Intelligent Design

Further Thoughts on “How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained”

Spread the love

The (remade) video below contains the whole shameful story of the treatment my Applied Mathematics Letters paper has received from AML, Springer and The Mathematical Intelligencer. In this paper, and in my reply to Bob Lloyd’s Mathematical Intelligencer piece, whose primary target was this unpublished AML paper, I did not conclude that the second law has been violated by what has happened on Earth, only that you cannot use the widely used but absurd “compensation” argument to claim that it has not.

[youtube vRLSwVRdNes]

The fundamental natural principle behind the second law is that natural (unintelligent) forces do not do macroscopically describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view, so you can’t say, as Styer and many others do, sure, evolution is astronomically improbable, but the Earth is an open system so there is no conflict with the second law. (You could use this same argument to claim that a tornado running backward would not violate the second law, as brought out in this video).

You have to argue that, thanks to the influx of solar energy, what has happened on Earth is not really astronomically improbable. And the the fact that Darwinists hope to find other planets within communication range of Earth where advanced civilizations have developed shows that this is exactly what they do believe; so why do they react to my writings so violently, why all the efforts to suppress them? Why did the referee who rejected my letter to the Mathematical Intelligencer editor claim I was arguing that a “major branch of science” must be discarded as contrary to the second law, when I clearly did not say this? Why not simply say, sure, we believe that thanks to natural selection and random mutations, it is not really extremely improbable, under the right conditions, that atoms would spontaneously rearrange themselves into computers and airplanes and nuclear power plants and the Internet? Apparently the answer is: because once they admit to themselves and to others that this is what they believe, a major branch of science really might be endangered.