The common sense law of physics

_{Granville Sewell

July 29, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I was discussing the second law argument with a scientist friend the other day, and mentioned that the second law is sometimes called the “common sense law of physics”. This morning he wrote:

Yesterday I spoke with my wife about these questions. She immediately grasped that chaos results on the long term when she would stop caring for her home.

I replied:

Tell your wife she has made a perfectly valid application of the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, let’s take her application a bit further.

Suppose you and your wife go for vacation, leaving a dog, cat and a parakeet loose in the house (I put the animals there to cause the entropy to increase more rapidly, otherwise you might have to take a much longer vacation to see the same effect). When you come back, you will not be surprised to see chaos in the house. But tell her some scientists say, “but if you leave the door open while on vacation, your house becomes an open system, and the second law does not apply to open systems…you may find everything in better condition than when you left.”

I’ll bet she will say, if a maid enters through the door and cleans the house, maybe, but if all that enters is wind, rain and other animals, probably not.

This is an application of the main point in chapter 5 of my new book : “If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering that makes it NOT extremely improbable.”

For a slightly more technical version of this story, complete with a mathematical analysis of the equations for entropy change, see my video .

(For those who don’t watch the video, or give up on it before the end, and thus don’t understand what this story has to do with evolution, I should include the punch line):

If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips and books entered through the Earth’s atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here. But if all we see entering is radiation and meteorite fragments, it seems clear that what is entering through the boundary cannot explain the increase in order observed here.

Comments

-“ I’m actually not interested discussing metaphysics here; my concern is the claim of some ID proponents that we have in our experience something known to be able to originate FSCI. This claim is simply false, because all intelligent beings in our experience are themselves complex physical beings” From Popper to Khun to Lakatos, it has been demonstrated that science is theory laden and ridden with metaphysics. That is an observable fact, so I don’t know how you can go about claiming that you have no interest in metaphysics. Science is not something we do in suspended animation. Sorry. -“There is a problem with clarity here. The known cause of FSCI is physical organisms” No, actually there is no problem with clarity here. There is however a problem with circular logic on your part. It’s fairly evident that you’re presupposing materialism in you objection, hence why you try to submerge intelligence under the domain of the so called physical. Like I said before, the objection is valid if and only if one is a materialist or a positivist. Even a simple commonsense dualism overcomes your objection, let alone the numerous and more sophisticated substance ontologies. Now if your objection is a methodological concern and seeing how you are content in not knowing or believing we may not know, I can surely sympathize, but beyond that the objection simply begs the materialistic question. -“To say “intelligent agency” did it makes the mistake of pretending we have reason to believe that something with a mind like our human minds was responsible, which in my view is an obvious anthropomorphic projection that has always been invoked to explain any phenomenon (tides, lightning, whatever) we don’t understand and has always been shown to be wrong whenever we do come to understand it. I am very comfortable in believing the answer is outside of our comprehension.” First I want to note that it’s a caricaturism to compare ID to Zeus and lightning bolts. I think you went a little too far there. If that wasn’t your intention then ignore the previous statement. Finally, strictly speaking, every explanation we give or will ever give will be an anthropomorphism in one way or another – and of varying degrees - for the simple fact that our experiences are filtered through that which we are, anthropoi (Greek for humans). The notion that we can ever construct a worldview devoid of the human element in our theories is simply a delusion.above_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

