±«Óătv

The most interesting part of all of this for me will be to see how Andrew McIntosh handles his problem as he tries to get out of the tight corner he seems to have painted himself into. There's no doubt in my mind that he realized almost immediately that he'd made a blunder. Will he retract his statement to the detriment of his argument against evolution and his credibility with his creationist friends? Will he stick to his guns and re-assert his belief in what most all other professionals in his field are certain is plain wrong? Will he stay silent? Will he find some clever way to dance around the issue without alienating himself completely from either side but not satisfying either of them as well (help from lawyers who are expert at such tactics would be of great use to him in this strategy.) What are his other options?

Oh dear - no follow up interview - a golden chance to explain his position without interruption.

I guess if he doesn't reply in the Guardian either then the last rites may be given.

Michael

Is this the creationists' champion?

How impressive.

I too can understand why he doesn't want to get in on this. The answer is that he blew it when he said that evolution violates the 2nd law. End of story.

Gee Dubyah,

I think you'll find the creationists' champion is the Almighty.

Good one rubberduckie - lets have the one about the earths' age next!!!!!!!!!!!!

12,006 years young

When the evolutionists eat their turkey this Christmas time they are left with a dead carcass, the dead carcass of evolution has no meat on it; just dead bones no one has actually witnessed evolution taking place, Evolution is as dead as the turkey carcass They Just Forgot To Bury the Corpse. So when you throw the turkey carcass into the rubbish bin don’t stop there throw the stupid hypothesis of evolution into the bin with it where it belongs.

Just as the turkey deteriorates into a carcass on the Christmas tables the earth is a part of the deteriorating universe. The sun, the DNA, and the other raw materials are deteriorating, and will succumb to the second law – the law of sin and death.

Before science could classify the law of entropy, God stated it in his infallible Word thousands of years before the scientist could understand it, God understood it before the creation of the world, which is clearly stated in Holy Scripture, God has already been there, and in many instances, has recorded it in his Holy book. This is just another proof that God is, the heavens vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment, and they who dwell in it will die in like manner; Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay.

The simple fact is in the beginning, God created, crystal clear.

Who’s the TURKEY? this Christmas

Id like to have heard his reply. You cant keep creationists off the media except when they are running away from the chance to reply to a serious critic.

What's that in Andy's trousers?

What is the world coming to?

Billy or PB: Do I need to rethink my position on the virgin birth thing! Help me out here...

UPI reported on Dec 21, 2006 that the giant Komodo dragon at Britain`s largest zoo is expecting to hatch -- by Christmas -- eggs that apparently developed without male fertilization. 'Essentially, what we have here is an imminent virgin birth and, because the eggs were laid back in May, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the incubating eggs could hatch around Christmastime,' curator Kevin Buyley of England`s Chester Zoo said. 'We will be on the lookout for shepherds, wise men and an unusually bright star in the sky over Chester Zoo.' The Chester immaculate conception was discovered after a giant lizard named Flora laid 11 eggs that contained embryos. Paternity tests showed Flora was both the fertile eggs` mother and father, a system of reproduction known as parthenogenesis.

Michael: While Billy and PB are mulling over the virgin birth may I ask you if I need to rethink my position on the concept of the immaculate conception. Help me out here....

Apparently the Komodo dragon ITSELF was conceived in an immaculate conception or does the writer of the UPI article not know the difference between THE ‘virgin birth’ and THE ‘immaculate conception’?

Mark: While Billy, PB and Michael are tied up with the dragon business, why don’t you contact William and ask him to follow up on the Second Law of Thermodynamics with McIntosh’s ‘advisory council’ which should also be well equipped to discuss Billy's 2nd Law of Sin and Death. Tell William to contact Stuart Burgess, BSc (Eng) PhD CEng FIMechE FRAeS professor of design and nature at Bristol University, Derek Linkens, emeritus professor at the department of automatic control and systems engineering at Sheffield University and Dr Tim Wells, a senior lecturer in the school of biosciences at Cardiff University.

I have my knitting and a seat in the front row. If we are to have a hanging, couldn’t we get three more to join the necktie party?

Peace (after the hangings of course)
Maureen

Sweet William:

McIntosh is not speaking to you anymore because he has been ‘sedated’!

According to Alexandra Smith writing on Thursday December 21, 2006

http: www.Educationguardian.co.uk

“An influential group of academics is demanding a change in the law to ensure scholars are given complete freedom of speech in universities. More than 60 UK academics from Academics for Academic Freedom are calling for laws to be extended to ensure that academics are free to "question and test received wisdom, and to put forward unpopular opinions". Many academics are fearful of upsetting managers and politicians by expressing controversial opinions. Afraid to challenge mainstream thought, many pursue self-censorship. Such a position would give support to Frank Ellis, the Leeds University lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies, who took early retirement before a disciplinary case over his comments that white people were more intelligent than black people. The statement would also offer backing to Andrew McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics at Leeds, who has been criticised for claiming that the world is only 6,000 years old and that evolutionary theory is wrong. Simon Davies, a professor at the London School of Economics, said: "I'm deeply worried about the number of academics who flee in terror at the slightest wisp of controversy. Rather than engage the world in a spirit of challenge, too many academics have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

Here I am ready with my knitting and a good front row seat beneath the trap door and the blaggard, McIntosh has apparently fled in a state of terror!

Oh well, we can get another professor from Leeds as a guest for Sunday Sequence - it seems like a hotbed of people who ‘question received wisdom’.

Is it really true that that my color means I am not as intelligent as you, Sweet William?

All along I thought it had something to do with my sex.

Peace
Maureen

Let the debates begin.

Clearly McIntosh has realised that when you find yourself in a whole it is best to stop digging. He is probably under advisement from his Dept that his position would be in serious jeopardy if he said anything more.

As a former academic (in modern languages) I certainly remember the pressure to publish work that were consonant with the prevailing research. The need to get published in the right journals does inhibit many academics from pursuing more original research or taking interesting ideas further. In my field the problem was trying to keep up with the ideological fashions but for McIntosh it is more serious - he will have to apply methodological rigour to his ideas that satisfies peer review. If he cannot, then he does not deserve to continue holding a chair in major university.

Billy,

calm yer jets pal.

Once again a Creationist turns turtle when confronted. What happens next? The ranters come out, foaming at the mouth, talking in toungues.

This kind of nonsense (post 8)makes a mockery of you message - your ideas have had a stuffing (how festive) on this blog.

Now back to the subject - show me the evidence for the 12,006 year old earth.

Elvis Lives wrote:
What's that in Andy's trousers?

I don't know it they don't look very intelligently designed.

Billy,

wasn't the earth 6,000 years old last week?

Are you living in a different time zone there?

Elvis Lives - u have a pount. There's something going on in those trousers. Think it might be a dinosaur trying to break free?

I agree that Andrew McIntosh and anyone else in academe has a right to free speech expressing any view no matter how controversial. What he doesn't have a right to is to go unchallenged. In fact it is not merely a right but an obligation of his collegues to insist that his theories which fly in the face of the very most basic understandings of the sciences he professes be put to the most rigorous tests they can devise. This is especially true when his theory is not merely advanced for the purpose of a greater understanding of science but is put in the service of impeaching another science in order to replace it with an otherwise unsupportable theology.

One striking difference between physical sciences where you find the thermodynamics of chemistry and the humanities where you find the metaphors of poetry and prose is that hypotheses in science can often be tested to determine their truth by proving their ability to explain and predict the behavior of the physical universe. I've said this before.

But you don't have to know anything about thermodynamics or much about chemistry to know that Andrew McIntosh is wrong. All you have to know is that all molecules including DNA are comprised of atoms held together by chemical bonds. Now that we know not only the general structure for DNA but thanks to the human genome project the specific configuration of every atom and chemical bond in human DNA as well, the obvious question for McIntosh is, in the formation of DNA in nature, which of those chemical bonds violates the second law of thermodynamics and if forming it in nature violates the second law, why doesn't forming it in a living cell or a laboratory violate it as well. I think in one form or another, these are questions he should be required to address and the sooner the better.

No chaps, it's a big bang!!

I've thought about Andy McIntosh's dilemma and it occurred to me that one possible parachute would be for him to take an indefinite administrative leave or quit Leeds University altogether and accept a teaching post or special research grant in some creationist spouting college or other "institution" in a far off place like the United States where these types not only have plenty of money to build a large stage to orate from but more than enough to keep the lights lit as well. I'm certain he has plenty of friends there who will be only too happy to help him out if he'll just agree to join their team. At that point he will be able to evade all questions which he will promise to address at an unspecified later time.

William,

I'd love to see the Young Earth theorists given a bit of air (rope).

Any chance of a bit of comedy?

GW

The mystery of Anydy's trousers continues. It's the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action, I reckon. A massive build-up of energy approaching combustion.

First Law of Blogger Dynamics...

The increase in the number of posts in a bloggodynamic system is equal to the amount of "heat" added to the system minus the disinterest caused by the content.

Post 23 jk belfast wrote: The mystery of Andy's trousers continues. It's the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action, I reckon. A massive build-up of energy approaching combustion.

JK: That's something I have suffered with continuously! MEN!.....

Post 22 Gee Dubyah wrote: I'd love to see the Young Earth theorists given a bit of air (rope). Any chance of a bit of comedy?

JK: You're the guy who went off to Paris as I recall and you were going to be doing some thinking about the YE and Hull's ticking DNA timebomb. Billy hasn't explained to me if Hull's ancient grandfather was swimming from the Iberian Peninsula to Ireland after the last ice age or if the ark got to him in time.

I've been patiently sitting here with my knitting and a rope. McIntosh is apparently not coming to the spectacle. Are you set to join the necktie party or will you join McIntosh in his state of terrified sedation.

If there is nothing going on here I might as well go back to Billy Graham's cow pasture. Mark is still droning on about the metaphor thing - I wish someone would sedate him on that one - it might be coming obsessive ;-)

Peace (on the young earth of course)

Maureen

Madam Defarge, stick to your knitting. It may be what you do best.

Firstly, "jk belfast" was not me...

Secondly, as regards Hull's thing, I am still reading up on it. I am very busy at the minute with Christmas and I have a lot of work to do over the holidays, so you will just have to give me more time!

Re 27 JK wrote: Firstly, "jk belfast" was not me...

Ah, JK, I fell into the same hole that Mark finds himself in all of the time. I metaphorized 'jk belfast' as the 2nd Year Physics Student 'jk'.

