Intelligent Design in Universities

Well, you'll only find ideas about thermodynamics and information theory resembling JDB's in creationist and IDist publications.You'll find the mainstream ideas in Physical Review, the IEEE journals on comminication and information theory, the chemical physics journals and so on, and this is where application oriented applied scientists and engineers draw from as a source.The IDists want to make it look like a legitimate debate by couching their arguments in what looks like science to the layman. The professionals aren't convinced, they see the errors.And note that, when cornered, IDists tend to start hurling unrelated invective like "secularist, Darwinist, atheist", etc. I'm reminded of Lysenko denouncing "reactionary capitalist class enemies" who dared to accept mainstream genetics.Ask yourself why among mainstream scientists you'll find people of almost all religious views. While among creationists and IDists the range of views is much narrower and inevitably, the polemical arguments about their theological notions are the fallback position.
The attempt to look like science is just a temporary smokescreen.Do indeed be objective.

It's not sure. We don't know whether the Universe is finite or infinite, and whether or not it makes sense to consider it as closed. We're not even postiive that it isn't open, but it sure seems likely that it is. Sure. Consider a fairly large room, no windows, with 100% efficient thermal insulation surrounding it on all sides. The system is the room, the boundary is is its boundaries. In that room is an electric generator with a full tank of gas, a dewar of liquid oxygen connected through a vaporization heat exchanger to the intake air filter of the generator, and a refrigerator connected to the electrical output of the generator. A timer starts the generator. The overall entropy increases significatly, the entropy of the oxygen and the generator increases a lot, but the entropy of the contents of the refrigerator goes down.Maybe you need a compressor and tank, too, to prevent the pressure in the room rising enough to kill the generator .. but I think you see the idea.

If you are not admitting that there is no equivalen to the 2LoT for configurational entropy what does the following means:

quote:

---

Configurational entropy is just the way matter is arranged.This don't have squat to do with how 2LOT works in nature. That's why I razzed you a little bit by asking you if your car gets newer over time rather than older. That is logical entropy, totally a different critter.

---

(from Message 202).
"Logical entropy" is a "totally differnet critter" ? "this don't have squat to do witth how 2LoT works in nature" ? Sure looks like you're saying that there is no 2LoT-equivalent for configurational entropy.And of coursesaying that there is no 2LoT for configurational entropy is not saying that the concept has no use at all.

quote:

---

Just don't call it entropy and your argument might walk.

---

Sadly for you Jerry, there is no numerical value called entropy in my argument. For the benefit of anyone who has missed previous posts all I identify is whether the configurational entropy changes and in which direction (increase or decrease) - which requires no logarithms.Sorry Jerry but it's just obvious that you can't even hande the simple argument I presented.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Finally the study does not appear to anywhere assert that evolutionary theory expects beneficial mutatiosn to occur more frequently than detrimental ones. If you believe that it does then I suggest that you quote the relevant section.

---

​

Sorry. Totally lost me. There were no beneficial mutations in that study at all, so I have no idea what you are referring to.

---

I don't see why you should be lost. I pointed out it was tiem for you to support your claim that evolutionary theory expected beneficial mutatiosn to occur more frequently than detrimental mutationsSo in Message 167 you claimed that a study supported that claim and offered the wrong link.In Message 205 You give what you say is the right link.And in Message 244 you're confused because the study doesn't support your claim at all.Perhaps you would like to try again ?

just an observation of a point I have not seen addressed in this topic.Jerry "predicts" For this "prediction" to have any meaning then there has to be a substantiatable point in time where the stage of "just designed" can be determined and identified. Failing that, it should be easy to demonstrate a long term trend within the fossil record that clearly demonstrates "devolution" from a more perfect ancestry.I await Jerry's effort to point to such a stage in the fossil record that demonstrates an actual stage of human ancestry showing a "higher" state from which we have since progressively "devolved" to our current state.without any evidence of such a {just created state} or {long term devolutionary trend} the "prediction" is falsified from the start as it is based on a false precept.modern studies of genetics (such as have been cited in other posts on this thread) are insufficient on this issue due to their only speaking of the present condition: what we need is independent evidence that the current state is actually a "devolved" state and not just a natural result.such evidence should also show that nothing closely resembling "human" exists prior to this theoretical "just design" stage in order to demonstrate a definite level of {design} input required to reach that "just designed" stage, for failure to do this invalidates the concept of "devolution" in this regard.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

PaulK --I've read most of this thread but not all, and it seems to me that nobody has addressed the issue of entropy applying to individual organisms.is the entropy of an individual more or less after eating a meal?is the entropy of an 18 year old more or less than that of a 2 year old?the ability of humans to add energy to their systems by consumtion of calories means that it is an open system. this is reflected in the regular production of new cells that replace the cells within a body on a regular basis (it takes something like 30 days to generate a whole new skin).thanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Jerry's argument isn't based on thermodynamic entropy, so your questions anre't that relevant.But to offer reasonable answers to your questions (don't ask me to do the calculations !)1) Food is a usable energy source so eating amounts to a decrease in entropy (in that the body has more energy avialable to do work).2) If we scale to allow for the difference in mass, and allow for differing circumstances I would expect the entropy to be about the same - maybe a bit less for the two-year old.

