar arguments not consistent with textbook understanding of these subjects, and wrong on many levels. With regrets for my dissent to my colleagues (like my colleague Granville Sewell) and friends in the ID and creationist communities, I offer this essay. I do so because to avoid saying anything would be a disservice to the ID and creationist community of which I am a part.

 [Granville Sewell  responds to Sal Cordova here. ]

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, I don’t think Granville Sewell 2nd law arguments are correct. An author of the founding book of ID, Mystery of Life’s Origin, agrees with me:

“Strictly speaking, the earth is an open system, and thus the Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot be used to preclude a naturalistic origin of life.”

Walter Bradley, Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life

Read More ›

For record: New Atheist objectors to design thought (at Anti-Evo etc.) reach new lows, hit rock bottom

. . . and begin to dig in further. This is, of course, not exactly the first time that UD contributors and commenters have had to take note of the unfortunately strong tendency of evolutionary materialism advocates to resort to atmosphere-poisoning tactics instead of dealing with the issues posed by design thinkers  on the merits. Now, atheistical objectors are of course quick to say “how dare you suggest that atheists are immoral.” (Actually — to head off a notorious distractive strawman tactic talking point, the real issue is that secular humanist evolutionary materialISM, a worldview, has in it no foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT, which from Plato on has been noted as opening the door to Read More ›

Hybridization: A genuine type of evolution we don’t often hear about – and not magic either

Truth is, we can see evolution happening all around us if we lower our standards from magic to reality. The original source of all the packed information, even in a fungus, is still unknown, but that’s what science is for. Read More ›

Reconciling a Flawed Theory: Why Bother?

Elliot Sober recently wrote a piece showing how Darwinian evolution and theism can be reconciled. It is interesting for two reasons. First of all, it never calls into question the premise – whether Darwinian evolution is itself true. Second, it’s primary purpose is political – to give Darwinian evolution political cover in the courts. For me, the more interesting of these is the first. Sober basically asks if random mutations can be compatible with theism. But the bigger question is, are random mutations even the cause of evolution when it occurs? The evidence continues to gather that the evidence for that is no. It does not matter if the random mutation hypothesis is compatible with theism, or compatible with God’s Read More ›