Evolution / Creationism / Intelligent Design

Science & Technology Biosciences
21

The second law of thermodynamics, a well proven law of science, demonstrates that all things in nature tend to deteriorate and decay, whereas the evolutionary theory would have us believe that all living things evolve in an unbroken upward progression of complexity.

This is patent gibberish of the worst kind. Allow me to enlighten you. As an intellectual exercise, I shall do so without referencing any books of any kind.

The second law of thermodynamics which you throw around, inaccurately, with such reckless abandon states, IIRC, that the universe, i.e. everything that exists, gradually moves towards a state of increased entropy.

Now, for some context, let’s remember that the FIRST law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Increasing entropy means, in general terms, that the same amount of energy is gradually being disbursed over a greater and greater “area”. This is approximately analogous to what happens when you drop ink into a bowl of water, at first it’s all concentrated in one spot, but gradually, over time, it diffuses and the entire bowl turns a uniform color, which is much, much lighter than the ink itself.

Complex molecules (such as amino acids and DNA) actually cannot EXIST in extremely high-energy environments because the atoms are moving SO fast that the molecules keep breaking up. It is not until the energy has “spread out” quite a bit that said molecules can even form.

In high-energy conditions (say, the core of the sun) individual atoms can’t even exist, they fuse!

Goodness knows (or perhaps someone who’s taken more than physics 101 does) that in EXTREMELY high-energy conditions (such as might have existed during the “Big Bang” or what have you) even subatomic particles may have been completely dissociated.

So, you might even be able to say that the universe, as it “diffuses”, is moving to a state of GREATER complexity.

22

Sir ID is not a religious view but one that can be embraced by all but atheists.  It is a view that screams for acceptance on  the grounds that it makes sense of all the things that evolution cannot!  You would have me belive that Shakespeares plays were written by rioting monkeys in a print shop given enough time!

This is a forum for discussing Objectivism. Objectivists ARE atheists.

We accept one and only one means of gaining knowledge: reason. As such we demand not that a given theory “makes sense” or “fits the facts” but that a definite causal relationship be established based on observational evidence. I could just as easily say that it rained yesterday because the Moon People were dusting the Earth with their magic Moon Dust, which makes it rain. It explains everything. It makes sense. It’s completely arbitrary. Not only have I failed to present any evidence of any sort whatsoever for the existence of Moon People and Moon Dust, I have failed to establish any kind of causal relationship between Moon Dust and rainfall.

What, PRECISELY, does evolution fail to explain? Or are you just regurgitating some undigested slogan you happened to hear without thinking about it?

Scott Adams, who in many cases is a very confused thinker, presented a lovely list in one of his books, The Joy of Work, entitled “You Are Wrong Because”. One of the listed items was: “Incompleteness as proof of defect.” His example was: “Evolution doesn’t explain why there are no unicorns. Therefore evolution must be wrong.”

A person who writes comics about office idiocy spotted the flaw in your argument, Shakespearian Monkey Boy.

23

The second law of thermodynamics, a well proven law of science, demonstrates that all things in nature tend to deteriorate and decay, whereas the evolutionary theory would have us believe that all living things evolve in an unbroken upward progression of complexity.

You misunderstand both the second law of thermodynamics and evolution.

The second law DOES NOT say that each separate thing deteriorates. It says that the UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE becomes more random. Heat engines (the study of which led to formulating the second law) can produce useful work while degrading heat (from their fuel). Living things can grow and reproduce (reducing their own randomness) while degrading their source of energy whether it is light or rocks or other living or recently living things.

Darwinian Evolution is not “an unbroken upward progression of complexity”. Species can evolve to be simpler or smaller. Evolution is an application of the law of identity. Inheritable attributes which increase the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce (under current conditions) tend to become more common.

There is no conflict between these two.

24

This is a forum for discussing Objectivism.  Objectivists ARE atheists. 

We accept one and only one means of gaining knowledge: reason.  As such we demand not that a given theory “makes sense” or “fits the facts” but that a definite causal relationship be established based on observational evidence.  I could just as easily say that it rained yesterday because the Moon People were dusting the Earth with their magic Moon Dust, which makes it rain.  It explains everything.  It makes sense.  It’s completely arbitrary.  Not only have I failed to present any evidence of any sort whatsoever for the existence of Moon People and Moon Dust, I have failed to establish any kind of causal relationship between Moon Dust and rainfall.

What, PRECISELY, does evolution fail to explain?  Or are you just regurgitating some undigested slogan you happened to hear without thinking about it?