I thought he started with thermodynamic, particularly in relation to comments to paisano?ABE:
****
and the "prediction" refered to now if he has equivocated to a different definition ...This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*08*2005 04:34 PM

quote:

---

Are you implying that, just because a living organism in its current state surpases some critical threshold of complexity that it cannot arise through simple, non-directed evolutionary processes?

---

Yes, there are no hypotheses in your field to explain this. And, as I have pointed out, even if there were, that hypothesis would stand as falsified due to the second law.

quote:

---

I would contend that evolution is an entirely adequate concept for explaining all living phenomena, independent of their apparent degree of complexity.

---

Well, we can contend things all day and not get anywhere. Can you show this to be true mathematically as I do?

quote:

---

What understanding is to be gained by postulating a 'designer'?

---

The understanding of life's origins. Aren't you curious to know what really happened?

---

Design Dynamics

He assumes that the 2LoT can justify his arguments based configurational entropy (which is not thermodynamic entropy, and depends on how the configuration is measured). Aside from the fact that he has yet to justify the claim that the 2LoT applies to configurational entropy there are more problems with his argument that he appears not to have thought of.

We're getting up towards the 300 post mark. This might be a good time for someone to outline key points that still need to be resolved and points where understanding has been reached.

---

quote:

---

If you are not admitting that there is no equivalen to the 2LoT for configurational entropy what does the following means:
quote:

​

Configurational entropy is just the way matter is arranged.This don't have squat to do with how 2LOT works in nature. That's why I razzed you a little bit by asking you if your car gets newer over time rather than older. That is logical entropy, totally a different critter.

---

Paul, scientists use configurational entropy everyday in research and have for 30 years or more. All entropies are governed by 2LOT or they would not be calculable entropies to begin with. But the coin states I graphed were to show the difference between the microstates of matter and the macrostates of matter. I was not attempting to show 2LOT in action, therefore your argument is based on a false assumption to begin with. Now I WILL show configurational entropy in action if you want, but I certainly have not yet.

quote:

---

I don't see why you should be lost. I pointed out it was tiem for you to support your claim that evolutionary theory expected beneficial mutatiosn to occur more frequently than detrimental mutations

---

This still isn't clear. I don't recall stating: evolutionary theory expected beneficial mutatiosn to occur more frequently than detrimental mutations. Where did you get this? Cut and paste what you're talking about here so we can both get on the same page.

---

Design Dynamics

You know Jerry, I don't have a problem with that. Because I too think there is design in biological systems. And in some cases I wouldn't even use the word 'detect' to describe what we do to find it, as it implies a certain level of difficulty we would have in determining the presence of design in biological systems. For example, it's all too easy to see that the lens in the human eye is designed to focus light on the retina. I don't think evolutionists need to deny that.But I am convinced that this design has arisen through a mindless process of random mutation and natural selection. The presence of design does not necessitate an intelligent designer. Assuming a designer where one is not needed, just needlessly complicates things.Science is hard enough as it is.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

All entropies are governed by 2LOT or they would not be calculable entropies to begin with.

---

That's far from obviously true. And still doesn't explain your comments which appear to state otherwise.

quote:

---

I don't recall stating: evolutionary theory expected beneficial mutatiosn to occur more frequently than detrimental mutations. Where did you get this?

---

Message 157

quote:

---

And worse still for your case it is not argued in evolutionary circles that the general tendency is for mutations to bebeneficial rather than detrimental.

---

Back that up because nothing could be further from the truth. [/quote]I did, and challenged you to back up YOUR assertion - using the exact phrase "the opposite is true". You responded with the (wrong) link to the study in Message 167So are you ready NOW to back up your assertion ?

Schrafinator writes,

quote:

---

Now, do you mean methodological naturalism or ontological naturalism?

---

I believe ID is compatable with methodological naturalism. For instance, ID makes no references to a supernatural agent. For all ID seems to care the designer could be little green men from Mars...since its about design detection and not designer indentification...

quote:

---

The supernatural is not specifically denied by MN; it could exist, but MN has no way of detecting the supernatural.

---

Detecting earthly evidence of design and detecting the supernatural are two different things. The ID lens and the supernatural lens are likewise two different things.Paisano says,

quote:

---

Ask yourself why among mainstream scientists you'll find people of almost all religious views.

---

I assume you are refering to scientists whose expertise deals directly or indirectly with the origin of life. In sciences which dont deal with origin, it really wouldnt matter which ideological or religious 'lens' scientists use to view reality. Correct?So lets get more specific. Why would we find different religious views among mainstream Origin Scientists? Oh...wait. We dont. A religious Origin scientist is branded a creationist. A heretic. A pseudo-scientist. An outcast from the mainstream. Cut off from their peers. Well, they are in good company. Galileo for instance.Very enlightened we've become since Galileo's day, eh? Do you think he would be proud of the mainstream scientific community if he were alive today?Pure science is impartial to a particular ideology or religion. Its the different interpretations of the evidence that differentiates the scientists at this point.

quote:

---

Do indeed be objective.

---

I'm trying!! This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-08-2005 06:31 PM

Yup. All JDB has done is assert this, and his only citations have been IDists. Nothing from IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, for instance.