jpg564,
Intelligence has only been observed as being manifested through FSCI, but that does not mean that FSCI is the source or origin of the intelligence.
I didn't say that FSCI was observed to be sufficient to produce intelligent behavior (although I actually do think that is the case). Mine was simply the obvious point that in our experience FSCI is necessary to produce intelligent behavior.
I also don’t believe it has been shown that we cannot observe a non-material source for intelligence; rather, scientists refuse to consider such possibilities. There certainly is evidence that consciousness can exist independently of matter.
I believe that the evidence for consciousness existing independently of FSCI (complex physical mechanism) is very weak indeed, and evidence that our brains are required (again, even if not sufficient) for us to think is quite compelling. If ID researchers would like to make a scientific case, they need to do some actual research in paranormal psychology (where this sort of thing is investigated). Until then, claims that intelligence occurs independently of physical mechanism are far from the "known cause" that Meyers et al would have us believe.
The question is “what is the source of intelligence?” That question is outside the debate about ID.
Either the intelligent thing that ID hypothesizes is a complex physical organism or it is not. If it is, then ID fails to explain the origin of complex physical organisms. If it is not, then ID fails to show that such a thing (a non-living intelligence) exists or even can exist in prinicple.
AIGUY: I have dozens of quotes from ID authors who claim that “intelligent agency” is a known cause capable of creating FSCI, when in fact all known things capable of producing FSCI already have FSCI. JPG564: Name one material thing known to be capable of producing FSCI that doesn’t have FSCI.
Please read what I said again: There is NOTHING in our experience that can be observed to create FSCI which does not already have FSCI.
The point is that intelligence is the only known source for FSCI.
Name one thing that can produce FSCI which is not a complex physical living organism.
Random natural forces do not produce FSCI – that is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is telling us. There is no alternative theory to the 2nd law, so the only option available to Darwinists is to purposely misinterpret it.
As I said, many people believe that the ratchet of natural selection (not a "random natural force") can produce FSCI. I do not take a position on that proposition myself. However, it is clearly true that in our experience there is nothing that can produce FSCI which is not itself an FSCI-rich physical organism (or one of our creations like a computer). above,
I too have thought of this question to be honest and I think it all comes down to building a coherent metaphysic through which one interprets reality.
I'm actually not interested discussing metaphysics here; my concern is the claim of some ID proponents that we have in our experience something known to be able to originate FSCI. This claim is simply false, because all intelligent beings in our experience are themselves complex physical beings.
AIGUY: I have dozens of quotes from ID authors who claim that “intelligent agency” is a known cause capable of creating FSCI, when in fact all known things capable of producing FSCI already have FSCI above: The first part of the statement is an observable fact: Intelligence is a known cause capable of creating FSCI.
There is a problem with clarity here. The known cause of FSCI is physical organisms; we use the adjective of "intelligent" to describe many (or all) living things. There is nothing that is not a physical organism that we have observed creating FSCI. It is a mistake to reify "intelligence" as something that exists apart from living organisms and claim it is a scientifically grounded observation.
So in conclusion, while I do think that your concern is a valid one, I think whether ot not it proves to be burdensome for any given thinker will very much depend on the thinker’s metaphysical inclinations/committments.
Again, I'm talking only about things we know from experience - not metaphysics. If Stephen Meyer wants to provide metaphysical arguments for ID I would have no objection. When he claims we have a known cause that can explain the origin of FSCI I do object. Upright,
I think you have provided a brilliant rebuttal to one of ID’s many arguments, even if I think it is incorrect.
Gee, thanks (I think).
Living things operate from a semiotic (correlated) mapping...
The problem of intentionality (how symbols mean things) is a difficult and contentious area of philosophy. I'm not concerned with philosphical arguments here; only the claim that we have empirical knowledge of a cause that could account for the origin of FSCI.
The concept I wish to approach you with is the idea that this information about the carbon atom – indeed, any information whatsoever about anything in the cosmos – would not exist at all without an agent to create it.
Agents may transcend physical cause, and they may not. This is a philosophical question and it cannot currently be answered by appeal to observation. If they do not (i.e. if dualism is false) then all this is saying is some sorts of things in nature produce FSCI and some other sorts of things don't. I will not argue here if dualism is true or false - I merely point out that science has not (yet) yielded the answer.
Information requires perception from an agent in order to exist (be it from an ant or an astronaut)....
I understand what you are saying here, but yet again I will simply say that we are deep into very muddy philosophical waters, which is far outside of the argument I am making about experience-based knowledge.
My question to you is this; do you think someone is more or less warranted in this conclusion than someone who believes that, in fact, at some point in the remote past, inanimate chemicals did...
My view is that we have no inkling what was responsible. To say "inanimate chemicals" did it makes the mistake of pretending we understand all of physical phenomena, which is most clearly false. To say "intelligent agency" did it makes the mistake of pretending we have reason to believe that something with a mind like our human minds was responsible, which in my view is an obvious anthropomorphic projection that has always been invoked to explain any phenomenon (tides, lightning, whatever) we don't understand and has always been shown to be wrong whenever we do come to understand it. I am very comfortable in believing the answer is outside of our comprehension. But what I am arguing here is simply that we lack experience-based evidence for anything that could have been responsible for the original FSCI. Thanks for the interesting posts!aiguy_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

