Evidence and Religion

carepov · December 19, 2016

On 12/17/2016 at 6:43 PM, Canadianjim said:

With evidence there is no need for faith.

There is evidence that some people need faith.

December 19, 2016

8 minutes ago, carepov said:

There is evidence that some people need faith.

English football fans. Where would we be without faith?

Canadianjim · December 19, 2016

40 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

English football fans. Where would we be without faith?

Lol... exactly

blackbird · March 30, 2017

On 2016-12-05 at 9:01 AM, Smallc said:

We were having an interesting discussion in chat the other day, surrounding the definition of words like proof, evidence, and religion.

There were two sides to the issue - one, taken up by 2/3 of our moderating staff, held that evidence and proof are not important factors in our every day life - that evidence is not required in most circumstances, and that we operate on faith. It was also the position of one of the moderators that everyone is religious, whatever their belief in a deity and/or their holding of evidence free beliefs.

I disagree - first, I feel that proof is important to everything we do. Part of their argument hinged on the example of the rising sun - that we all have faith that the sun will rise, but not evidence. I, of course, see it completely differently. As a person basing their decisions on evidence, I know that the sun doesn't in fact rise. I know that the sun is currently shining on a different part of the world, and that the world is turning. I can verify that with readily available evidence.

A second example had to do with crossing traffic. I don't have faith that a car will stop or will stay stopped. I used the best evidence available at the time (my senses - something you can't always trust, I'll grant you that) and proceed with caution once I am satisfied - I was told bad example, and I was never able to really get a satisfactory example to counter.

A third example hinged around trusting people in our daily lives. One moderator argued that we trust people in our lives on faith. Another member countered that we trust people only because that generally works. I explained that I really trust no one, unless they give me reason to - I need evidence that I can trust them, as I know that most people can't be trusted.

What is your opinion - is evidence overrated? Do we require evidence in our daily lives? Am I - a now faithless person who holds as few evidence free beliefs as possible, religious?

When it comes to the christian religion, there are two aspects to consider. If you want evidence, there is the christian bible. The bible is full of evidence of the veracity of it's claims. This is true in the sense that there are many miraculous events or occurrences recorded in the bible. Many were recorded by eyewitnesses to these occurrences. Someone questioned the truth of the supernatural claims by alleging the writers might have been lying. The argument to that is that many who wrote the events in the bible died for what they saw and believed. One doesn't die for a lie. Why would they even bother if it was all a lie? That argument doesn't make sense.

Religion is also based on faith. What is faith? One definition taken from the bible is the verse in the book of Hebrews ch11 vs1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (King James Authorized Version) Now we believe the promises of God in the bible based on faith. This is not an empty faith. It is supported by the veracity of the bible itself. The bible does not say it is a scientific manual. It is a revelation from God to man to communicate his vital message. Miraculous events in the bible should not be viewed from a purely scientific viewpoint. Miraculous events are supernatural occurrences by the power of God and therefore cannot be proven or rejected by the scientific method.

The other important evidence I should mention is the evidence of creation. To see that all we have to do is look around us and consider the complexity of the universe, of life itself, of the beauty in nature, in the flowers, birds, and wildlife. Also consider the complexity of living creatures. The eye for example or the brain. The creation could not have come about by accident. Some claim there was initially a big bang or giant explosion. This however doesn't make sense. One reason it is faulty is an explosion always produced chaos or disorder, not an orderly universe such as what we have. Secondly, it does not explain how or why it started or where the material came from. Again creation, according to Genesis, was a supernatural event, whereby God created everything out of nothing, by speaking it or simply willing it into existence. Because of the complexity of creation, it had to have a master designer. It could not have happened by pure accident.

Edited March 30, 2017 by blackbird

-TSS- · April 22, 2017

I have never really understood the relation between religion and right-wing politics; it seems that the more right-wing you are the likelihood of you being religious is greater. Kind of makes sense as communism is an atheist ideology, at least in principle.

However, one can't help the impression about having read stories about Jesus that he was some kind of a proto-hippy. Just the kind of a person who would today annoy the hell out of the right-wing people.

betsy · April 25, 2017

On 4/22/2017 at 3:13 PM, -TSS- said:

However, one can't help the impression about having read stories about Jesus that he was some kind of a proto-hippy. Just the kind of a person who would today annoy the hell out of the right-wing people.

What is a "proto-hippie?" I think of someone who's always stoned on grass.