Scott Adams, who in many cases is a very confused thinker, presented a lovely list in one of his books, The Joy of Work, entitled “You Are Wrong Because”.  One of the listed items was: “Incompleteness as proof of defect.”  His example was: “Evolution doesn’t explain why there are no unicorns.  Therefor evolution must be wrong.”

A person who writes comics about office idiocy spotted the flaw in your argument, Shakespearian Monkey Boy.

If you define an atheist as someone who KNOWS that God doesn’t exist, I suspect a lot of Objectivists would add that even asking the question “Does God exist?” makes no sense and admits of no rational answer or debate. That seems to be a position beyond atheism and invulnerable to the ID argument. God and existence are irreconcilable concepts.

25

A person who writes comics about office idiocy spotted the flaw in your argument, Shakespearian Monkey Boy.

Jennifer, that post was simply brilliant.

If you define an atheist as someone who KNOWS that God doesn’t exist, I suspect a lot of Objectivists would add that even asking the question “Does God exist?” makes no sense and admits of no rational answer or debate. That seems to be a position beyond atheism and invulnerable to the ID argument. God and existence are irreconcilable concepts.

No one knows that something doesn’t exist. That’s absurd!

Something that doesn’t exist (which itself is a contradiction in terms but is used here as an illustration) is nothing, a zero. To say that I know ‘A’ does not exist is to, literally and metaphysically, say ‘I know nothing.’ (you may in fact be able to conceptualize ‘A’ but only as an antithesis to a conceptual opposite)

You can only know that something does exist, in said quantity, with observed (which implies finite) attributes.

To those who speak of ‘God.’ I say “Show Me!” I can only know what your concept of ‘God’ is through the eyes and ears (senses) that are the root of rational and moral life.

26

Something that doesn’t exist (which itself is a contradiction in terms but is used here as an illustration) is nothing, a zero.  To say that I know ‘A’ does not exist is to, literally and metaphysically, say ‘I know nothing.’ (you may in fact be able to conceptualize ‘A’ but only as an antithesis to a conceptual opposite)

If a concept/name is well defined, then it makes sense to say that it doesnt exist (ie, that no existing entities are known to fall under that concept/name). For instance, modern scientists know that phlogiston and the aether dont exist, and I know there are no unicorns in Britain.

Also, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases within a closed system. As has been repeatedly pointed out to creationists, the earth is not a closed system due to the energy input from the sun.

27

I understand.

But I have to ask did anyone ever ‘know’ that ether existed. From my understanding, ether was a hypothesis, so is it proper to say that anyone was ever knowledgeable as to the attributes of the ether? And what would be the value in saying ‘I know there are no unicorns in britain’? Is there any point in saying you know that there are no unicorns in britain? Aren’t there an infinite amount of such statements?

28

The second law …  says that the UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE becomes more random.

Also, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases within a closed system. As has been repeatedly pointed out to creationists, the earth is not a closed system due to the energy input from the sun.

Thanks Hal, your formulation is more correct and useful. Actually instead of “entropy increases”, one should say that entropy does not (well, almost never) decreases in an isolated system.

I think that many people have trouble understanding this because it is so abstract and requires a technical definition of entropy. First, one must distinguish between macro-states and micro-states of a system.

The macro-state is just what the system appears to be when observed in the usual way, that is, somewhat superficially.

What the parts of the system are: their masses, shapes, compositions, temperatures, pressures, electric polarization, magnetization, etc..

The micro-state is a complete description of the system including the position and velocity of each atom.

Entropy is a measure of the amount of information which must be added to the macro-state in order to determine the micro-state. It is Boltzmann’s constant times the natural logarithm of the number of micro-states consistent with the observed macro-state.

29

Kant vs. Darwin: Creationism (“Intelligent Design”) vs. Evolution is Philosophical Debate

by Don Watkins III  (August 8, 2005)

…

The division between the defenders and opponents of evolution is not rooted in disagreements over biology, but in opposite metaphysics and epistemologies.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4357

30

It saddens me that people can even listen to themselves say the things that were quoted in that article.

31

The smashing success of the intelligent design theory has inspired another, equally valid theory. Read about it HERE.

32

Wow, well, first of all, i stupidly joined this site not realizing it was an objectivist forum, then i realized it might be an opportunity to learn some more about it.

But to the topic at hand, since there are so many of you that accept the evolution theory, what proof has been given you that proves it? Or is it simply a last resort because ID is deemed impossible? I personally believe in ID, nothing else makes any sense, including evolution. the major experiment’s that supposedly “proved” evolution have been shown to be worthless (Miller’s experiment and the spotted moths are two examples).