@Upright Biped I think you did a fantastic job of framing the issue.above_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

aiguy at 25, I think you have provided a brilliant rebuttal to one of ID’s many arguments, even if I think it is incorrect. I have a couple of observations. Living things operate from a semiotic (correlated) mapping of chemical structures in the abstract (within DNA), to other chemical structures which result from that abstraction after it is transcribed by cellular machinery (resulting in proteins and regulatory networks, etc). This is the "FSC" part of the information transcribed by the cell. FSCI is a subset of information. Beyond whatever more strict definitions it may have, it certainly has semantic meaning, and is not simply random noise, nor is it an object of chemical necessity. This lays end to end with Claude Shannon, who in his famous work on information theory made the only distinction he needed to make about different types of information, that is, in the second sentence of the second paragraph he acknowledges the semantic nature of information. He separated out that meaningful information is distinct from noise. He comments "Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities." Shannon made the distinction (at least partly) because he was working from an engineering perspective of information transfer, i.e. the communication of information which may introduce noise by means of its transmission. He developed this idea further with a schematic diagram, Fig 1, with five individually-named boxes. From left to right there is as arrow which passes through four of the five boxes in a specific order to indicate the flow of information. The flow begins at “Information Source” then passes through “Transmitter” to “Receiver” and finally to “Destination”. The fifth of the five boxes is tangentially tied to the flow of information between the “Transmitter” and the “Receiver”. The fifth box in entitled “Noise Source”. It is the Information Source that I wish to draw your attention to if I may, but first a thought about information itself. The history of the word deals with the idea of "giving form to". To in-form by giving form to a subject of interest. This is exactly what Shannon meant by "correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities". For instance, we know the number of particles in an atom of carbon because we have “looked” and discovered them - we have informed ourselves by making an abstraction of reality that correlates with our observations of the carbon atom, and we have recorded this as “information" which may be transferred and used to inform others. And as with all information, it requires (semiotic) symbols and rules in order to be transferred (i.e. the round red fruit that falls from trees and is white inside with little black seeds is called an “apple” in the English language, but only because we all agree to call it that. Otherwise we could call it an eggplant – just as long as we all agree to the rule). The concept I wish to approach you with is the idea that this information about the carbon atom - indeed, any information whatsoever about anything in the cosmos - would not exist at all without an agent to create it. Information requires perception from an agent in order to exist (be it from an ant or an astronaut). (I believe this observation may play into your post above at #25). I recently asked two questions on this forum which Bio Prof Allen MacNeil picked up on. I asked if DNA contained “meaningful information”, and also if “meaningful information” required perception in order to exist. His conclusions to both questions were tempered with qualifiers. For instance, for “meaningful information” to exist in DNA it would have to be actually transcribed by the cell and lead to a cellular function. He also commented that information is a separate phenomena which is not reducible to matter or energy, but requires either matter or energy as a carrier. I generally accept his qualifiers, and I also accept that the answers were affirmative for both questions. Now as a student of reasonable explanations, one might observe: 1. Information is a non-material abstraction of reality 2. Information is a phenomenon as tangible as matter and energy. 3. Information requires perception by an agent in order to exist. 4. Life operates from information instantiated (encoded/transcribed) within living tissue. 5. The only absolute distinction between the material in an inanimate object and in a living object is the presence of information (infused with meaning and the rules by which to decode it) 6. Information is not a human concept or invention, as it existed prior to the onset of human life. Given that there is no observable evidence that inanimate matter has the slightest bit of tendency to start recording “its” structural existence (as biological entities) by means of semiotic abstractions of itself, encoded and embedded in an chemical information carrier - indeed, there isn’t even a plausible conceptualization how such a thing could occur - I believe it’s completely warranted to conclude that an agent instantiated into matter the information that creates life. This conclusion is based upon our universal experience with that which is at the center of living things. My question to you is this; do you think someone is more or less warranted in this conclusion than someone who believes that, in fact, at some point in the remote past, inanimate chemicals did by some miraculous unknown means stumble upon the organizational principles that would lead to the onset of cell compartmentalization, the intake of energy, the metabolization of energy, the distribution of energy within the parts of the cell that require it (when they require it), the feedback networks to know when they need it, the respiration of waste, etc, etc, and by yet another unknown miraculous event also stumbled upon a semiotic system of information transfer, and did indeed begin to record “their” existence in just that fashion, and were able to encode these processes by means of embedded abstractions and then decode them in their subsequent offspring. I would like to know your thoughts either way, but if your answer is that the former is less warranted, then on what specific observation(s) do you make that assessment? If you do not wish to address this question, that is fine as well.Upright BiPed_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