Dammit, Hull proved right again!

Back to the knitting!

Peace (to all lovers of Physics)

Maureen

It’s nearly Christmas! Let’s have some jolly cheer!

Madame Defarge: I have a metaphorical narrative for Mark and two more candidates for your necktie party.

This never happened but its intrinsic truth remains.

The title of my narrative is: A CHRISTMAS STORY and it is presented with apologies to Randy Kennedy, author of the article “The Grinch Delusion” in the NY Times of December 17, 2006.

Hull: Good morning. We have with us this morning two special guests. Richard Dawkins author of “The God Delusion,” a jeremiad against religious belief by Richard Dawkins, the famous British evolutionary biologist at Oxford and Sam Harris, author of “Letter to a Christian Nation,” another spirited defense of atheism.

Mr Harris, let me begin with a question to you. With all this high-profile atheism in mind, it came as something of a surprise to me to learn what sort of a tree you have sitting in your living room right now. Let’s just say that it is not a ficus, that it tapers to a little peak practically begging for a star and that it is currently sporting some lovely ornaments on its branches.

Harris: Well as a full-time infidel these days, with book-tours and speaking duties, I didn’t have time to pick out my Christmas tree personally. And it was really not my idea but a result of a lost tug of war with my wife, who likes Christmas trappings and insisted on buying it. However, my reluctance was good-natured all the while.

Hull: In other words, Mr. Harris, you are having a (relatively) holly, jolly atheistic Christmas, one that will include presents and a big family party. I believe you were raised by a Jewish mother and a Quaker father and yet you see no glaring contradiction in doing so, at least not one you feel the need to spend much time thinking about?

Harris: It seems to me to be obvious that everything we value in Christmas — giving gifts, celebrating the holiday with our families, enjoying all of the kitsch that comes along with it — all of that has been entirely appropriated by the secular world, in the same way that Thanksgiving and Halloween have been.

Hull: Mr. Dawkins, may I ask you about your own Christmas philosophy?

Dawkins: Presumably your reason for asking me is that ‘The God Delusion’ is an atheistic book, and you still think of Christmas as a religious festival. But of course it has long since ceased to be a religious festival. I participate for family reasons, with a reluctance that owes more to aesthetics than atheistics. I detest Jingle Bells, White Christmas, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, and the obscene spending bonanza that nowadays seems to occupy not just December, but November and much of October, too. So divorced has Christmas become from religion that I find no necessity to bother with euphemisms such as happy holiday season. In the same way as many of my friends call themselves Jewish atheists, I acknowledge that I come from Christian cultural roots. I am a post-Christian atheist. So, understanding full well that the phrase retains zero religious significance, I unhesitatingly wish everyone, including you Michael, a Merry Christmas.

Hull: Such obliging feelings toward Christmas will undoubtedly serve as another piece of evidence for those conservative Christians who feel that the holiday has been hijacked — so much so that even atheists like the two of you are now comfortable getting into the spirit. Listening to the both of you I get the feeling that your accommodation stems from the fact that Christmas — no matter how religious it still is or is not — has become such a juggernaut that it is simply impossible for you to ignore entirely. Or do you just like to go to the Christmas parties?

Harris: Of course I love the parties! But Michael, might I just get back to the tree, I want to assure you, Michael, that it is a miniature. It’s a tree that even an atheist can be comfortable with.

Hull: Well then, I wish each of you a merry Christmas!

Senor Hull,

how did your forebears avoid being eaten by the T Rex's (plural?) they apparently shared Iberia with? :-0

Or was that the origin of chorizo a spicy (and suitably difficult to digest) variant of BALONEY?....

come on young earthers - give us a nibble!

Michael Hull, there is a ficus tree in my living room. It's made out of silk. No DNA in it to violate any laws of thermodynamics and it doesn't seem to be degrading with time either.

My patron saint is Ebenezer Scrooge before he went on an LSD trip and lost his mind. Had "A Christmas Carol" not been written by Charles Dickens but by Ayn Rand instead, I'm sure it would have had a happy ending.

Here's a jolly thread - if your school of thought had a football chant, what would it be?

Sing when you're evolving, you only sing when you're evolving! (To Guantanamera)

or

You-ung Earth, you know it's a You-ung Earth (to blue moon).

Jollity springs up in the absence of debate....

Come on chaps.

In post 31 Mark wrote:

"Michael Hull, there is a ficus tree in my living room. It's made out of silk."

Mark:

How lovely!

But what does that have to do with Mr Harris's tree?

As Ever,
Michael

In post 30. At 05:19 PM on 22 Dec 2006, Gee Dubyah wrote:

"Senor Hull, how did your forebears avoid being eaten by the T Rex's (plural?) they apparently shared Iberia with? :-0"

Gee: They were fast movers! It's still in my genes - as a teenager in North Belfast I rang on doorbells and ran like .....

Now thinking about it, I can't swim. I wonder if that is evidence that they did indeed get onto the ark.

Regards,
Michael

I'm unhappy at the creationist retreat.
I followed your link Billy, and ended up at the web address of the Institute of Creation Research. Lordy, lordy lordy, i though Aig was full of drivel.

I found this little gem:

"It is likely that most of the dinosaurs were killed in the Flood and the few that were released from the Ark could not live in the changed climate conditions after the Flood."

Ho ho - so there were Dinosaurs on the ARK???

Uncle Noah,Uncle Noah, don't make me feed the T Rex again. Aaargh, splat....

That must have been some boat - maybe the US navy have those plans for their Aircraft carriers....

aha - the grand old game of "Bell-Fast" - ring the bell and run bl@@dy fast". S. Belfast bells frequently harrassed by yours truly! Fleet of foot indeed was the home owner taking this miscreant by the scruff of the neck to Watson Snr...

Did you ever do the grand national too I wonder? The time honoured trashing of back garden hedges in rapid succession?

Re Post 35 Gee Dubyah wrote:

“aha - the grand old game of "Bell-Fast" - ring the bell and run bl@@dy fast". South Belfast bells frequently harrassed by yours truly! Fleet of foot indeed was the home owner taking this miscreant by the scruff of the neck to Watson Snr... Did you ever do the grand national too I wonder? The time honoured trashing of back garden hedges in rapid succession?”

Gee: Once my friends and I trashed a garden hedge vertically! We had all gone to a cinema in Portadown (it used to be in the main street close to the River Bann) and seen wonderful pictures of WW2 paratroopers jumping out of aircraft. When we all got home to David’s house I noticed that there were umbrellas in the rack in the hall and at my suggestion we all grabbed one and headed up to David’s bedroom window which overlooked his front lawn.

A tremendous argument ensued as to who should go out the window first. It was my idea so I insisted I should be the one to go first.

Loud objections ..... but finally it was agreed that since it was David’s bedroom he would have the priviledge of going out the window first but I was going out second.

And so it was ..... David popped the umbrella .... jumped .... and went straight down in sickening silence into the hedge below.

Numbers 2 and 3 promptly dropped their ‘parachutes’ and bl@@dy fast scampered down the stairs, out through the back door and home to our own abodes with neer a glance backward to ascertain the status of poor David.

Who said the media does not influence young minds!

Cordially,
Michael

okay okay, I'll do it...well someone has to put those silly grins in check... Here are a few questions not yet answered on this blog;-

1) Exactly what punishment would McIntosh have been due from his university if he said he believed in aliens? Well that is exactly what Dawkins has said in his latest book and defended recently on RTE. Is that in anyway flying in the face of scientific evidence chaps? What censure should he face?

2) How is it that everything in the natural world actually runs down and degenerates without active maintenance but that evolutionists teach that DNA miraculously does the opposite? Note, to give a rational answer to this question you need to explain the question using more that a deliberately narrow and fleeting reference to the second law of thermodynamics. This question seems to be stumping all you evolutionists out there in the same way my [still standing] challenge to find a missing link between man and monkey did.

3) Mark, you say McIntosh's statement should be tested by the most rigourous tests his colleagues can devise. Well, NASA and British Aerospace have spent lotsa money to see if they can influence the laws of gravity. SO what sort of scientific heretics does that make them? or do they get special dispensations from you because they are not creationists?

Following on from that nicely, I think Maureen makes a few good points in 114 that academics need some breathing space to test the boundaries of knowledge or progress will grind to a halt. You guys are almost like the original inquisition in your approach to honest scientific debate. I cant see any other explanation for this but fear; it is rather like Dawkins himself, his bitterness towards God far transcends any scientific inquiry or justification, as many of his fellow evolutionists agree. Why is this?

Ok, here is a science bit to add to the discussion, here are some writings on The second law of thermodynamics from scientists with a creationist viewpoint;-

And here are 200 plus Phd and above scientists who support these views;-

And while the critics above will no doubt have something to say about it, as far as I am aware the only one who has a science phd among them is M Hull, just to put all the above comments in context.

Any of you guys out there celebrating the birth of the creator of the universe?

;-)

PB

PS you will note we all seem to have missed the fact that Dawkins repeatedly ran away from McIntosh's challenge on TSLOT of SS and instead attacked him personally....well here is your chance guys... I would respect someone who attempts to meet my question head-on and not just bluster past it...

PB:

I will do you the courtesy of responding to one statement on the website you reference.

“A random jumble won’t organize itself”

PB: It will as long as there are physical laws! I explained this in a post in an earlier blog. It seems paradoxical but think of it this way.

Imagine a very large playground with 1000 children playing happily half of which are boys. The scene is a ‘random jumble’. Now imagine that we give each child a ‘rule’ which is that every boy must take the hand of a girl and each girl must take the hand of a boy and once the link is made they must not let go. After a while we will find that we have 1000 children linked hand to hand alternating boy and girl.

Organization has developed from the chaos.

Now change the rule to be that each boy must link with a boy on one hand and a girl on the other and the same rule applies for the girls. After much chaotic behavior the playground will eventually come to a different stable pattern.

The pattern depends on the rule.

In this last case now introduce an additional rule that once hand contact has been made the child can not let go if a mistake has been made. Thus if one boy accidentally grabs the hands of two boys instead of one boy and one girl we get a similar pattern as before but it has a single ‘mutation’.

All of the above can take place in a matter of minutes. The universe has numerous physical rules and so over long times extremely complex order will develop.

Which gets us to the basic question which Dawkins harps on about. If one states that God created the rules of the universe, one is still left with the question how was God created?