First of all the 2nd law of thermodynamics can apply to the earth because the earth and the sun can be included in “the closed system.” i don’t mean to get relativistic on all of you, but a system is whatever you want it to be, if you’re saying the earth is not a closed system, you can say that everything else in the universe is not a closed system, then what’s the purpose of the law? You may say that a closed system is one in which one object is not affected by another, but this impossible unless you isolate every single atom in the universe.

Second, i’m not going to debate the probability of evolution, anything is probable…

Thirdly, i would love to start a forum on the contradictions of God, it might be a waste of time, but what the heck, i have too much of that anyway…

Oh and i like The Onion article, reminds me of the Family Guy episode, “Everybody knows Christians don’t believe in gravity!”

33

But to the topic at hand, since there are so many of you that accept the evolution theory, what proof has been given you that proves it?

Firstly, Darwin’s impressive observations as documented in “The Origin of Species,” with the actual genetic mechanism for natural selection being subsequently provided by Gregor Mendel. And secondly, the existence of hundreds of thousands of other primary scientific articles since that time. Thirdly, the devotion of scores of entire journals to the theory of evolution (Evolution, Evolutionary Ecology, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, Journal of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Plant Systematics and Evolution, Human Evolution, Mammalian Evolution, etc.) and the total lack of any peer-reviewed scientific journals devoted to the theory of “Intelligent Design.”

I personally believe in ID, nothing else makes any sense, including evolution.

Since I have shown where the weight of the evidence lies, please tell us why you think ID makes sense and why evolution doesn’t.

the major experiment’s that supposedly “proved” evolution have been shown to be worthless (Miller’s experiment and the spotted moths are two examples).

Showing that data were deliberately falsified by the scientists in ONE scientific experiment is worthless in showing that a theory, with the support of hundreds of thousands of other experiments or observational studies, is false.

First of all the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Please see the above postings in this thread re: the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

34

Sir ID is not a religious view but one that can be embraced by all but atheists. It is a view that screams for acceptance on the grounds that it makes sense of all the things that evolution cannot!

I don’t think atheists generally would have a problem with ID… in a philosophy classroom.

Most of the objections come when it is put into a science class - especially when laws are enacted that require a biology teacher to tell her pupils stuff like “evolution is a theory; it may be wrong.”

I don’t think it proper to put something that, almost by definition, can’t be proven false into a classroom. To IDers, what kind of evidence could disprove intelligent design? If there is no way to disprove it, why should it be in science class, as opposed to philosophy?

35

Intelligent design can be defeated on philosophical grounds very easily. Here’s how.

ID argument: Nature is so complex, it must have been designed.

Counter-argument: In order to infer effect from cause, repeated associations are needed. One cannot infer from effect (order of nature) to cause (intelligent designer) in a case of such singularity. We only have one universe and one earth to observe. Therefore one cannot imply the causal principle.

hunterrose, you are exactly right. Intelligent Design, as an idea (it is not a theory, as it has NO PROOF) is not acceptable scientifically because it posits that we stop looking for natural answers to explain natural phenomena. It posits that we should stop the process of science.

Science, fundamentally, is the search for natural answers to natural phenomena. Not supernatural answers to natural phenomena. So of course scientists, true scientists (those that do not place religion above science, mysticism above rationality), cannot accept that.

36

I don’t have time at the moment to respond to the above posts, but i would like to say that i believe in the process of microevolution, macroevolution is impossible.

37

The second law of thermodynamics, a well proven law of science, demonstrates that all things in nature tend to deteriorate and decay, whereas the evolutionary theory would have us believe that all living things evolve in an unbroken upward progression of complexity.

False. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy increases in all closed systems. (And entropy is strictly defined only in systems infinitesimally removed from equilibrium.) The Earth is not a closed system since there’s a net influx of solar energy. It’s been known since the 1930s with the work of Lars Onsager that under the condition of a net influx of energy, local entropy can decrease, as in fact it does as living beings eat and build tissue. (Onsager won the Nobel Prize for his work on nonlinear and nonequilibrium thermodynamics, in fact.)

Intelligent Design embraces science, while evolution mocks it.

Bullshit. Your worthless argument for “Intelligent Design” has been entirely out of date since the 1930s; it was out of date when it was peddled by “Scientific Creationists” in the 1960s, and the fact that you can’t do any better than that shows that proponents of “Intelligent Design” are equally unscientific and out of date.