I understand the basic argument here. It is that given the second law of thermodynamics, order cannot have a net increase. Since evolution essentially posits an increase in order, it cannot be a correct theory. My question is, can intelligent produce a net increase of order? I know that it can increase order locally, but can it increase it universally? We have grand cities, but we also have environmental decay. We have better medicine than we used to, but we also seem to have an increase in genetic disorders (I don't know the science on that, its just what seems to be true based on what I've heard). If evolution is a "free lunch" is intelligence also a "free lunch?"Collin_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

@aiguy I too have thought of this question to be honest and I think it all comes down to building a coherent metaphysic through which one interprets reality. While I do share your concerns, I do disagree slightly with the way you present the following statement: "I have dozens of quotes from ID authors who claim that “intelligent agency” is a known cause capable of creating FSCI, when in fact all known things capable of producing FSCI already have FSCI" The first part of the statement is an observable fact: Intelligence is a known cause capable of creating FSCI. That is not something anyone can deny and this post (along with yours and the entire website for that matter) attests to that. The second part of the statement is simply an additional concern that we seem to share but does not in any way invalidate the first. Furthermore, depending on one's metaphysical position it may become more or less troublesome as a concern. I believe this will be a huge problem specifically for materialists and logical positivists but not so much for others who emrbrace a different metaphysic/epistemology. So in conclusion, while I do think that your concern is a valid one, I think whether ot not it proves to be burdensome for any given thinker will very much depend on the thinker's metaphysical inclinations/committments.above_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

aiguy, Apologies for coming in a bit late, but I disagree with your second paragraph at #25: On the other hand, it seems from our experience that intelligence invariably comes from FSCI. Of course we could imagine that intelligence could exist independently of complex, functional organisms, and many people believe that spirits, gods, or other beings might be intelligent without the complex, functional, physical mechanisms that all known intelligent agents require to support intelligent behavior – but this remains theoretical (or theological) and cannot be observed to occur. Intelligence has only been observed as being manifested through FSCI, but that does not mean that FSCI is the source or origin of the intelligence. I also don't believe it has been shown that we cannot observe a non-material source for intelligence; rather, scientists refuse to consider such possibilities. There certainly is evidence that consciousness can exist independently of matter. The question is "what is the source of intelligence?" That question is outside the debate about ID. In reference to #32: I have dozens of quotes from ID authors who claim that “intelligent agency” is a known cause capable of creating FSCI, when in fact all known things capable of producing FSCI already have FSCI. Name one material thing known to be capable of producing FSCI that doesn't have FSCI. The point is that intelligence is the only known source for FSCI. Random natural forces do not produce FSCI - that is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is telling us. There is no alternative theory to the 2nd law, so the only option available to Darwinists is to purposely misinterpret it.jpg564_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Just because the entropy of part of a system can decrease does not mean that it must happen, so the example of a house with the doors open getting messy is irrelevant. A better example is a fridge. Putting left overs in the fridge reduces the entropy of the left overs but of course this does not violate the 2nd law.TempHut_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

I did not call you a zealot. Don’t be so over-reactive yourself No, but comparing me to one isn't exactly much better, is it? :< Will you now answer my question? I just make a little joke. I am just here trying to figure stuff out, not to peform for you.San Antonio Rose_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

DATCG, I guess we agree then. Contrary to many ID authors (and in particular Stephen Meyer in "Signature in the Cell") there is no known cause in our experience that could account for the existence of the FCSI in biology. There is only speculation about something foreign to our experience which was not itself an FCSI-rich physical organism but could somehow exist and create living things. There seems to be no science at all there. And yes, I agree there is no reason to rule things out a priori. Still, we need to be careful about what is claimed to be known from experience and what isn't. I have dozens of quotes from ID authors who claim that "intelligent agency" is a known cause capable of creating FSCI, when in fact all known things capable of producing FSCI already have FSCI.aiguy_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