Edited April 25, 2017 by betsy

Michael Hardner · April 25, 2017

Proto-hippie as in 'hippy prototype'.

Pot aside, the peace-and-love message is a commonality.

Hawkins · December 15, 2017

On 12/5/2016 at 12:01 PM, Smallc said:

We were having an interesting discussion in chat the other day, surrounding the definition of words like proof, evidence, and religion.

There were two sides to the issue - one, taken up by 2/3 of our moderating staff, held that evidence and proof are not important factors in our every day life - that evidence is not required in most circumstances, and that we operate on faith. It was also the position of one of the moderators that everyone is religious, whatever their belief in a deity and/or their holding of evidence free beliefs.

I disagree - first, I feel that proof is important to everything we do. Part of their argument hinged on the example of the rising sun - that we all have faith that the sun will rise, but not evidence. I, of course, see it completely differently. As a person basing their decisions on evidence, I know that the sun doesn't in fact rise. I know that the sun is currently shining on a different part of the world, and that the world is turning. I can verify that with readily available evidence.

A second example had to do with crossing traffic. I don't have faith that a car will stop or will stay stopped. I used the best evidence available at the time (my senses - something you can't always trust, I'll grant you that) and proceed with caution once I am satisfied - I was told bad example, and I was never able to really get a satisfactory example to counter.

A third example hinged around trusting people in our daily lives. One moderator argued that we trust people in our lives on faith. Another member countered that we trust people only because that generally works. I explained that I really trust no one, unless they give me reason to - I need evidence that I can trust them, as I know that most people can't be trusted.

What is your opinion - is evidence overrated? Do we require evidence in our daily lives? Am I - a now faithless person who holds as few evidence free beliefs as possible, religious?

Humans don't usually rely on evidence because evidence come scarcely and rarely. This is so because the nature of humans is that humans are cut from the direct access of both the past and future. So you can't provide what you yourself did and said as recent as yesterday. You don't have the evidence of your own yesterday, the day before, a week ago, a year ago.....Nor do the 7 billion humans on earth. We have 7 billion humans on earth, if everyone like you can't provide evidence of their deeds yesterday, a week ago, a year ago, then we have 7 billion cases per day which are completely unevidenced, under the assumption that each of us does only 1 thing per day.

We generally know what you did by what you or a credible eye witness said, and for us to believe with faith. That's the way how we reach the unreachable past.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Hawkins

OftenWrong · December 17, 2017

On 15/12/2017 at 5:43 AM, Hawkins said:

Humans don't usually rely on evidence because evidence come scarcely and rarely.

Sure we do, at least in this part of the world.

On 15/12/2017 at 5:43 AM, Hawkins said:

So you can't provide what you yourself did and said as recent as yesterday. You don't have the evidence of your own yesterday, the day before, a week ago, a year ago....

Nonsense. I have a memory. I can remember what I did yesterday, and I keep notes of the work I do so I can go over it in detail. That is evidence.
In fact remembering history is both good and bad. Many feuds and long-standing conflicts cannot be put aside... because of history. IF you want evidence of that, read history.

Hawkins · December 19, 2017

On 12/17/2017 at 10:00 AM, OftenWrong said:

Sure we do, at least in this part of the world.

Nonsense. I have a memory. I can remember what I did yesterday, and I keep notes of the work I do so I can go over it in detail. That is evidence.
In fact remembering history is both good and bad. Many feuds and long-standing conflicts cannot be put aside... because of history. IF you want evidence of that, read history.

No we don't. It is a delusion for you to believe we do though.

Even in terms of science, we don't rely on evidence to get to a truth. You don't have the evidence that black holes exist before you know for a fact that they exist. 99.99% humans don't rely on evidence to get to this truth. They rely on faith to "know" for a fact that black holes exist.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Hawkins

Hawkins · December 19, 2017

On 12/17/2017 at 10:00 AM, OftenWrong said:

Sure we do, at least in this part of the world.

Nonsense. I have a memory. I can remember what I did yesterday, and I keep notes of the work I do so I can go over it in detail. That is evidence.
In fact remembering history is both good and bad. Many feuds and long-standing conflicts cannot be put aside... because of history. IF you want evidence of that, read history.

In accordance to your memory, what did you do or say today but a year ago? Why not educate us?

OftenWrong · December 19, 2017

21 minutes ago, Hawkins said:

No we don't. It is a delusion for you to believe we do though.