38

So what you mean is that you believe there is genetic variation present that can be selected for, but that selection for those differences will never be great enough within a particular population to create some kind of mating barrier, thus creating a new species? I assume you believe that mutations are possible, which create some genetic variation amongst individuals that is selected for, right? This is usually what people mean by microoevolution.

This is what the theory of evolution says. It says that there is some genetic variation present in a population, and that nature selects the phenotypes that are the best suited to specific environmental conditions at that time. The phenotypes are partially a result of genetics.

If you accept this premise, let me ask you this: Let’s assume that the genetic variation in one population can be held constant: the population is large, there is not much mutation, there is random mating and assortment of alleles. meanwhile, there is another population isolated from the first that is allowed to change: ideally, this would happen in a small population with non-random mating and lots of mutations creating genetic variability. Are you saying that the change in the second population, over time, even millions of years of being separated from the first population in a totally different environment, is not enough to create a significant difference in the group, so that a new species may arise?

Consider the case of dogs and domestic cats. About 10,000 years ago, humans started capturing wolves and training them for various purposes (a type of selection). People noticed traits that were useful, and selected those dogs for breeding, thus bringing those genes encoding those desired traits to a higher frequency in the dog population. Look at the incredible variation in dog populations and breeds today, with just 10,000 years of very fast evolutionary change. Could a chihuahua mate with a wolf and produce viable offspring? Are these organisms even similar in any way, really? Yet all of these different dog breeds were produced from wolves. So this is why dogs are considered a different species from wolves.

In any case, evolutionary biologists have made estimates for how long it takes for natural selection to 'create" new species, and it is on the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of years, not 10,000 years. This makes sense, of course, since natural selection, as you may well imagine, may be a bit weaker than that of humans selecting for specific traits - this is a very high selection coefficient! Nevertheless, it is not humans who created dogs of their own accord. There had to be some genetic variation there to act upon to create these dog breeds with different traits. the process of dog breeding was microevolution, while the existence of dogs as distinct from wolves is macroevolution.

So why would you not believe in macroevolution? I think you have simply not considered the time scale over which speciation (the splitting of one population into two genetically distinct populations) takes place. Remember that cells first appeared on Earth billions of years ago. There has been plenty of time for all of this diversity to arise, first through genetic variation created by mutation, and secondly, natural selection.

39

First of all the 2nd law of thermodynamics can apply to the earth because the earth and the sun can be included in “the closed system.”

But then you’d have to be consistent about the system you’re using. If you take the Earth and the Sun together as the closed system, then you have to calculate the entropy increase for the whole system, not just for the Earth. That’s very simple physics, but apparently it’s too intelligent for the Intelligent Design crowd.

i don’t mean to get relativistic on all of you, but a system is whatever you want it to be, if you’re saying the earth is not a closed system, you can say that everything else in the universe is not a closed system, then what’s the purpose of the law?

Because it is possible to identify almost-closed systems, just as it is possible to identify systems which are almost friction-free or almost inertial, allowing Newton’s laws to be used with as much accuracy as you need. Similarly, it is possible to set up systems which have a negligible energy flow across their boundaries (a beaker of liquid helium isolated in a thermos, for example), in which case you can treat it as completely closed for thermodynamic calculations. The Earth is not an almost-closed system, nor even close to one.

You may say that a closed system is one in which one object is not affected by another, but this impossible unless you isolate every single atom in the universe.

By that argument, no science would be possible that idealized a physical case by simplifying and isolating parts of reality. If you admit that science in general is possible even though it idealizes reality by ignoring all of the universe that only affects a system negligibly, then your argument doesn’t hold for thermodynamics either. What is necessary for classical equilibrium thermodynamics to be applied to a system that you treat as closed is for the net energy flow (or its associated entropy flow) across the borders of the system to be negligible compared to the changes within the system. That doesn’t hold for the Earth, especially in the case of the metabolisms of living beings; even in bulk, all living beings taken as a group, the energy changes involved in metabolism do not dwarf the energy flux from the Sun (to say the least). Hence, the Earth is not even approximately a closed system, and thus your use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is utterly invalid.

40

ID argument: Nature is so complex, it must have been designed.

Note also that this argument invokes the fallacy of the “stolen concept”. The concept of “complex” has meaning only in relation to the concept of “simple”, i.e. it is only by comparing one thing to another that we arrive at the notions of “complex” and “simple”. Since the universe (nature) is everything that exists, there is nothing to which it can be compared. Thus, the concept “complex” has no meaning in relation to the universe.