In my view this is a fundamental universal question and it is both a scientific and a philosophical one. Both approaches are valid in tackling it. Scientists must tackle it with the use of models (a term that I have discussed many times in these blogs - Dawkins uses the phrase ‘ model building’) and philosophers must tackle it with use of metaphors/myths.

Scientists can’t yet imagine what ‘was’ before the ‘big bang’. Let me propose a model – before the ‘big bang’ there was ‘something’.

Scientists should now attempt to model the ‘something’ and philosophers should attempt to metaphorize it. Both are paths to understanding.

The problem we have in my opinion comes down to fundamentalism – fundamentalist scientists (FSs) who can’t think metaphorically arguing with fundamental metaphorists (FMs) who can’t think scientifically.

The world is not ‘either/or’ it is ‘both/and’. The FSs and the FMs are EOs. John Wright and I would be more in the BA mold. As a person raised in the Christian culture I find it easier to exchange views with BA buddhists, muslims etc. They have no arrogance in their beliefs and are open to new understanding. As a BA person, my view on who Shakespeare was has changed dramatically over the past 20 years – I can also make the same statement about “God” and Jesus.

I can ‘believe’ in the creation stories of the bible as a possible form of truth just as I can ‘believe’ in the big bang theory as another possible form of truth. I use science when that is required and I use religion/philosophy where that is required.

You might recall an earlier discussion I had where I distinguished between pain and suffering – pain can be cured, suffering can be healed.

We need to attempt both to cure and to heal in all of our actions in life.

PB: I think further discussion can wait until Crawley publishes the 272 word statements. Then we will have clearly defined ‘beliefs’ documented for discussion. I think you have agreed to produce a statement? Billy’s is already in. John and mine are in preparation. Those of us who submit statements can then have an open discussion which may be fruitful for each.

Regards,
Michael

Michael- I liked the way you explained, by metaphor, a way in which entropy is not violated by evolution. Hopefully PB will respond directly to your suggestion.

I too await eagerly the publishing of everyone's 272 word challenge. Though mine is not written about my religious beliefs or my approach to this particular discussion, it will be interesting to respond to the ones that are. VERY interesting. :-)

PB

welcome back.

1. I think dawkins said aliens were probable didnt he. In any event, the existence of aliens does not challenge any consensual scientific thinking - so while it's a soft target for mockery - it's not scientific heresy like McIntosh's.
No censure required. (but probably a few eyebrows raised).

2. What DNA do you mean? In a living cell the molecules are either stable or are maintained by energy from the metabolic processes. Outside a cell, molecules are either stable or maintained by energy in whatever system they are to be found - (solar, geothermal etc). Whats the problem?

3. Not sure about your gravity thing - got a link? Sounds interesting.

RE missing link - i offered you one - Homo floresiensis - you have yet to comment. You have also yet to comment on the near complete state of the phylogenetics of the horse line. I repeat - if evolution is demonstrable in one species it has been shown for all....

Finally, why has McIntosh clammed up if as you say he was on to a winner and had Dawkins stumped?

JW

By the way, i never did see your definition of the gospel/evangel/good news that Christ spoke of so often in the NT - did you ever write me one?

PB

GW , Michael...

1) Look read post 12 again. If you know anything about how the world works nobody in any profession is keen to put their head above the parapet and question the received wisdom. I have personally spoken to a senior academic in QUB who is very very sceptical about what Blair's top scientist says when speaking on climate change. But he would never dare go public. William has suggested MMcIntosh may be under professional pressure and this seems plausible/likely - but has nobody here every seen someone of truth and integrity sacrificed to save the careers of others (lets say in this case all the evolutionary scientists in the establishment who could be exposed as frauds if McIntosh were proven wrong?) Lets not pretend there is no politics in science and it is all done in a sterile environment!!!

2) I think we all seem to have forgotten here that McIntosh trumps everyone here - and Dawkins! - on thermodynamics, by several hundred miles. There is no respect shown here at all to his years of proven research in the field and have we forgotten that Dawkins is only a zoologist and way outside his field?
So what if McIntosh really is saying something viable and you are all dismissing him because of the style of his trousers or your (ir)religious prejudices. It just doesnt add up.

3) GW, homo floresiensis was "debunked" recently in the Times newspaper no less. The ±«Óătv here picks up the response of the true believers but shows there is serious scepticism.

4) Michale Hull, ref the children in the playground, the problem in your example that I can see is that you have stepped in "as God" and introduced an outside influence in adding arbitrary laws in order to bring order from chaos. To my mind this supports and not undermines the idea that God is required to see DNA created.

5) Interesting to hear GW describe MvInsoth's views as heresy! freudian slip there GW but it does show your mindset - behold the new inquisitaion defends the religion of secularism without fair trial or mercy.

6) GW ref your supposed evolution of the horse, even Dawkins has gone on record to say we cannot see evolution happening. He says it is like detective work using fossils etc.
So this detective suggests that all the species of "horse" you suggest were created exactly as they were found in the fossil form. What evidence is there that they every varied from the species in which they were created?

7) Michael - can you give me several examples in the natural world which demonstrate your theory about children holding hands? ie that order creates itself to a level of amazing complexity (eg DNA) from nothing in the natural world?

8) GW, my question ref DNA is not how it currently is. If you leave DNA alone it decays. My question is how it created itself from nothing when nature says that anything left to itself decays.

Anyone out there celebrating the birth of the creator this week?

PB

PS So believing in aliens is not a heresy for a zoologist like Dawkins GW????

Gee:

While waiting for Andy to show up for Maureen's 'party' you and I can do some partying (who knows Dawkins and Harris might show up to admire our Christmas trees).

Tell me dear reveller, did you ever extend your 'grand national hedge bashing' to something on a truly 'national' level.

Top this ;-)

In the early 60s a friend and I went over to Birmingham to work in Fort Dunlop. We were staying on Tile Cross Road, in Marston Green.

We had a landlady who didn’t like the Irish too much but I soon got the hang of her and realized that if I switched into my best Belfast brogue she couldn’t understand a word that I was saying.

This discovery came in very handy as one night my friend and I headed out to see a couple of ‘birds’ and we needed to get to the other side of Birmingham airport. Going around the airport looked like too long of a walk from the Tile Cross Road and so the pair of us decided to go straight THROUGH the airport – including crossing the major runway between landings.

As a person quite enthralled with aviation I found it exhiliarting to stand in the middle of the runway and see if I could watch the next incoming flight land over my head.

Alas, that was not to be. A car load of Birmingham police soon arrived and we were taken off for questioning. With my heart pounding I wondered how I would ever get out of this situation.

Then I recalled that if Louis Lord, the vice headmaster of the time at the BRA and a wonderful history teacher, ever asked me to ‘confess’ to one of my school 'sins', I always got away with it by claiming that I didn’t understand his question. I also recalled that the landlady in Tile Cross Road didn’t understand a word I said if I switched into the hard Belfast dialect.

I put both strategies into action and after five minutes the police gave up. We were driven to the side of the airport, released right where the two ‘birds’ were waiting and the evening ended chirpingly.

Regards,
Michael

Ps: Ask me about Louis Lord and Marie Antoinette.

Michael,

you have me beat!!

Very impressive - the adrenaline junkie gene runs strong in the Hull clan - dodging T Rex's to ducking Jumbo's....

I was once bitten on the ear by a BRA man whilst representing Methody in the dizzy heights of the 3 XV.

But I'd like to hear more about Marie Antoinette.

PB

re Freud.

I used the word heresy in direct reference to just the kind of pressure you refer to.

I know about the chap who claimed floresiensis was not what it might have been - and it was one chap I think. However the evloutionary interpretation of this fossil is the consensual position is it not?

I think I have answered your DNA question - nothing will happen in a closed system - but the world is not a closed system. Abiogenesis theory does not posit DNA forming and then sitting around doing nothing but not decaying. You are using half arguments to score cheap points - and I think you know you are doing it too....

While you smirk about aliens - positing that they exist is merely saying that what happened on earth could have happened elsewhere. Is that a problem for you? It's a fair bit more plausible than a Deity in my book.

You believe in a god - on what evidence? So why not little green men?

McIntosh is either right or wrong - if he is right, why doesn't he come out and show us? Because he can't.

Snakeoil...

PB- You misrepresent the Homo floresiensis issue. You make it sound as though there are only a handful of people who believe it's actually a transitional form and more people think it's just a pygmy human with brain disease (microcephalic). In fact, the article you linked to was written to relate the information of the "detailed examination of the creature's braincase" which demonstrates exactly the opposite!

"The study shows that H. floresiensis managed to pack a number of features of more advanced brains into its tiny skull."

"In our opinion, LB1 is not in any way, shape or form, a true microcephalic [moden pygmy human with brain disease]." - those who conducted the study.

"Unless other forms of this condition are characterised by a Homo erectus-shaped brain, says Falk and her colleagues, the theory that LB1 is a microcephalic can be rejected."

And it's not even only the single skull: "'There are other remains of Homo floresiensis, so it's from a population. And it looks pretty interesting from the neck down. So multiple evidence suggests to us that it's not a microcephalic,' argued Dr Falk."

Evolution occurred, PB. Look it up.

PB re your post 43 it will take me a little longer to answer you than it does to answer Gee's post 45. I will respond later if someone else has not covered my answer in the meantime. You asked if anyone is celebrating Christmas - the answer is 'Yes', I am.

Gee: Now to Louis (Lord) and Marie (Antoinette)...

Louis Lord, as I mentioned before, was a wonderful history teacher in the BRA of the late fifties. I corresponded with him some years ago and he remembered me clearly. Not surprising given all the times I was up before him for school infractions.

Louis suffered from one great deficiency – he didn’t listen to, nor appreciate, the Goon Show.

He also didn’t realize that the head prefect of the time conducted prefects’ meetings as Goon Shows with each prefect taking a character from the show. Appearing quite often before the prefects’ meetings I quickly got into the swing of things and would respond as one of the Military Officers played by Peter Sellers.

The head prefect conducted his meetings to resounding choruses of “Minnie” – the more “Minnies” that were expressed the better the chance one escaped any further punishment. That head prefect went on to be the youngest person since Isaac Newton as I recall to get a first class honours degree from Cambridge University in mathematics and is now a Fellow of the Royal Society. One of his mathematical discoveries is being incorporated into the pavilion being built for the Olympics in China.

