Friday, July 24, 2009
Setting the World on Fire
I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution and the increasing order of things in the universe than creationism. Evolution directly opposes the repeated, scientifically-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that everything moves from a beginning state of highly organized order (which supports intelligent design) to a latter state of random disorder. This is observed and proven each time something decomposes, ages, breaks down or rusts. I'm surprised science teachers and professors, knowing this fact, still promote this unproven theory. You don't have to be a genius. Einstein, though he never professed Christianity, believed in intelligent design! Go figure.
It would be nice, however, if Wayne DesLattes, a member of The Shreveport (Louisiana) Times Community Board, had enough intelligence to avoid babbling in public until he knew what he was talking about.
Did you know every middle to major-sized people group in the world has, in their earliest history, a record about a great deluge? Coincidental, huh?
There's more but that's not why I bothered with this. Mr. DesLattes is another believer who either didn't get or could not understand the Discovery Institute's memo "Ix-nay on the Od-gay."
The Louisiana Science Education Act was viewed by some science educators as a sole attempt to allow creationism to only be taught. I support creationism and hope teachers take advantage of the opportunity. After all, if evolution and its nonbelief are allowed, why shouldn't intelligent design with its belief be allowed?
Update: The Sensuous Curmudgeon does more on Mr. DesLattes, as does his commentariat.
Labels: Designer As God
I love the juxta-positioning of the phrase, "you don't have to be a genius" and the name Einstein!
However I do have a serious question. I have often seen the claim put forward by creationists that Einstein believed in intelligent design. Now I would never claim to be an Einstein expert but at one point in my career as a historian of science I spent a lot of time studying the beginnings of 20th century physics in general and the life and work of Albert in particular and know absolutely nothing that would justify this claim.
Can anybody enlighten me what the creationists are babbling about? Or what is the supposed basis for this, in my opinion, very strange claim?
Pretty much any quote is fair game, and Intelligent Design can be pretty much whatever they want.
Laws of nature? Laws need a law giver, so anybody who believes in laws of nature believes in Intelligent Design!!
Anything goes with those clowns. They'll take what they can get.
To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.
A clearer statement of this "sense" as not being science, but, instead, religion, can hardly be imagined. Apparently, the "logic" is: if a scientist says it, it must be science. In which case, all those liberal, elitist, pointed-headed things they are always complaining scientists are going on about must be science too.
"Consider the rusting of iron:
4Fe(s) + 3O2(g) ® 2Fe2O3(s)
dSo = 2(87.4) - [ 4(27.3) + 3(205) ] = -549.4 J K-1 mol-1
Here there is a large decrease in entropy of the system - a gaseous
reactant has been consumed.
Rusting is a spontaneous process, but the entropy of the system has decreased.
In common sense: Rusting makes more complex molecules. It is possible only becouse earth is not closed system. Second law is strong, but it has boundaries. You can not make them up or forget them just because it pleases..