You believe whatever you want. If you don't believe in evidence, I guess that's just you then.

Hawkins · December 19, 2017

Just now, OftenWrong said:

You believe whatever you want. If you don't believe in evidence, I guess that's just you then.

I already show you logic. No matter how many people are in your camp, your belief is still illogical. That's why it is a delusion for the mass, just as prophesied.

OftenWrong · December 19, 2017

19 minutes ago, Hawkins said:

In accordance to your memory, what did you do or say today but a year ago? Why not educate us?

Your quote "So you can't provide what you yourself did and said as recent as yesterday." I guess you forgot what you said. Of course I know what I did yesterday. I also know that a year ago I was doing things like getting ready for the holiday break. If I want more detail of anything significant I did, at work for example, I review my notes. Humans can extend their memory using media. In my life I have learned many things that I remember, such as my technical work or playing a musical instrument.

Hawkins · December 19, 2017

Just now, OftenWrong said:

Your quote "So you can't provide what you yourself did and said as recent as yesterday." I guess you forgot what you said. Of course I know what I did yesterday. I also know that a year ago I was doing things like getting ready for the holiday break. If I want more detail of anything significant I did, at work for example, I review my notes. Humans can extend their memory using media. In my life I have learned many things that I remember, such as my technical work or playing a musical instrument.

No I didn't. However, your memory cannot be an evidence until we have a tool to get your memory out for researching.

Why do you have to ask question like this anyway?

OftenWrong · December 19, 2017

2 minutes ago, Hawkins said:

No I didn't. However, your memory cannot be an evidence until we have a tool to get your memory out for researching.

Why do you have to ask question like this anyway?

Point is, our works are also evidence.

Goddess · December 19, 2017

On 3/29/2017 at 10:43 PM, blackbird said:

The creation could not have come about by accident.

Evolution doesn't say things happened purely "by accident". It says that accidents introduce random variations and that successful variations are selected by natural processes.

https://app.box.com/s/uclytd91jd

Let’s take a look at a simple example.

Assume your phone number is 10 digits long and consists of numbers between one and six (simply to correspond to the number of sides on a dice – no other reason). It could be something like 214-635-4125. If you throw a dice 10 times, the odds of coming up with this number simply by chance would be one in 60,466,176. I wouldn’t be placing any bets on this happening.

But, let’s introduce a selection bias into this trial. Every time you throw a correct number, it gets locked in place. You can then throw again for the remaining numbers. On your first pass through, you should get one or two correct numbers (well, 1.67 to be exact). On your second pass through, you should get another one. Eventually, you will need to make multiple throws to get a correct number. Statistically, you should have

the number within 60 throws. That’s a far cry from over 60 million.

What we have just done is take a random occurance and overlay it with a non-random selection bias. So, how does this work in the real world?

Well, let’s look at another example.

In West Africa, malaria is a huge killer. However, there is a genetic variation that allows people to be much more malaria resistant than those who do not have it. The odds of this mutation arising spontaneously are slim. Let’s make up a large number. Assume that the odds are one in ten billion. Now, take the historical population of West Africa (possibly between a few thousand in times long passed, and hundreds of millions

today). Add up the number of people who have ever lived in this area throughout history. You now have a situation where this mutation should have occurred. Once it has occurred, the person who has it is likely to be long lived, increasing his/her chance of passing this mutation on to more offspring. Before long, the success of the mutation has allowed it to become widespread. In order for millions of people to end up with this

mutation, it does not have to occur millions of times. It only has to occur once, and then be successfully preserved and replicated.

This is only one of many real life examples. It is true that favorable mutations are extremely rare. But, there are a lot of living things, and a lot of time has passed. When one of these favorable mutations occurs, it usually gets locked in place by its own success, then spreads like wild fire. Unsuccessful mutations tend to make people very unsuccessful, possibly even killing them immediately. These mutations are quickly

discarded. And, this isn’t the only non-random factor in evolution. Favorable traits make a person or animal more attractive to the opposite sex, increasing their likelihood of passing on favorable genes. They are less likely to fall victim to predators. As well, some characteristics are adaptations (rather than mutations) that enter the population through

repetition.

So, you can calculate the “odds” of evolution happening by random chance, but what’s the point? Evolution never said it was totally random.

blackbird · December 19, 2017

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Evolution doesn't say things happened purely "by accident". It says that accidents introduce random variations and that successful variations are selected by natural processes.

https://app.box.com/s/uclytd91jd

Let’s take a look at a simple example.