Anyway, Louis thought he would set the class a challenge for the weekend homework assignment and so he announced that over the weekend we could choose whatever topic in history we wanted to write about, give it a title, write the title at the top of the first page and provide him with at least 3 pages on the subject of choice by the Monday morning class.

I took him at his word and fulfilled the requirements exactly in true Neddy Seagoon fashion handing in three BLANK pages with the title of my essay written at the top of the first page which read:

Discuss the State of Marie Antionette’s Mind in the Days After Her Head Was Chopped Off.

Louis was NOT amused and after many minutes of a rising chorus of “Minnie” from the rest of the class I produced my 5 page back up offering which read:

Discuss the State of Marie Antionette’s Mind in the Days Before Her Head Was Chopped Off.

Louis thought it was great and I got what was for me one of my best marks ever in a history class.

As Ever,
Michael

PS: I am not going to tell you the story of the naked mannequin that we swiped out of Robinson and Cleavers and hung on the front of the school facade! So don't ask!

In Post 43 pb wrote:

“Michael... read post 12 again. If you know anything about how the world works nobody in any profession is keen to put their head above the parapet and question the received wisdom. Lets not pretend there is no politics in science and it is all done in a sterile environment!!!”

PB: I fully agree. I once wrote to a cancer research suggesting that his published results on breast cancer suggested an infectious cause and not the genomic cause to which he ascribed it. He wrote back that he agreed with me but said that if he ever tried to get funding from any of the main funding agencies in the USA to study a possible infectious cause of breast cancer he would have to close his research lab immediately! So he kept his opinions quiet, got his funding to study the genetic causes of cancer and went on about his business. That’s how some American scientists apparently handle ‘received wisdom’.

PB then wrote: “I think we all seem to have forgotten here that McIntosh trumps everyone here - and Dawkins! - on thermodynamics, by several hundred miles. There is no respect shown here at all to his years of proven research in the field and have we forgotten that Dawkins is only a zoologist and way outside his field? So what if McIntosh really is saying something viable and you are all dismissing him because of the style of his trousers or your (ir)religious prejudices. It just doesnt add up."

PB: Again I agree but the problem here is that McIntosh brought the topic up not Dawkins. Now I also have to restate what I said earlier that he was cut off by both Crawley and Dawkins and I was unable to come to an understanding of his position. Crawley assumed his audience needed the discussion to be ‘dumbed down’ and so he moved on. It now appears from this blog that that was the part of the program everyone was interested in. We could have done with less of the useless blathering from others on the show and given McIntosh the time to answer. Why should McIntosh join Crawley again in a further discussion? I wouldn’t!

However, McIntosh has been publicly attacked in the Guardian and I don’t think anyone, or Leeds University’s hierarchy, can prevent him replying to this public slur on his honor. He should do so immediately!

As to Dawkins his discipline is not one that requires as much heavy thinking compared with say the disciplines of mathematics, or physics which McIntosh has studied. (That’s my opinion – so don’t anyone get bent out of shape). I would love to see Dawkin’s school and university grades. He writes brilliantly, debates beautifully, but I’m not sure about the depth of his science understanding. McIntosh can not debate and so he might be well advised to stay ‘off the air’. This is so much more the pity because McIntosh has allowed himself to be punished by ad hominem attack, bluster, interruption, fear of his position, whatever ....

But I have no sympathy for him – he threw down the gauntlet of the 2nd Law – Dawkins picked it up and used it to slap him in the face. McIntosh has refused to duel!

PB you then wrote: “Michael Hull, ref the children in the playground, the problem in your example that I can see is that you have stepped in "as God" and introduced an outside influence in adding arbitrary laws in order to bring order from chaos. To my mind this supports and not undermines the idea that God is required to see DNA created. Michael - can you give me several examples in the natural world which demonstrate your theory about children holding hands? ie that order creates itself to a level of amazing complexity (eg DNA) from nothing in the natural world?”

Actually I think that is my point, the universe has rules. Now why there are rules is the matter at question. You say that rules are evidence for God, Dawkins says the rules are just there. Neither side has proven its’ case. But the fact is, PB, that the universe is governed by physical laws and because of that fact 'order out of disorder' is a normal scientific process. You ask for several examples. Now come on PB, how much more do you need from me as to more examples to add to the one about the children? Fill your bath with water – the water molecules are in a completely chaotic state. Now take the plug out and watch what happens – because of the laws of gravity and the laws of fluid flow etc the water molecules will line up and leave the bathtub in an orderly fashion!

Pb you write: “Interesting to hear GW describe McIntosh's views as heresy!”

I prefer the word ‘heterodox’ to ‘heresy’ A heretic is one from the ‘orthodox’ perspective who chooses not to accept that which is considered to be ‘orthodox’.

Heterodox on the other hand is a more neutral term. It describes an opinion or doctrine at variance with an official or orthodox position. As an adjective, heterodox is used to describe a subject as "characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards" e.g. the status quo.

Let’s face it one never applies the term ‘heretic’ to oneself – one always applies it to others who don’t believe as we do. I hope I am not a heretic to you though I accept that I am heterodox.

Ok that’s it from me until after Christmas.

Apologies to everyone whose toes I have stamped on.

Blessings to all of you and your families.

Michael

In post 46 Gee wrote to PB: “You believe in a god - on what evidence? So why not little green men?”

Gee: As a scientist it easier for me to rationalize the possible existence of God that to rationalize that there is no God.

If I were to do so it in Dawkins field I would think as follows:

Humans are entities with about 25 thousands genes which gives them a certain intellectual capacity, understanding, and control over their environment . A worm has about 10 thousands genes. Can a worm conceive of a human existence – can a worm comprehend entropy? A virus has about less that a hundred genes – is it living – science says ‘NO’ only because it can’t self replicate.

It appears, scientifically, speaking that the higher the number of genes in an entity, the higher the level of its ‘thought’.

Now what happens if I model an entity with 250 thousands genes, or how about 250 million genes – you get the picture. My ability to model it is at about the same level as the worm’s ability to model a human.

Now Dawkins might grant me that somewhere there exists in the universe an ‘alien’ that has evolved to a much higher degree than humans – has many, many more genes. OK, then what happens if one of Dawkin’s ‘aliens’ has evolved with an infinite number of genes? PB will say “That’s God!” while Dawkins will say “No, its not – it’s a super intelligent biological alien”.

I go back to the point I made in post 39 “The problem we have in my opinion comes down to fundamentalism – fundamentalist scientists (FSs) who can’t think metaphorically arguing with fundamental metaphorists (FMs) who can’t think scientifically.”

May God and/or Dawkins' Alien preserve us from fundamentalist thinking.

As Ever,
Michael

I take your point all the way through Michael.

However, the difference between a more intelligent bio-being and a "God" is the omnipotence gig - the suggestion that this God created rather than grew from the Universe.

PB's God is not "of" the Universe, but it's master - your 250 gened super being is just another organism.

PB and I will agree on this I think.

I think I'll join Michael and sign off for Xmas - a game of football (or soccer!) in no man's land PB?

Guys

As the best scientist writing on this blog I think anyone slurring Mcintosh should carefully read my post 43 and Dr M Hull's post in response post 49.

We seem to agree that McIntosh may be having to fight more of a political battle at present than one of scientific truth.

And we agree that many scientists err away from what they know to be scientifically true in public to protect their careers.

And we agree that Dawkins is more of scientific lightweight, way outside his field when he speaks on thermodynmics. wikipedia claims Dawkins only got an ordinary second class degree in zoology as a primary degree! But certainly Dawkins is a heavyweight debater and is winning at present against McIntosh on those terms. Not a clean fight!

On the children in the playground and the water down the plughole Michael, you havent satisfied me that those are strong examples of order coming out of chaos in the natural world without divine intervention.

I have no background at all in science and cant prove evolution to myself, never mind anyone else. But I think your admission that the evidence could can be interpreted either way keeps me happy.

If I can demonstrate there is a genuine debate going on between genuinely qualified people, I am happy.

PB

re Homo florenesis

GW and John

You both ought to go and read that news article again because it is definitely talking about plural scientists debunking this. tsk tsk a bit careless boys.

What is it with you John, its seems you have a pathological tendency to try and marginalise to death anyone who disagrees with you to try and portray them as some exceptionally minor lunatic fringe? And this normally goes hand in hand with a pathological aversion to engaging the debate head on. why?

If you read my post again I am made it very clear I knew that this ±«Óătv article was the response of the "true believers" to the debunkers. So What?

The Times thought the debunkers credible enough to run a full story on their views. I dont expect to disprove anything to anyone here on evolution, as I say continually, just to bring the non-scientific among you who inebriate on your own words down to earth with a bang; there are many credible scientists out there who contest your views at every point so you do not have a free pass to say Genesis is not accurate, not without some hard thinking.

GW, a few points;

If you want to know about the NASA and BAE research to challenge the laws of gravity senior Jane's Defence Weekly journalist Nick Cooke interviewed them both at length on this and they were quite open. This is all public domain stuff, google it.
Are they heretics for challenging an invioable law of science or just pushing the boundaries of current knowledge? Into which of these two categories would McIntosh fit?

If incontrvertible evidence appeared which meant we had to update our views for both McIntosh's views on TSLOT and Dawkin's views on alien civilisations which would make the biggest headlines?

I suggest that demonstrates that Dawkins is making the bigger non-scientific assumption. And it is ironic that he is doing it as a zoologist. How would he do in an interview earlier in his career for a zoologoy post if he came out with his belief in aliens I wonder?

I wasnt trying to use a deceptive argument about DNA, Im not clever enough. I just look at my garden and wonder why it never tidies itself up; and then I look at the DNA garden and wonder why it turned itself into a world class landscaped garden.

And you are accusing McIntosh of selling snakeoil? Come on he is a professor of thermodynamics and as M Hull pointed out, he never got a chance to put forward his view, so he should still be presumed innocent as he has not had a trial.

Dawkin's clever exertion of political pressure to circumvent the debate could mean you never will, but just pause a second and consider McIntosh's expertise in the field. It trumps Dawkins by a mile, as Dr Hull confirms, so why should you be so presumptous on the matter?

Seriously for a second, are you as a humanist celebrating Christmas and if so why? If you are how could I refuse the metaphorical footie in no man's land?

PB

PB- You say to Michael: "On the children in the playground and the water down the plughole Michael, you havent satisfied me that those are strong examples of order coming out of chaos in the natural world without divine intervention."