aiguy, It seems we agree. Neither does materialist, unguided evolution. My point is, since neither side has authority, why is only one-side represented to young minds as FACT in textbooks? What we do know by scientific observation today, is that genetic entropy takes place, a downward spiral of disease, dysfunctional breakdowns and failure due to random mutations. At best, what we see is a cost of survival, not an increase in order. Nor do we see self-organization on a Marco Level. Design Theory is just that. Theory. And it does not attempt to solve the Origins problem. But the paper I quoted shows that far from solving an origins issue, an unguided process cannot solve increasing order problems of complexity. In fact, the origins problem for blind, materialist problems is a huge problem for Darwinist. Yet, blind, materialist, Darwinian zealots will say that Macro-Evolution is a fact. That biology cannot be done without unguided evolution. That is simply not true. It is a big fat lie. Macro Evolution is a historical science, not based upon scientific methodology of observed test and repeated outcomes. As Abel shows above, true scientific methods are thrown to the wind when it comes to Darwinism. Attempting to build a robust theory is an arduous process. Design Theory has a long way to go. But, as Engineering Sciences gain momentum each day across the Biological creative process in all areas of research, what will we find? Will we find an unguided creation? Or, a guided creation? Will future scientist guide outcomes of genetic programs? Will they be able to do so rapidly in time for scientific observation? As Darwinist are quickly to opine, only Time will tell. But, to rule out apriori one side of the debate is to be disingenuous, close-minded, fanatical, and objectively bad science.DATCG_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Another paper of Abel's I wish I had access to, co-written with Trevor in The Physics of Life Review... Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models A partial abstract...
"Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural “law” propensities and are purely physicodynamic. Crystallization and the spontaneously forming dissipative structures of Prigogine are examples of self-ordering. Self-ordering phenomena involve no decision nodes, no dynamically-inert configurable switches, no logic gates, no steering toward algorithmic success or “computational halting”. Hypercycles, genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neural nets, and cellular automata have not been shown to self-organize spontaneously into nontrivial functions. Laws and fractals are both compression algorithms containing minimal complexity and information. Organization typically contains large quantities of prescriptive information. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces nontrivial optimized algorithmic function at its destination. Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity. Organization requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic. Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings"
Thus, again, the Open System does not give any advantage to the materialist only view.DATCG_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

The power of Design Theory is that is allows for any type of Designer, plus the ability of both guided and unguided evolutionary combinations. Whereas the atheistic Darwinian zealot approach remains subjectively close-minded and closed to authentic and open research
The problem here is this: Yes, ID allows for both living designers (the kind familiar to us, in which the intelligent behavior invariably arises from FSCI-rich physical bodies) and for other kinds of designers (which are completely unknown to us). But neither of these possibilities can explain the origin of FSCI in a way that is supported by our empirical experience: The first option doesn't explain the origin of FSCI, and the second option isn't grounded in our experience.aiguy_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Rose, I did not call you a zealot. Don't be so over-reactive yourself :). I have no idea what your opinion is on the subject. It was a reference to zealots, not you personally. Will you now answer my question?DATCG_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

ooops, the above comment w/quotes includes a set of Parens. My own emphasis on extraterrestial search. The point being, if "serious" scientist can search for signs of intelligent life in the universe, then certainly, scientist can and must search for signs of intelligent design on earth. If for example, intelligent life formed a billion years ago, it is "theoretically possible" that they have seeded our own planet(ie. Panspermia - see co-discoverer of DNA double-helix structure; Francis Crick). Thus, for a materialist or Darwinist zealot like PZ Meyers or Moran to rule out apriori guided evolution, is not an objective opinion based upon scientific research, but a subjective bias based upon their anti-theist worldviews. The power of Design Theory is that is allows for any type of Designer, plus the ability of both guided and unguided evolutionary combinations. Whereas the atheistic Darwinian zealot approach remains subjectively close-minded and closed to authentic and open research. Based upon their own subjective criteria of "possible" and "plausible" "scientific" history, we are left with the case of opinion on either side thus far. With a nudge of priority to Design by the application of objective UPM and UPP.DATCG_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