Assume your phone number is 10 digits long and consists of numbers between one and six (simply to correspond to the number of sides on a dice – no other reason). It could be something like 214-635-4125. If you throw a dice 10 times, the odds of coming up with this number simply by chance would be one in 60,466,176. I wouldn’t be placing any bets on this happening.

But, let’s introduce a selection bias into this trial. Every time you throw a correct number, it gets locked in place. You can then throw again for the remaining numbers. On your first pass through, you should get one or two correct numbers (well, 1.67 to be exact). On your second pass through, you should get another one. Eventually, you will need to make multiple throws to get a correct number. Statistically, you should have

the number within 60 throws. That’s a far cry from over 60 million.

What we have just done is take a random occurance and overlay it with a non-random selection bias. So, how does this work in the real world?

Well, let’s look at another example.

In West Africa, malaria is a huge killer. However, there is a genetic variation that allows people to be much more malaria resistant than those who do not have it. The odds of this mutation arising spontaneously are slim. Let’s make up a large number. Assume that the odds are one in ten billion. Now, take the historical population of West Africa (possibly between a few thousand in times long passed, and hundreds of millions

today). Add up the number of people who have ever lived in this area throughout history. You now have a situation where this mutation should have occurred. Once it has occurred, the person who has it is likely to be long lived, increasing his/her chance of passing this mutation on to more offspring. Before long, the success of the mutation has allowed it to become widespread. In order for millions of people to end up with this

mutation, it does not have to occur millions of times. It only has to occur once, and then be successfully preserved and replicated.

This is only one of many real life examples. It is true that favorable mutations are extremely rare. But, there are a lot of living things, and a lot of time has passed. When one of these favorable mutations occurs, it usually gets locked in place by its own success, then spreads like wild fire. Unsuccessful mutations tend to make people very unsuccessful, possibly even killing them immediately. These mutations are quickly

discarded. And, this isn’t the only non-random factor in evolution. Favorable traits make a person or animal more attractive to the opposite sex, increasing their likelihood of passing on favorable genes. They are less likely to fall victim to predators. As well, some characteristics are adaptations (rather than mutations) that enter the population through

repetition.

So, you can calculate the “odds” of evolution happening by random chance, but what’s the point? Evolution never said it was totally random.

This is a complex topic which I can't try to debate from a scientific argument right now. Time constraints don't permit it right now. There are many articles dealing with various aspects of this topic at creation.com or creation.org

Creation scientists debunked theories of evolution. I heard a slide presentation by professor Philip Stott. He is a scientist and mathematician. He explained how the random chance processes could not produce "evolution" because the length of time required to produce life is just too great. You gave a telephone number. That is infinitesimally easier than random chances producing life because the chance of selecting a telephone number are not in the same league as the building blocks of life. The chances of producing the building blocks of life by random is so small that there is not enough time to do it. The chances are way up in the exponential powers that are huge. It is not as simple as a group of numbers falling into place. There are many things that would need to occur at the same time which is too unlikely to occur.

Edited December 19, 2017 by blackbird

Goddess · December 19, 2017

37 minutes ago, blackbird said:

He explained how the random chance processes could not produce "evolution" because the length of time required to produce life is just too great.

Since he's a creationist, I bet he disagrees with the time frames for evolutionary processes that other scientists affirm. For instance, if he believes the earth is only 6000 years old, as "young earth creationists" believe then, yes he would be correct. That might not be enough time to produce life.

The phone number illustration, was just that - an illustration. Simplified for better understanding of how it works.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Goddess

?Impact · December 20, 2017

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Creation scientists debunked theories of evolution.

Besides using an oxymoron, you made a totally unsubstantiated claim.

blackbird · December 20, 2017

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

Since he's a creationist, I bet he disagrees with the time frames for evolutionary processes that other scientists affirm. For instance, if he believes the earth is only 6000 years old, as "young earth creationists" believe then, yes he would be correct. That might not be enough time to produce life.

The phone number illustration, was just that - an illustration. Simplified for better understanding of how it works.

I found professor Philip Stott's website. The link on Evolution says in part:

"Evolution, in the extended sense, can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution - a single process of self transformation."

For many years this was the accepted view. It is still the view put forward in popular literature, the media and school text-books.