That's the problem. People provide you with evidence and you still insist you don't have any. Uhh.... what would it take to satisfy you? There are physical laws that do their job; evolution is one example of a collection of physical properties that do their jobs. What you would like, I think, is for Michael to walk up to you and introduce you to Homo Erectus. 'How do you do, Mr Erectus?' you'd say. 'Can you convince me that you're real? Would you allow me to tug on your beard?'

Unfortunately, PB, science doesn't work that way. :-)

John

In post 49 you have a Phd in electro chemistry saying that neither the evolutionists or creationists have proven their case. So why should I allow you with no scientific credibility to force feed me your interpetation of evolution?

In post 53 I said I can understand how people can interpret the same data either way for or against evolution.

This is the first time I have ever debated evolution and I so I am learning as I go.

I agree that you could put forward a lot of evidence to me and I could find a reason to dismiss it - but I can easily say exactly the same thing to you.

You appear to be taking a very fundamentalist position on this, far moreso than me. I am not absolutely convinced I am right, unlike you. I have said this on the record many times.

But...Perhaps the reason why all your "evidence" can be dismissed is because it is wrong.

As I said, I couldnt begin to prove that to myself either way, never mind you John.

I sense you are taking this very personally, perhaps you should ease off a bit, not intending to be patronising at all John, season of goodwill etc.

PB

Keep stirring the broth and keep the heat up high and you might find a turkey in your soup looking out at you on Christmas day or perhaps not just thick soup.Evolution is only theory elevated over the facts, life only comes from life not from soup this is a basic scientific principle,the principle of BIOGENESIS any other theory is contrary to the evidence.

For all the mythical unbelieving Bible readers out there some holiday reading to stir the mental potage to fill the empty void.

Just joined this thread, so sorry if Im out of step with te conversation.

So ... there's a guy called McIntosh who thinks the world is 6000 years old? Fair enough, he's entitled to believe whatever he likes. Mad weird to believe that though.

What I cant get is that this guy has a degree in ANYTHING. What are they teaching in universities these days if someone can graduate in a science degree while believing that kind of nonsense.

Where's he stand on the flat earth business?

HE'S A PROFESSOR?!??! No! That's wild. At a UK university? Crazy.

Actually Sarah Jane Greer, if it were only that, he'd be skating home free. He said in a debate on ±«Óătv radio that the spontaneous formation of DNA in nature, a necessary step in the theory of evolution because it is the vital component of all life on earth, is precluded by the fact that it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Andrew McIntosh is a professor of thermodynamics at Leeds University. His transgression is not one of being politically incorrect, it's one of technical incompetence and the long harangue you read above and others like it notwithstanding, it's not open for debate, he was clearly wrong. Now the only issue is what will happen to him in the aftermath.

Of course his belief that the universe is only 6000 years old would disqualify him for a professorship in paleontology and nuclear physics too but that's besides the point.

In contemplating the fate of Andrew McIntosh, I am reminded of an episode of "Rumpole of the Bailey" (one of my very favorite British television exports to the US) which I think was called Rumpole and the Tap End. In this episode, a judge Sir Guthrie Featherstone made some unfortunate remarks about women and had to be called into the Lord High Chancelor's office for a mildly delivered reprimand, after which they shared sandwiches and beer. I can imagine just such a meeting with the Rector of Leeds University preceded by a meeting of their board of directors where the subject is "what's to be done about Andy McIntosh." I wonder if that meeting would be held at an exclusive men's social club. :>)

Welcome to the discussion Sarah Jane.

In fact it is not that mad at all to believe in creationism as a scientist.

Here are 200 phds and above who have gone on the record to support the idea, for example;-

And it is becoming increasingly clear that Andy McIntosh is so ahead of everyone else discussing the subject in question that they have little grounds for criticising him, especially as he never even got a chance to explain himself without being interuppted...

He is a professor of thermodynamics after all and Mark here has only a basic scientific degree, not even a higher degree and certainly no specialism in this field.

Mark - can you answer the question about NASA and BAE and whether they are heretics for challenging the law of gravity please?

cheers
PB

PB

breaking my own rule here having signed off.

I am celebrating Christmas because I have Children - they will get no interference from me in matters of their beliefs - they are at liberty to make their own decisions. Can you say honestly say you didn't/wouldn't steer yours?

Contrary to your opinions, the default religion in the UK is Christianity and it underpins British culture - and so my kids are with that until they decide otherwise themselves. A stance which makes my Dad's blood boil!

So I'll not have any more "intolerance" mud thrown - OK?

I'll indulge in verbal jousting with adults, but I won't browbeat children, something that happens to too many kids. (you'll see what I mean if Will posts my 272 words).

Season's Greetings. have a nice break all...

Gee.

PB

I just read up on the gravity business.

I see no parallels with McIntosh - these people have published and subjected their thinking to peer review. The right way forward.

Sounds interesting. However, it's all about superconductors and generation of strong fields to attempt to shield objects from gravitation - not a denial of Gravity. if it causes alteration/improvement to our current thinking - that is welcome.

What they havn't done is mutter obliquely on a Sunday philosophy show and then turtle when challenged.

Thanks for bringing it up - I have learned something today - but not about McIntosh.

Gee

pb, I don't know what your references to NASA and BAE are about. That's not the topic of discussion here or I would either have researched it or not participated if it were. I said in one of my postings above that I am not going to debate either the validity of the second law of thermodynamics or the correctness of McIntosh's views about it. As far as I am concerned they are not open for debate, certainly not among those who are not sufficiently knowledgeable in such matters to intelligenly discuss them. They are subject only to scientific experiments to verify or refute the mathematical equations which define them, not metaphors or analogies which have no validity and are not applicable. As for my own training, as I also posted before, I received a degree of Bachelor of Engineering from a very well respected college of Engineering and Science (the oldest engineering college in the US) and that along with other courses in chemistry and bio sciences has prepared me to understand the issues in the McIntosh debate. Belittling someone's educational credentials while espousing others' is an unsatisfactory substitute for an argument of substance.

Mark, GW

Mark: I dont and havent for a second belittled the obvious scientific knowledge and qualifications you have.

I am however saying you are a bit like a local 1500m track champ criticising a national 100m sprint champ when you prejudge a professor of thermodynamics on his own subject; your field is engineering/ electronics and you dont even have a higher degree.

All those are indisputable facts which are highly prescient in this disuccion. No debate.

It is exactly the same point Dr Hull made in post 49 about Dawkins - he is a zoologist who is not a patch on McIntosh in this field science, says Hull.

So how can you cast an iron clad judgment on McIntosh when he is scientifically so many levels above you in a different field, and when he was cut off in mid-sentence?

You can see one of my biggest critics here, GW, has confirmed that NASA and BAE are researching anti-gravity technology, but you appear very reticient to discuss this Mark.

GW: You dont see any parallel with McIntosh, well here it is; they are reputable scientists who are challenging a long established and accepted law of physics; so is it possible to legitimately challenge any law and if so which ones and how will these be chosen?

Should McIntosh therefore not be considered a heretic for suggesting apparent qualifications of TSLOC; I am not yet convinced he drew the conclusions he is accused of.

GW: Fair point IF he has not yet submitted any research to peer review on this. If that is the case, it is his naivete, maybe, for speaking first before he has brought his colleagues with him, but again, I am not convinced he has concluded what he is accused of. He didnt get a fair hearing.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Anyway, for me what the NASA and BAE anti-gravity research means is that no "law" of science is really considered inviolable and nobody should be called a heretic or loony for questioning the way we look at the world. ok Mark? If you take your line it appears you are on a par with the worst religious dogma in history eg "the world is flat and we will excommunicate you if you disagree".

Mark, I may well be wrong, but it looks to me like your reticence to discuss the NASA BAE thing is because it challenges your worldview just too much. You have already invested so many posts on this blog about supposedly inviolable laws of science after all.

GW: I have not the slighest objection to you allowing your kids to celebrate Christmas. It shows great honesty admitting it and some pragmatic flexibility with your values.

I do steer my kids, of course we all do, even if by doing nothing, they will catch our values.

I have more concerns about the pagan nature of Christmas celebrations but I just think it would be getting very petty in the grand scheme of things to opt out.

What about you Mark - you celebrating?

Happy Christmas to you both anyway..

PB

pb, I may not be a champion track runner but I know a cripple hobbling down the road when I see one. I didn't pre-judge McIntosh, I judged him solely on the strength of what he said. Before he said it, I never even heard of him.

Let me tell you something about degrees and credentials. 101 years ago, a patent examiner in the Swiss patent office published a paper of ideas which most of the physicists in the world including most of the PhDs dismissed as false. Ten years later he published another one and again they dismissed him. During the rise of the Nazis, he fled Europe for America. Harvard University will forever be remembered as the institution which turned down Albert Einstein because according to them he couldn't present credentials being unable to get any of his documentation released by the Germans. Others say he was turned down because he was Jewish. To this day, Princeton University which took him in remains one of the most important centers for research of advanced physics in the world while Harvard remains insignificant in that area. Many physicists make a strong case for the assertion that the world we know today including the invention of the transistor would not have been possible without Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Both Einstein and his theory will be remembered as long as science exists while his highly credentialed critics are already long forgotten. So much for credentials, scientific theories ultimately stand or fall on their merit alone. If Andy McIntosh wants to redeem himself and his theories of thermodynamics and creation, all he has to do is prove his theoretical assertion in data from a laboratory experiment and he will also win a Nobel prize. Don't hold your breath waiting though, most of the scientific world says he hasn't got a chance of that. He's no Einstein.

I am not reticent to discuss NASA and BAE here, I'm completely unwilling. It doesn't interest me right now and I don't see what possible relevance it has to this discussion.

Brainwash you kids with your religion if you want to, one day when they can think for themselves they may grow to hate you for it.

Am I celebrating Christmas? Why would I, I'm not a Christian, I'm an atheist, I thought I made that clear long ago. Besides, I stopped believing in fairy tales like the tooth fairy when I was about 8 years old. I'm not going back.

What if Einstein’s theory of general relativity and the speed of light being constant were wrong? Scientist Joao Magueijo challenged Einstein just as Einstein had challenged Newton before him. Magueijo’s new theory became known as the varying speed-of-light theory.

The acceptance of Riemannian space allows us to reject Einstein’s relativity and to keep all the ordinary ideas of time and all the ideas of Euclidean space out to a distance of a few light years. Astronomical space remains Euclidean for material bodies, but light is considered to travel in Riemannian space. In this way the time required for light to reach us from the most distant stars is only 15 years.
This excerpt is taken from an article in Journal of the Optical Society of America, in August 1953, titled, “Binary Stars and the Velocity of Light.”