A few quotes From the paper: The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP), by David Abel...
"Not even a Universal Probability Bound [6-8] seems to establish absolute theoretical impossibility. The fanatical pursuit of absoluteness by finite subjective knowers is considered counterproductive in post modern science. Open-mindedness to all possibilities is encouraged [9]. But at some point our reluctance to exclude any possibility becomes stultifying to operational science [10]. Falsification is critical to narrowing down the list of serious possibilities [11]. Almost all hypotheses are possible. Few of them wind up being helpful and scientifically productive. Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability. More attention to the concept of "infeasibility" has been suggested [12]. Millions of dollars in astrobiology(and SETI) grant money have been wasted on scenarios that are possible, but plausibly bankrupt. The question for scientific methodology should not be, "Is this scenario possible?" The question should be, "Is this possibility a plausible scientific hypothesis?" One chance in 10**200 is theoretically possible, but given maximum cosmic probabilistic resources, such a possibility is hardly plausible"
That seems a reasonable assessment. What again are the odds of blind search and random selection in evolutionary scenarios? The favorite subjective application by Darwinist zealots are that yes, objectively the possibility of increasingly higher order systems of specific informationally organized systems have an almost infintesimally low probability, but still, the "possibility" exist given "enough time" anything can happen. How is that science? Abel continues...
"The human epistemological problem is kept in its proper place through a) double-blind studies, b) groups of independent investigators all repeating the same experiment, c) prediction fulfillments, and d) the application of pristine logic (taking linguistic fuzziness into account), and e) the competition of various human ideas for best correspondence to repeated independent observations."
Question, can Darwinian zealots make any observational, double-blind studies of Macro-evolution from the past? Most reasonably objective people would say "No" today, understanding that Historical Sciences are an interpretative study at best. Thus, best practices normally used for operational scientific evidence for modern day evidence is ruled out for any model. At best, only inferences can be made of the past. Neither a telic or non-telic process can be observed for macro-evolution today. Yet, this is not taught as a primary truth to students. Instead, a subjective, biased, materialist-only view is taught. And the real truth is oppressed. We live with a fascist education system for young minds being manipulated by a minority of atheist zealots. His conclusion:
"Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. Indeed, the practical need exists in science to narrow down lists of possibilities on the basis of objectively quantifiable plausibility."
Full Paper here: Notice that far from Design Theory going the way of randomly created dinosaurs, it is a valid point of reference. Excellent paper.DATCG_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

What I wonder about is this: On one hand, it seems from our experience that order (functional specified complex information, FSCI) invariably comes from intelligence (conscious, sentient beings). Of course we could imagine that FSCI could emerge from something else, and many people believe it emerges in open systems via the ratchet of selection, but this remains theoretical and cannot be observed to occur. On the other hand, it seems from our experience that intelligence invariably comes from FSCI. Of course we could imagine that intelligence could exist independently of complex, functional organisms, and many people believe that spirits, gods, or other beings might be intelligent without the complex, functional, physical mechanisms that all known intelligent agents require to support intelligent behavior - but this remains theoretical (or theological) and cannot be observed to occur. So the mystery of how FSCI originates remains, and the notion that some unspecified type of conscious thing might have been the first cause is no more grounded in our experience than the notion that some unspecified type of unconscious thing was responsible - notwithstanding all this about the 2nd law and common sense.aiguy_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

I'm a Darwinian zealot? LOL. Don't be so serious all the time. I was just making a little joke. No need to get on my case.San Antonio Rose_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

San Antonio Rose, You err as do most Darwinian zealots and leave off the important point. What was brought into the house for increasing order? Was it Random mutations? Or was there an intelligent being that bought an intelligently designed garbage bag, produced by a multitude of designers and intelligently made machines? What is your answer? An open system does not lead to a materialist "only" interpretation.DATCG_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

(imagine trying to tell my friend’s wife that the fact that entropy is increasing outside her house means that she might find things inside the house in better condition than she left them!), Doesn't that happen everytime someone takes out the trash? LOLSan Antonio Rose_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

I thought this old chestnut (the 2nd law) was buried. The 2nd law (of thermodynamics) does NOT refer to order/disorder on a macroscopic scale. It refers to the qty of unnusable heat energy which is lost in an imperfect process. Basically it is saying that heat flows down hill, but any concept of order/disorder is a statistical thing that emerges from the microscopic, ie: an average behaviour of a large no. of small particles. Perhaps order (of the sort you are describing) is unlikely to appear on its own, but it has no relation to the 2nd law (of thermodynamics). The units of (thermodynamic) entropy are energy/temp. Are you suggesting that disorder in the house has these units ?Graham_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

GilDodgen: “… unless, of course, his reasoning powers in this arena have been completely inactivated by Darwinian anti-logic.” It’s amazing what can be done with DarLogic™ modules these days!Ilion_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