But in "scientific circles" it has become an embarrassment. It contradicts the best established law in the whole of science. The Law in question is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In language easily understood this law guarantees that any physical system subject only to natural processes follows a downward path to ever lower levels of energy, it becomes more disorganized - it suffers decay. "

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/evolution/index.htm

blackbird · December 20, 2017

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Besides using an oxymoron, you made a totally unsubstantiated claim.

Here is some substantiation. I give only part of article, but have included the link.

"

"Evolution, in the extended sense, can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution - a single process of self transformation."

For many years this was the accepted view. It is still the view put forward in popular literature, the media and school text-books.

But in "scientific circles" it has become an embarrassment. It contradicts the best established law in the whole of science. The Law in question is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In language easily understood this law guarantees that any physical system subject only to natural processes follows a downward path to ever lower levels of energy, it becomes more disorganized - it suffers decay.

For many years supporters of the theory attempted to overlook the contradiction between evolution’s requirement (self transformation to ever higher levels of organization), and the Second Law’s exactly opposite requirement, by claiming that the Second Law applies only to "closed systems" in which no energy enters from outside. Few now try to support this discredited position, (see, for example, The Mystery of Life's Origins) and changes in the definition of evolution itself have been brought in to address the problem.

Another difficulty for the theory has come from microbiology. As scientists have learned how to examine life in ever greater detail, Darwin’s picture of organisms consisting of a few simple chemicals has given way to one of mind-boggling complexity even in the most humble of creatures. The lowly E coli bacterium possesses not only miniature electric motors of outstanding efficiency, but also the apparatus to build, repair, maintain and operate them - as well as the electricity-generating system to power them.

As it has become possible to calculate the probabilities of evolution’s mechanisms producing evolution’s supposed results, ever growing numbers of scientists have become convinced that there are problems which the theory is unable to cope with. Many are now seriously considering intelligent design as an alternative.

As the founder of the "cult" of evolution, Charles Darwin and his magnum opus, the Origin of Species are presented for study.

A more modern text, an Introduction to Evolutionary Biology by Chris Colby shows the enormous change which has taken place in evolutionary thinking in the last century. My annotations are rather full and attempt to show what I see to be the weakness of much of modern evolutionary thinking. I recommend this annotated work as showing the case for and against the modern theory.

The antipathy between evolution and Christianity is sometimes denied. This idea is examined in "Creation, Evolution and the Christian" . The weakness of evolution as a "scientifically" defensible position and the truth that it is largely a religious question is very ably presented by Philip Johnson, professor of law at the University of California, Berkley.

Johnson's position deserves some explanation. The "scientific" press is a tightly controlled unit which does not allow any neutral discussion of evolution, the time scale or Einstein. Any paper questioning orthodoxy, or submitted by a scientist known to be skeptical of orthodoxy, is simply denied publication. Any scientist questioning the orthodoxy is ostracized and outcast. Scientists are then able to set up a vicious circle to exclude debate. Such questions could only be seriously considered if they were discussed in the reputable journals. Any attempt to bring such discussion to the journals is prevented by editorial policy. The situation was brought into the spotlight in the chapter "The Scientific Mafia" in "Velikovski Reconsidered." A recent example can be seen in Persecution of Richard Sternberg.

Philip Johnson is a highly respected professor of law. The secular humanist watchdogs apparently anticipated no danger from this field. They did not, apparently, set up a similar exclusion principle for lawyers. Johnson was able to question Darwinism by comparing the strength of the evidence put forward to support it with that required by a court of law - without the weight of his entire profession descending to crush and stifle him.

His position is expressed very simply in an interview with Citizen Magazine. Johnson's examination of the stand of influential liberal Reformed Christian scientists can be seen in "The Hostage Takers." The internet has many of his articles examples being "What is Darwinism," a well reasoned account of what evolution really is - a philosophical necessity of atheism. "The Church of Darwin" is a look at Darwinists aims for education. "Shouting Heresy in the Temple of Darwin" and "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning" reinforce his analysis of the way Darwinists operate. Johnson has been involved in may debates -on the subject. An example ("How Did We Get Here?" with Kenneth Miller) reproduced here is typical. Many more of his contributions on the subject can be found on the Internet.

A major contribution to the question of the credibility of evolution was Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box," in which he drew attention to many marvelous micro-biological systems which exhibit what he termed "irreducible complexity." The importance of irreducible complexity is that Darwin had stated that if any case could be brought forward where development could not have been achieved by small successive advances, then his theory would be disproved. Irreducible systems provide that disproof. Evolutionists have fought irreducible complexity fiercely, but many scientists have become convinced that intelligent design is an undeniable feature of living organisms, and a strong "Intelligent Design" group has emerged. Many articles by Behe and the Design group can be found on the internet. Behe explains his stand in Evidence for Intelligent Design. One of his colleagues, William Dembski's "Still Spinning" illustrates the tricky tactics of the opponents of design and how they can be dealt with.

Non-biologists have increasingly entered the evolutionary arena. Examples are given from well know mathematician, and philosopher David Berlinski, ("The Deniable Darwin" and "Keeping an Eye on Darwin" ). Physicist Lee Spetner in A Scientific Critique of Evolution demonstrates an important point for anyone wanting to enter the arena. The claims of the evolutionist are expounded with intimidating authority, and a superior knowledge of the scientific literature is needed to show up their fatuous claims for what they are. Despite the evolutionist's bluster and the total commitment of the scientific establishment to supporting it, I believe most would concede that evolution is in its weakest and most unconvincing state for many years. (See for example, Atheism In Decline Everywhere) "

For the full article and more links:

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/evolution/index.htm

Plenty of food for thought.

blackbird · December 20, 2017

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

Since he's a creationist, I bet he disagrees with the time frames for evolutionary processes that other scientists affirm. For instance, if he believes the earth is only 6000 years old, as "young earth creationists" believe then, yes he would be correct. That might not be enough time to produce life.

The phone number illustration, was just that - an illustration. Simplified for better understanding of how it works.

I have been reading a bit on the website I gave a link to you for.

The subject of irreducible complexity is an interesting one. There are certain systems in nature and the human body that fit into the category of irreducible complexity.

For the theory of evolution and random chance processes to work something must be able to make gradual changes. There are things which are classified as unable to fit into this theory of gradual improvement because there is no conceivable way to make gradual changes to reach the goal of a workable system. This means systems which fall into this classification of irreducible complexity cannot be developed by the evolutionary process. You may wish to take a look at this article.

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/evolution/pages/015-intelligent-design.htm

blackbird · December 20, 2017

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Besides using an oxymoron, you made a totally unsubstantiated claim.

Just a side point. At the time of Darwin, the knowledge around biology and related matters was very limited compared with today. This article explains why biology supports intelligent design and current knowledge, not available at the time of Charles Darwin's book, shed new light on the subject.

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/evolution/pages/015-intelligent-design.htm

Goddess · December 20, 2017

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

I found professor Philip Stott's website. The link on Evolution says in part:

"Evolution, in the extended sense, can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution - a single process of self transformation."

For many years this was the accepted view. It is still the view put forward in popular literature, the media and school text-books.

But in "scientific circles" it has become an embarrassment. It contradicts the best established law in the whole of science. The Law in question is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In language easily understood this law guarantees that any physical system subject only to natural processes follows a downward path to ever lower levels of energy, it becomes more disorganized - it suffers decay. "

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/evolution/index.htm

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

I can’t count the number of times that this law has been quoted to me by fundamentalists posing as engineering experts, most of whom couldn’t define thermodynamics if their life depended on it. To put it simply, the

argument asserts that the second law of thermodynamics requires systems to increase in entropy over time. In other words, if left completely on their own, things decay, disintegrate, and become more random. So, evolution violates this law by proposing that life has ordered itself, actually becoming less random, all by itself. Creation, on the other hand, supports this law, because it begins with a state of ultimate order.

The first refutation involves the poor definition given by creationists. The second law of thermodynamics actually states: "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."

One of the problems with this is that the idea that order does not come from disorder is actually a spurious addition and simplistic misapplication of the law. We see seemingly spontaneous order all the time – snowflakes, crystals, sand dunes, etc. So, the second law does not say what creationists claim that it says. If order cannot come from disorder, why does it keep happening?

The other problem is that even if we grant them their definition, it would only hold true in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. Huge amounts of energy are added to our earth every second of the day, in multiple forms, such as heat, light, and radiation. We are also affected by the forces of external gravity and momentum.

In our universe, we find pockets of spontaneous order, but we also find vast tracts of disorder. If you sum the total of entropy in the universe, you find that it does indeed increase, just like the second law states.

So, the second law of thermodynamics does not indicate a creator. This claim shows a complete lack of understanding, not only of the law that it cites, but also of the nature of evolution.

https://app.box.com/s/uclytd91jd