So much for the billions of years old earth and universe theory using starlight as their proof. Young earth we prove it over and over again. For 6,000 years, carnal minds have been attempting to disprove the Holy Bible that they claim was written by mere men. Every time they have failed miserably. God’s word stands supreme because God’s word is God.

Dear Mark

Bah humbug ;-)

So you are "completely unwilling" to discuss the FACT that NASA and BAE are researching anti-gravity technology because it challenges one of your sacred inviolable scientific laws? If you accepted it was happening of course it would leave the second law of thermodynamics open to being tested and updated too. That would open the possiblity of McIntosh being right in saying DNA could not have formed itself from nothing. And that would blow evolution pretty well out of the water as scientific theory. And that my friend would leave you nowhere to run because at that point God has lifted up the small flat stone you are hiding under and is looking down at you smiling, asking you if he can be your friend.

"Completely unwilling" to discuss this eh? how open minded, how objective, how scientific. Perhaps Harvard were correct to be "completely unwilling" to think outside of the box with Einstein too?

A very interesting story about Einstein, but really, picking out the exception to disprove the rule is not very methodical or scientific is it?

You have not in any way challenged my assertion that McIntosh is at the top of his profession ref thermodynamics and you are comparatively nowhere in this field. No malice, no argument, no debate; fact.

WOuld you apply this same logic in choosing an apparently unqualfied expert in any other field of your life? your doctor? your lawyer? your dentist? I doubt it very much.

And of course, before McIntosh can win that Nobel prize there is the little hurdle he has to covercome such as mass professional prejudice.

Dr Hull in post 49 confirmed strongly my point that scientists are not just free to research or prove what they "know" to be correct.

Ref NASA and BAE, Nick Cooke of Jane's Defence Weekly wrote extensively about a scientist Evgeny Podkletnov who was researching "gravity shielding" and was outed as working on an "anti-gravity" machine, a term he hated and feared. He was hounded and ridiculed and fled to russia. My point is, there is the mass prejudcice of the scientific community at work, hounding one lone scientist for his work in a field that NASA and BAE are respected for working in. How rational?

Considering the amount of anti-faith prejudice on this matter, it would be a brave funder who would take McIntosh on, even if they had complete faith in him. Because they are thousands of people like you out there that would pour cold, concentrated and bitter contempt on the project and funder even before the lab doors were opened. So much for scientific objectivity.

Come on Mark, let's not be childish here and pretend that science operates and is funded in a perfectly rational and objective world. It aint.

Your refusal to discuss ongoing scientific research by two world renowned organisations is a perfect example of it.

ANd while we are at it, if the standard he has to reach is to recreate his point in a lab doesnt this apply to evolution too? How many demonstrations relating to that have been recreated in a lab? As understand it, none.

So it remains a theory.

And Einstein gets a free pass from you to prove despite no credentials but the vague "opinion of most of the scientific world" is a good enough standard by which to damn McIntosh without a fair hearing in whatever he may do or say in future. How consistent and open minded of you Mark.

And lastly I will not be "brainwashing" my kids. I will train them to think for themselves and questions everything, just as I did. I didnt grow up in a bible believing houshold, I can tell you. And I lived as an adult in an adult world without God.

I will not be at all surprised if they walk their own way and away from God in this process. I also have faith they will come back to him.

I dont believe in hothouse flowers; mistakes and experience are the only teachers in many things, I believe.

And by the way, you wont be brainwashing your kids with your beliefs about atheism will you?

In friendly dissussion...

yours
PB

PB

don't oplay at science if you dont understand it.

Nasa and Bae are manipulating not breaking the laws of physiscs. Either - you didnt understand that - or chose to disregard it. Which was it?

PB and Billy

3 things.

1. Look up Scientific Consensus.

2. Then look at your Creationst Champions.

3. Try to be objective.

It's one thing to advance a theory, it's another to prove it. So far as I am aware, nobody has disproven Einstein. If they do, they will win a Nobel prize in physics and a reputation as one of the greatest physicists in history. Managing to get a crackpot theory published in an otherwise respected magazine doesn't constitute proof, look at the garbage about the number of dead in Iraq recently printed in Lancet. Citing an article in such a publication is equally unconvincing proof. Seeing as the article was published over 50 years ago and hasn't gained much acceptance among physicists, the author and his supporters would seem to be having more than a few difficulties with it...if there are any still alive. Creationists on the other hand would seem to have bought it lock, stock, and barrel, just like the Catholic Church embraced the notion that the Earth was the center of the universe. The seeds of even the most fragile of intellectual plants will find soil foul enough to take root in (I think that's a metaphor.)

I really don't know or care what NASA and BAE are doing. So far as I know, they haven't proven or disproven anything new about gravity yet. I'm sure many organizations around the world are researching the most unlikely notions with little expectation of discovering something startling but they do it anyway on a very long shot with their "mad money." Remember the noteriety cold fusion got about fifteen years ago? What you read momentarily in the popular press and what emerges as accepted science can be two very different things. Can the force of gravity be overcome? Yes. Put a nail on a table and hold a magnet over it and you will see gravity overcome. Can anything be shielded from gravity? That's another matter altogether. If they claim any breakthroughs, I'll examine it then along with a lot of other people, not before. I don't know what connection any of this has with the formation of DNA in nature, I fail to see any relevance whatsoever.

It's not up to me to prove to anyone that McIntosh is a crackpot. He's demonstrated that all by himself to all of his collegues, it's up to him to redeem himself if he can. It seems to me that if a scientist wanted to prove that the initial formation of DNA in nature violated the second law of thermodynamics, the suitable place to do it would be in a professional journal or by presenting a paper to a meeting of one's professional collegues using well reasoned arguments and supporting experimental data, not by blurting out an unsupported assertion in the heat of an argument about creation on the radio. I for one will be most interested to watch him try to squirm out of the predicament he created for himself. I'm always curious to see how people handle probems I wouldn't begin to know how to solve myself.

If he ever does manage to prove it, no mass of prejudice against him will stifle his new knowledge, even without his friends in the creationist camp who will shout it from the rooftops to be sure. Are scientist free to prove what they know to be correct? They are certainly free to try to prove it to others, they have many available forums for it. As for funding their research, they are on their own. If they can't persuade someone else to pay for it, then they'd better have deep pockets. I suggested above that McIntosh just might get funding from wealthy American creationists who support him, who knows?

BTW, I don't have any children. If I did, I would not burden them with any notions of God or religion, I'd let them explore that on their own, just as my own parents spared me that burden in life. Seeing the results in others not so fortunate as I was, I consider it one of their gifts of great value to me. It seems to me there are already enough Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Bhuddist, and other religion's soldiers in the world marching off to fight someone elses wars by making it their own.

I am anonymous in #71 in case anyone hadn't figured that out already. This software allows you to post without filling in a name or Email address.

Mark

You appear to be willfully refusing to see the point.

It is irrelevant whether NASA or BAE come up withanything ref anti-gravity research.

The point is that you have gone on at length before about "inviolable" laws of physics in your attempts to demonise McIntosh.

Why did NASA and BAE throw ANY money at inviolable laws of physics if they knew the laws were inviolable?

The answer of course is that they dont really believe scientific laws are inviolable. That is why NASA has also been looking at "hyperspace" type travel which would also break laws regarding travelling faster than light through worm holes.

And therein lies the crunch. If TSLOT is not inviolable either that means McIntosh cannot simply be dismissed out of hand as a crackpot for questioning a theory in which he is a very highly qualified expert. (Miles above Dawkins and much moreagain above you).

That is really what you are fighting against here Mark; the question, "are scientific laws really invilable or not?"

PB

PS I saw an lenghty article recently in science magazine on antigravity.

fyi see;-

pb, get your facts straight. McIntosh did not say that the second law of thermodynamics is not inviolable, quite the opposite, he said that the initial formation of DNA in nature violated it and was therefore impossible without divine intervention. Had he said it was violable, then it would not follow that God must have created DNA, it could have been created as an example of one of those violations.

Surprisingly little is known about gravity even though it was discovered many hundreds of years ago. There are probably many new discoveries about it in the offing which will be counterintuitive yet not violate what we already think we know. Whatever is discovered, it will have to be consistant with testable observations including countless ones already seen and studied. Often when science expands its knowledge, what is previously known becomes an approximation of a greater truth. That's what happened to Newton's theories after Einstein got done with us. I have no idea if NASA and BAE are trying to disprove what we do know about gravity. When they have something substantive, then it will be appropriate to examine it. Idle speculation and conjecture by those not directly involved in it at this point seems to me a complete waste of time and effort. Perhaps too many scientists are paying too much attention to science fiction. I'm still grappling with their latest favorite concoction, string theory. The more convoluted their explanations, the more implausible they become.

In post 72 Mark wrote:

"I'm sure many organizations around the world are researching the most unlikely notions with little expectation of discovering something startling but they do it anyway on a very long shot with their "mad money." Remember the noteriety cold fusion got about fifteen years ago? What you read momentarily in the popular press and what emerges as accepted science can be two very different things."

Mark:

1) I studied the absorption of hydrogen and deuterium into palladium alloys under electrolysis. I knew Fleischmann - a brilliant guy, widely respected in his field. Cold fusion in theory is quite possible. In the palladium matrix hydrogen and deuterium atoms could fuse. I think the 'problem' with cold fusion is that the effect is so miniscule and the heat produced so small that experimentally it is next to impossible to reproduce the experiments. Cold fusion was oversold as a future energy source but the science was quite valid.

2) Don't let PB burn you out - I need you to be a foil against my own wild and wooly therories ;-)

PB: I have given McIntosh a very narrow hole to escape through in what I said in the post you keep quoting. However, McIntosh needs to explain to me (and others) in the Guardian if he believes that the formation of the nucleotide bond is counter to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I say it is not - he needs to agree with me (and Mark) in the Guardian or his case is doomed. I'm prepared to wait but not to discuss it any further.

Regards,
Michael

PB- You aren't properly understanding the point about inviolable physical laws. If there's an antigravity machine (in other words a machine that can 'turn off' the effects of gravity in that particular area or object) then it merely means that one property of the inviolable physical law of gravity is that it can be turned off in a particular area or object. It doesn't make the law any more inviolable; it simply means we have understood more about the inviolable law.