I sometimes wonder if part of the problem -- I mean, aside from the general disinclination of DarwinDefenders to admit *anything* which might tell against Darwinism -- is that people tend to use the both words ‘order’ and ‘chaos’ in mutually contradictory manners, sometimes simultaneously. I don’t mean that ‘order’ and ‘chaos’ are used contradictory to one another, but rather that (at least) two different contradictory meanings are attached to each word.Ilion_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

Gil,
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature should be able to figure this out, unless, of course, his reasoning powers in this arena have been completely inactivated by Darwinian anti-logic.
This is an example of how the corruption of Darwinism has reached beyond biology into physics! The whole idea of "compensation", that a decrease in entropy in an open system can be compensated by an increase outside the system is completely "anti-logical" (imagine trying to tell my friend's wife that the fact that entropy is increasing outside her house means that she might find things inside the house in better condition than she left them!), and was invented solely to avoid the obvious conclusions with regard to evolution. To be fair, this idiotic interpretation of the second law was also abetted by the minor difficulties in interpreting the boundary integral, discussed in the last part of my video. But I was (as also documented there) certainly not the first to recognize that this integral represents the rate that entropy is crossing the boundary. Granville Sewell_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

Off Topic: I've recently made my chef-d'œuvre artificial-intelligence computer program available for free download at my website: http://www.WorldChampionshipCheckers.com It is a 6.8-gigabyte compressed download that requires 12 gigs of disk space when unzipped.GilDodgen_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

“If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips and books entered through the Earth’s atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here. But if all we see entering is radiation and meteorite fragments, it seems clear that what is entering through the boundary cannot explain the increase in order observed here.” Granville, Anyone with an IQ above room temperature should be able to figure this out, unless, of course, his reasoning powers in this arena have been completely inactivated by Darwinian anti-logic.GilDodgen_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Be nice, I’m not a scientist, just a regular guy.
So you live in a very disorderly environment? Or are you married?Mung_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Order goes beyond biology. And in fact the theory of the origin of our universe (from the materialist perspective) contradicts the 2nd law doesn't it? I was watching "Through the Worm Hole" on the sci channel and they were saying how after the big bang there had to have been a moment when the energy from the bang was slowed down. As a result the ordered galaxies and universes came to be. But wouldn't just more disorder come from an already disordered explosion? Be nice, I'm not a scientist, just a regular guy. :)wagenweg_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Collin,
I’m having a hard time understanding what the definition of order is here. Complexity does not equal order as I understand it. I had a professor in college says that the second law does not preclude evolution because the earth is being constantly bathed in “high-order energy.” Radiation from the sun is high on the order scale, as opposed to heat which is at the bottom. Was he wrong?
You should really read Signature in the Cell. Or are you just confused about the definition of order in this analogy (unattended house)? I'm not sure what high and low order energy means, but in any case, what does it matter with regards to evolution or abiogenesis (with the latter, to my knowledge, generally being the focus of this type of debate)? A law-like process (like radiation) does not help produce the information needed to create even the simplest life we have ever witnessed. And that is assuming there was a trial-and-error process in place that was generating the "pre-life" (random, functionless) information, which appears doubtful (at the moment) if you don't require abiogenesis to be true. It appears to me that the only natural phenomenon that would increase the likelihood of generating life-forming information is increasing the probabilistic resources of the trial-and-error process. Meyer argues that even the most preposterously generous assumptions for the probabilistic resources of our universe leave the first life woefully short of being stumbled upon. His probabilistic analysis is undeniable. What could be debated is his assumption of what it took to produce the first life. I'll say it again: the only way materialists can dent this argument is if they can demonstrate that a law-like process can generate FSCI or if life can be formed without FSCI (i.e., with very little information). Similarly, my stance towards natural evolution is that I would be inclinced to believe it if it could be shown to be at least somewhat reasonable to believe there was a smooth function/fitness gradient for a complex biological feature, especially on the cellular level, requiring only 1 or 2 mutations per selectable step.uoflcard_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

I'm surprised no one has pointed out yet that with the door open, the dog and cat and parakeet may escape, resulting in a slower rate of increase of entropy in the house! :-) When I first stated (2001) the tautology quoted in my post, I thought, to be correct I really should say "unless something is entering OR LEAVING which makes it NOT extremely improbable," but decided that didn't sound as elegant and it's usually what is entering that is of interest. But here is an example where what is leaving is significant!Granville Sewell_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply