02-10-2014, 06:35 PM
|
|
|
Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 38,323
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuffa
You don't really want to consider any alternative except one that is as absurd as creationism. Your previous post made that clear.
But if your attention span can persist beyond 140 characters, you should read this with an open and scientific mind. It's from the mathematics department at UTEP |
Here is a critique of Sewell's position on Evolution, and which takes on Sewell's support for Intelligent Design:
Quote:
SEWELL'S THERMODYNAMIC FAILURE
By Mark Perakh
Posted January 3, 2006
The young earth creationists (YECs) used to refer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as an allegedly insurmountable obstacle to evolution. When their critics pointed out that the 2nd law, as used by creationists, is only valid for "closed" (or "isolated") systems and therefore is not an obstacle to evolution on our planet which is an open system receiving energy input from the sun, the YECs suggested various specious arguments designed to circumvent this limitation of the 2nd law.
With time, as straightforward young earth creationism gradually retreated to such fringe outlets as Answers in Genesis, the Institute of Creation Research, and Hovind's entertainment shops (being replaced by intelligent design movement as the main anti-evolution force), reference to the 2nd law of thermodynamics has rare been heard as an anti-evolution argument.
However, this pseudo-scientific argument has not been completely abandoned by anti-evolution forces, both of YEC and ID varieties. From time to time it recrudesces in writing of this or that advocate of creationism.
One example of such a misuse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a recent article by professor of mathematics Granville Sewell titled "Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure."
When so great a "scientist" as Pat Buchanan endeavors to speak about evolution there is little to be surprised about when he displays ignorance -- Buchanan is a "pundit" of dubious integrity, with no credibility as far as any science is concerned, so we can't expect from him a reasonable discourse about anything scientific.
Likewise, when some of the fellows of the Discovery Institute assault evolution theory, distortions and misrepresentations are the order of the day, because that is how they earn their keep. However, when a professor of mathematics at a quality university misuses thermodynamics, one only can shrug in astonishment.
Since I am not a mathematician, I would never try discussing the quality of Sewell's mathematical publications. Perhaps he is a very good mathematician. That not for me to judge. However, having taught all parts of physics, including thermodynamics, statistical physics, physical kinetics, and other related disciplines, for over half a century, both on the undergraduate and graduate levels, I feel qualified to judge Sewell's thermodynamic exercise. I find it depressingly fallacious.
|
Full story here: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Sewell.cfm
ADG |
|
|