Trust me: this discussion is going nowhere. Nobody with any credibility anywhere is even hinting at the suggestion that the 2nd law is not what it seems or is somehow up for discussion. The point is that McIntosh is losing his own credibility because he's claiming it's got to be evolution or the 2nd law: because his agenda is ant-evolution, he claims it's evolution that can't be right. In actuality there is no conflict, for reasons that are well understood. Does this prove evolution? No. But lots of other things do, and the 2nd law is no argument against it. If you can provide a good argument against evolution, PB, be our guest. Until then.... scientific consensus is that we're here because of it. Best get used to it.

Michael;
Until the notion of cold fusion, it was universally believed that the only places where temperatures and pressures necessary to overcome the enormous electrostatic repulsion of atomic nucleii in order to weld them into larger nucleii could occur was at the center of the hottest stars and at the center of an exploding hydrogen bomb. The notion that this can occur at normal pressures and temperatures sounds implausible although I suppose not yet proven impossible. Determining which it is, is the stuff scientific research is about. It's also the stuff dreams of harnessing energy from contained thermonuclear fusion reactors being researched in France are about. (I'm glad it's not a lot closer to me, an out of control experiment could leave a huge crater where much of south central Europe is now.)

Whether at cold temperatures or in the hottest most pressurized places in the universe, consider that the reduction in entropy of the constituents of heavier atoms made from ligher ones is so great as to make the reduction of entropy of the constituents forming DNA by chemical bonding insignificant by comparison. More food for thought as you munch on Christmas dinner.

Apparently the debate about the 2nd Law continues in the Guardian

Dawkins writes: "A letter supporting him (McIntosh) has now appeared from Professor Stuart Burgess, Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University."

Maureen: You had it nailed back in post 11 when you wrote:

"Tell William to contact Stuart Burgess, BSc (Eng) PhD CEng FIMechE FRAeS professor of design and nature at Bristol University, Derek Linkens, emeritus professor at the department of automatic control and systems engineering at Sheffield University and Dr Tim Wells, a senior lecturer in the school of biosciences at Cardiff University."

I guess Linkens and Wells will be next to chime in.

Regards,
Michael

Increasing Disorder in the Scientific Ranks?

The Guardian letters re McIntosh.

Professor Burgess writes:

"Andy McIntosh stands shoulder to shoulder with great scientists such as Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Kelvin. Professor McIntosh is in good company."

Not much light cast on the issue!

Regards,
Michael

Professor Stuart Burgess
Department of mechanical engineering, Bristol University

Loony birds of a feather, flock together. Looks like science in British universities is starting to break down and give way to voodoo theology. Isn't there still a flat earth society based in London?

DAWKINS ON ALIENS

I wish the creationists here would stop talking about Dawkins's comments on "aliens". I agree with Dawkins on this. With a universe as vast as ours, it has to be at least possible that some other intelligent live forms have evolved somewhere else. What's silly about that speculation? Dawkins isn't arguing that they have been found or that the evidence is there to conclude that they exist. He's merely saying, this is a real possibility - in fact, it's more likely than not given the general character of evolution and the size of the universe.

These beings, if they exist, would be material, naturally evolved beings. They are not supernatural beings, or beings with supernatual abilities. You can't argue that Dawkins has given the game away by being open to this possibilty. You can't argue: Well, if Dawkins says aliens are possible, why aren't gods or angels possible too. One doesn't follow from the other.

Marcus- I agree. And remember that there are no scientists who believe in evolution trying to argue that the gaps in their theory (that is, the parts they don't understand yet) are somehow due to the intervention of aliens, which is what creationists' entire proposal does with the idea of God.

American Universities have many distinguished academic biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, molecular and cell biologists, and other scientists. Their doctorates coming from some of America’s most prestigious universities who hold professorships in universities across the USA, including a Nobel nominee being the third most cited chemist in the world, who are sceptical of the evolutionary theory so it isn’t just here in the UK that the academic scientist is questioning the evolutionary hypothesis based on scientific knowledge, the atheistic evolutionist always tries to suppress, harass and professionally persecute the creationist academic as has happened in the case of Prof. Andy McIntosh.

In the beginning, God created.

I sympathize with you Billy. It's hard to think of God sitting around waiting for 12 1/2 billion years between the time he created the universe and the time man evolved as the God believing evolutionists would have it, wondering all that time if Adam and Eve were going to take a bite out of that apple or not. The suspense would have killed him (except he couldn't die now could he.) Imagine all that time and nothing to do but hang out watching the galaxies spinnning around all day just waiting. Hell, a whole week was bad enough. Not even a TV re-run to watch or a good book to read since they hadn't been invented yet.

Mark, Marcus [welcome back], John

Mark - ref post 75

You got me wrong there, I was quoting you as talking about inviolable laws, not McIntosh.

Marcus - yes I'ms sure it must be annoying if one of your heroes keeps talking about aliens, but still he does. The only point I am making about it is that he is not applying his scientific standard consistently to everything he is holding forth on. How can he say he believes in aliens but not in God when he says he has no proof of either; that is double standards.

John you make some good points in post 77, but I would respond that science is always moving forward and perhaps we dont know everything there is to know about TSLOT and DNA. Anyway my point was really to Mark who continually spoke of inviolable laws of science. I was asking how inviolable they actually are.

And I have to remind you again that McIntosh is way over all your heads in this field and you have not yet heard him out on what he was trying to explain; He hasnt had a fair trial but you guys have him guilty already.
Obviously too many intellectual vested interests.

Mark - the NASA and BAE research is not speculation - see the hyperlinks in post 74.

Lastly John, you ask for evidence about creationism, I cant give anything definitive, but personally my favaourite is the location described in Genesis for Eden, using refs to Assyria, Ethiopia, the Tigris and the Euprhates. It seems this would place it in the general area of modern Iraq, a view held by many in that country.

This concurs with secular history about a key location of the first human civilsation. And as recorded history only began around 6000bc, secular history places the emergence of man at almost the same time and place as creationists do.

Considering the billions of years and locales available all over the globe to evolutionists for their homo sapiens to appear, it would have to be right where the creationists expected him. Big coincidence?

Any mathmeticians out there care to work out the chances of that?

PB

Everybody out!

We have to move again - this time to the DEFENDING Andy McIntosh blog.

There has been some sort of a defence....

This is getting tiresome!

Last to leave close the door here.

Can someone give me a lift?

Maureen

(Sounds of running feet, engines starting, tires squealing.....)

One link I want to post here for the YEC
defending the claim that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics refutes evolution. Do you recognise the site from one of your earlier posts?
.
quote
post 38.
At 01:26 AM on 23 Dec 2006,
pb wrote:
"Ok, here is a science bit to add to the discussion, here are some writings on The second law of thermodynamics from scientists with a creationist viewpoint;-


.
On another page at answersingenesis titled:
"Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"

@84. At 05:48 PM on 26 Dec 2006,
Billy wrote:

"American Universities have many distinguished academic biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, molecular and cell biologists, and other scientists. Their doctorates coming from some of America’s most prestigious universities who hold professorships in universities across the USA, including a Nobel nominee being the third most cited chemist in the world, who are sceptical of the evolutionary theory....."

Another old chestnut that the YECS have continually brought up. Could we have some journal references to creationist science articles, authored by these scientists, and published in reputable scientific journals, perhaps? The Nobel nominee chemist for instance? The creation science this chemist is nominated for? Which year?
Also, what is the ratio of scientists who question evolutonary principles to those who accept evolution based on the vast majority of supporting research findings?

Questioner

An interesting claim in the last Sunday Times ref Dawkins was that most theologians believe in evolution.

This of course leaves Dawkins rather vulnerable when he suggests that you cannot believe in God and theory of evolution...

If you look again at the AIG website and look under the subsection creation scientists there is an article about citations for creationists.

Incidentally, have you ever seen a half evolved feather?

PB

Questioner

I have been having a browse through the self selecting list of creation science drs and professors on answers in genesis website.

hundreds upon hundreds of phds and professors in every conceivable field, including genetics, biology, palentology, geology.

Also many founding fathers of modern science who also believed in a creator are listed.

...Fascinating to the layman like me;-

A French dr in genetics says that evolution is a religious faith added on to science. He says that if evoltuion is taken away from his work then the real science is left;-

The general amount of answers to questions on every conceivable topic ref evolution is no less intriguing on this website;-

PB

And now I will show you the truth, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

The evolutionist would have the unsuspecting believe that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is constant with evolution the opposite is in fact the case, evolution is contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, evolution calls for constant violations of the 2nd law to be believable.

Where as the Creation of Genesis is constant with and supported by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you build your evolutionary hypothesis upon that which constantly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics you have no hope but the failure of humiliation.

The evolutionist would have us believe that we have moved from the bedlam of chaos of the organic soup to the complexity of order, but the opposite is in fact the case everything is running down, going from order to disorder, life to death, complexity to decay, hot to cold, but the evolutionist would has us believe that everything evolved, going from self producing amino acids to protein to the first living cell which built up upon other living cells which kept on building until complexity and order was fashioned in the shape of monkeys and apes which eventually evolved into brain and heart surgeons and professors of zoology this is not science but science fiction of the most unbelievable type.

The reality is that everything is going from the life of sin to death, the 2nd law this is a constant fact undisputable.

Evolution is a naked exposed body it can’t find it clothes the naked body of evolution is there for everyone to see if they would only open their eyes, the Emperor has no clothes and is suffering from hypothermia induced delusion.

King David knew his 2nd law, why? Because he was inspired by the God of creation, he says, “Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,

Pb, I beg you, stop mentioning that list of Creationists with PhDs! Can we all accept that some Creationists have PhDs? Some are even lecturing in proper universities (like Leeds and Bristol). But the fact that some academics with PhDs believe in creationism does not make creationism a true account of the world. Some PhDs are atheists. That doesn't prove the truth of atheism either. Let's all agree on this simple point, yeah?

Billy, were I you, I'd write to my MP and have everyone I know do the same. When the second law of thermodynamics comes up for passage, they must all know to vote it down. I'll start a comparable campaign here in the US by writing my Congressman and Senator. It can work if we all pull together on this, yes it can work. Once the Indiana State Legislature passed a law which decreed that the value of pi would forever after be exactly three. And do you know that when it went into effect, every automobile tire in Indiana suddenly went flat.

Profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called.

Is this the best you have to offer Mark it looks like you have fallen into Stanley Miller’s claptrap?

The tyre was only flat at the bottom.

