Bad science?

I won't presume to know the depth of physics but concerning thermodynamics, entropy appears to contradict the central premise of evolution. Correct me if I've been mislead.

---

Lan

I think what he was alluding to his how certain academicians have the bad habit of allowing evidence to lead them the direction they want it go based soley on preconcieved notions. Many scientists are prone to this, whether it is malicious or unintentional, it happens. Science is supposed to be the pinnacle of objectivity, and yet, at times it is the polar opposite.He uses fossilization as one example. It is generally an old, an antiquated paradigm that it requires millions of years for fossilization to occur. This is patently false. Aside from which, he is asking that since observation is technically a requirment for science, per its definition, isn't much of science then unscientific by its own premise, particularly those aspects that we cannot recreate through experimentation.

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

Musta been somebody else. One sort of "point of etiquette" which can get kinda confusing at first is that - in spite of occasionally massive quantities of responses - we tend to try and respond directly to the arguments made by a given individual here. In other words, people aren't obligated to defend someone else's point (although they're free to do so if they desire). To the best of my knowledge, I have never stated anywhere that "religion is the opposite of science", therefore I don't feel obligated to defend that position. You might wish to check back through the thread and see which poster expressed that idea, then respond to them directly.On another (more appropriate) thread, I would be very willing to discuss whether or not religion and science are compatible, or which of the methodologies employed by science or by religion provide a better approach to understanding of the natural world, or any similar discussion. Unfortunately, as Admin has pointed out, there doesn't appear to be a connection to that subtopic on this thread. You certainly don't need to "let me off the hook" on any topic in which I am actively participating. I enjoy the challenge, otherwise I wouldn't be here.

Percy,
I didn't bring it up. They did. We are dealing with interpretation of evidence and religion was presented as the opposite of evolution = rational thinking. Don't I get to know what this term means as it involves scientific rationale?

---

Lan

quote:

---

Correct me if I've been mislead.

---

You have been mislead. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems. Life is an open system; thermodynamics allows local decreases in entropy as long as the over-all entropy of the global system increases. Now, if you take into account the earth/moon system and the sun altogether, I can assure you that entropy is increasing.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Despite the vague title, this thread is actually about whether scientists who reject global warming are practicing bad science. To this end, I think an exploration of what constitutes bad science along with examples would be a good idea. But this thread is not about specific objections to evolution except as they might bear on characterizing the nature of bad science.There have been many thermodynamic discussions here, and another one would be fine if you'd care to propose a new topic. There won't be any shortage of people willing to explain how you've been misled.--Percy

quote:

---

Despite the vague title, this thread is actually about whether scientists who reject global warming are practicing bad science.

---

Good point. I will desist from further discussion on this particular matter.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Not at all. Many of us are Christians and also accept evolution. There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution which relates to religion, even to Christianity. What the evidence does rule out is Biblical Creationism, Young Earth or something like a world-wide flood. They have been totally refuted and should simply be tossed in the pile of good ideas that turned out to be wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You've been badly mislead. Thermodynamics doesn't deal with order in the ordinary everyday sense. There's no evidence and no reason to believe that evolution involves any violation of the laws of thermodynamics.I also have to add that I can't think of a genuine "central premise" of evolution that would fit. The fact that living things usually produce more offspring than needed to maintain the population ? The idea that there can be inheritable traits that influence the chance of successfully produ cing offspring ? How could either of these go against thermodynamics ??Edited by PaulK, : Provide reason for edit here.

Good point, PaulK. In the spirit of Percy's warning about the topic, I will point out a thread I started to discuss the "central premises" of the theory of evolution.Although nemesis and others have convinced me that I should do a little rewording of my statements in that OP, I wouldn't make any dramatic changes; hence, I present that thread as it was written.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Percy,
It was Quetzal that mentioned, "your religion". How does he know about "my religion" and how does he apply it to what science and evolution are? That is my dilemma.

---

Lan

I prefer the 'let's all go up to the field and have an orgy' type of religious service.Both methods work equally well but the latter is far more satisfying

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

PaulK,
Then I have been mislead by two evolutionary biologists whom you may be familiar. I'll quote each. In attempting to explain entropy as evolutionists, they seem to be confusing themselves....in order to deny the applicability of the second law, these magnitudes have to be measured, and until this is done, the failure of the law cannot be proven. The principal reason for accepting the second law of thermodynamics is that it has always worked wherever it has been possible to make the necessary measurements to test it; we assume therefore that it holds where we are unable to make such measurements.H.F. Blum TIME'S ARROW AND EVOLUTION, 1951These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet it is just such impossibility that is demanded by antievolutionists when they ask for "proofs" of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfacory.Theodosius Dobzhansky "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology" AMERICAN SCIENTIST, Vol. 45, December 1957Doesn't sound like there is a way to prove that evolution has happened, even from experts in the field.

---

Lan

In other words, your dilemma is how to continue an off-topic digression now that a moderator has asked you to stop. The solution to your dilemma is to find or propose a thread in which to continue that discussion.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Your post is off-topic. However I see no sign of confusion - and absolutely nothing to suggest that evolution violates any of the alws of thermodynamics in the quotes you offer..