Daniel K Lee

ref post 93

...not a chance!

Two things I mentioned on my posting I had not noticed before and are therefor new;-

The list also includes a significant historical section of founding fathers of modern science, the shoulders of whom many of the current evolutionist scientists are standing on.

The second reason is that I was not aware there were also professors on the modern list. It is all phd - and above.

The agenda here is to marginalise and caricature creationists and this is the perfect antidote.

If you dont like this channel then perhaps turn it over.

And as I dont have much science this adds some balance to this debate, I think. I am simply a sceptic of evolution.

Incidentally, perhaps you can tell me why nobody has ever found a half evolved feather?

;-)

PB

pb
"And as I don't have much science, this adds balance to the debate."

I could hardly agree more or have said it better myself. It is refreshing and rare that the other side frankly admits its ignorance of unprejudiced systematic observations and studies of the natural world we call science. Most on your side believe themselves to be exactly the opposite.

Billy;
let he who is without sin be the first to get stoned. Stanley Miller? How disappointing, I was trying for Stanley Laurel.

Mark

why thank you.

PB

GW / Mark

ref post 63

Why could the current understanding of TSLOT not be altered or improved in the way GW says the law of gravity could be?

PB

As with all laws of science which are not really laws, just explanations consistant with what is observed, if an inconsistancy occurs which cannot be explained by the current understanding, it would have to be modified which could mean expanded upon, or if that were not possible, it would have to be abandoned altogether and all of the observations would become unexplained until a newer better idea which is consistant comes along. That's how science works, it looks for the best consistant explanations possible and uses them until it can't. Then it looks for a new one which does. If more than one explanation works, the truth remains in doubt until one or more of them is proven inconsistant with new observations until only one is left. This is how the rational thinking process of science works. Andrew McIntosh's assertion that the spontaneous formation of DNA in nature is inconsistant with the second law of thermodynamics is flawed because he doesn't truely understand one or the other or both, or becuase he deliberately lied. Whichever it is, as time elapses and he neither offers a further satisfactory explanation of himself nor does Leeds University take action, its credibility as a respected institution of higher learning comes into serious doubt.

Now that the 2nd law has had time to work on the Turkey this Christmas

 maybe a few words are in order on thermodynamics and living machinery which I spoke about on the Sunday Sequence program on Dec 10th. I don't usually enter lots of blog discussions, but I see that you are having quite a debate here, so perhaps a word is in order from me. I do not on principle enter into any ad hominem attacks or respond to such against me. They do not add weight to any arguments and it is the science which is important. The reason of course why this subject of origins will not go away is that there is a scientific case, whether Dawkins likes it or not, which is a challenge to the neo-Darwinian attempts to explain life in terms of common descent. It is a straightforward case of testable science versus the modern evolutionary ‘just-so’ story telling. Scientists like myself who believe in Creation have no problem with natural selection. It is simply the natural equivalent of artificial selection. But natural selection has no power to create new functional structures. It does not increase information and does not build machines which are not there already (either fully developed or in embryonic form). The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines. This was the point at issue in the programme of Dec 10th. Intelligence is needed. And this thesis is falsifiable. If anyone was to take an existing chemical machine and produce a different chemical machine which was not there before (either as a sub part or latently coded for in the DNA template) then this argument would have been falsified. No one has ever achieved this. I suggest that all the listeners read again if they have not done already, the excellent book by Wilder Smith called 'The natural sciences know nothing of evolution'. It is available on Amazon.

As I receive much correspondence, I will not be able to enter into extended discussions either here or privately.

Professor A.C. McIntosh

Truth in Science

Professor McIntosh is probably wasting his time explaining that adding energy does not add information. From the nature of the previous blogs insult and not information is the method of discussion by evolutionists, and as Prof McIntosh correctly argues adding heat does not increase information.

I am interested however as to why atheistic scientists spend their time focussed so intensly on proving that life, death, joy and tears, ideas and morals have no meaning.

In a letter to Professor Dawkins I asked,
'I am trying to understand why, if we are an accidental arrangement of atoms, it really matters what we believe, and therefore why you consider it worth making such a fuss?'

If I were an atheist I would at least observe one biblical text, 'Let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.' I would not waste one moment of my short and futile consciousness arguing about things that, if I am right, do not matter at all.

In that sense surely it is the atheist that is irrational.

David Harding

Why do evolutionists like R Dawkins and others get so upset about creationist views being aired, if they are so sure of their own position? Is this not irrational, or do they realise, but wont publicly admit that there is no hard scientific evidence for evolution?

by the way Mark

are you yanking my chain that bugs developing resistence to medicine is evolution? is that a flyer?

Even Dawkins said you couldnt observe evolution, but that is a direct contradiction of what he says.

Anyway, evolution happens over millions of years, not decades....

I am watching you for an answer now and will check it up with someone who knows the difference between a microbe and microcomputer...;-)

PB

At 07:26 AM on 30 Dec 2006,
A C McIntosh wrote:
“It is a straightforward case of testable science versus the modern evolutionary ‘just-so’ story telling.”
“But natural selection has no power to create new functional structures. It does not increase information and does not build machines which are not there already (either fully developed or in embryonic form).
The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines.......”

I find this "clarification" extremely vague!
Shouldn't any discussion of the relationship between TSLOD and biological systems, reference chloroplasts and the photosynthetic ability of these plant organelles, which harnesses sunlight energy resulting in the splitting of a water molecule, be at least mentioned. I have heard Professor McIntosh never seems to mention this addition of solar energy into this biological system. To my mind this would be a must when discussing any relationship between TSLOD and biological systems.???

“If anyone was to take an existing chemical machine and produce a different chemical machine which was not there before (either as a sub part or latently coded for in the DNA template) then this argument would have been falsified.”

How about a gradual build up in complexity, and therefore in the properties of simple organic molecules, adding functionality to organic molecules? This would result in more complex biochemical reations I assume.

Stephen Gilkinson wrote
"Why do evolutionists like R Dawkins and others get so upset about creationist views being aired, if they are so sure of their own position? Is this not irrational, or do they realise, but wont publicly admit that there is no hard scientific evidence for evolution?"

The reason why scientists get upset, is that they are interested in finding out how nature works. Attempts to enforce religious dogma are an obstacle to the progress of science. Sometimes religion and science (or in a more general sense: religion and rationality) are just mutually exclusive. No great news there. Scientists are generally not the most militant bunch. But driven by attempts to enforce absurdity on them, it is harly surprising that some speak out, loudly. Evolutionary scientists have every reason to do so. And it is logical that scientists in other fields would support evolutionists. If evolution is allowed to be killed off by Creationists/ID adherents, then what area of science will be next? Will those areas of science that work on the origins of the universe be allowed to continue? Suppose people working on string theory would come close to a practical formulation that answers questions on all length and time scales, thereby showing that you don't need any God or multitude of Gods to explaion things. Would that then be chopped?
So evolutionists and scientists in general have every reason to be vocal in their atheism. And not just them. Science is a precursor to technology, without which the current world population could not be maintained. So everyone should be worried about religion.

* 104.
* At 01:43 PM on 30 Dec 2006,
* pb wrote:

"Anyway, evolution happens over millions of years, not decades...."

Depends on whether you are referring to evolution resulting in speciation or the evolution of physiological biochemical systems. Insect resistance to insecticides happens over very short periods of time. The time period over which these changes occur depends on the generational period of the organism in question.

You do not seem to have much awareness of the evolutionary principles which you want to refute. Best to familiarise yourself with speciation concepts first if you are going to argue against them.

* 104.
* At 01:43 PM on 30 Dec 2006,
* pb wrote:

by the way Mark
"are you yanking my chain that bugs developing resistence to medicine is evolution? is that a flyer?"

Not sure about Mark, but I am.
Ask away!

David Harding #102, Andrew McIntosh is wasting his time as far as I am concerned obfuscating the real issue which is his contention that the spontaneous formation of DNA in nature from biologically inert matter violates teh second law of thermodynamics. His refusal to defend his position on technical grounds and to debate it openly with his peers demonstrates that he does not have the courage of his convictions because he knows he is wrong and he is not going to be arguing with a sympathetic and technically ignorant audience as he usually does.

A.C. McIntosh,#101; I put it directly to you sir, in the formation of which chemical bond of a DNA molecule in nature from inert matter is the second law of thermodynamics violated?

Pb #104; In the hostile environment to bacteris antibiotics creates, those variants of a bacteria which are most resistant to the medication may survive and become the dominant form. This process occurs from one generation of bacteria to another and happens with rapidity owing to the relatively short time it takes bacteria to reproduce. This is how superinfections resistant to all known medications emerge. It's also the way insects evolve to become resistant to pesticides. This is why it is important to use these chemicals only when necessary and to use them with the most complete effectiveness possible. This is also why your doctor tells you to use all of the medication in the bottle he prescribes for you even though you may feel better before the course of treatment is complete. PB, please take some courses, I can't keep answering your questions here.

Andy McIntosh is wriggling but he can't get off the hook. He has asserted in the "Sunday Sequence" programme that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In his ±«Óătv blog entry he tries to set up an escape route by making a smoke-screen distinction between selection of existing structures, and creation of new structures. He tries to drop his claim of 2nd law violation for evolution by natural selection, in those cases where selection is choosing amongst existing structures, but maintain the claim in respect of creation of new structures.

Does he not realise that every mutation is the creation of a new structure? Does he not realise that every duplication of a DNA section is the creation of a new structure? Does he not realise that every new combination of genes is a new structure? Do these violate the 2nd law? Which of these mechanisms for creating new structures violates the 2nd law, 'Professor' McIntosh?

All it takes is enough natural variation due to mutations, duplications, and recombinations, for long enough, with natural selection, and new, more complex creatures are the end result.

McIntosh also claims that a book called "The natural sciences know nothing of evolution" is available on Amazon. I wonder how much McIntosh checks his facts before rushing into print. The book is listed, but NOT available, in Amazon UK. It has no sales rank, so perhaps has never been sold by Amazon UK. It has no reviews, despite being listed by Amazon UK as published in 1992. Another book with the same author and title is available from Amazon USA, but it has just one review (by a sycophant who says it presents the same ideas as his own, unpublished, manuscript and is therefore great). The USA book is listed as published in 1981, so neither version of this book will be informed by the tremendous advances in biochemistry in the last decade or so (and some recent impressive discoveries that reduce gaps in the fossil record). Is this obscure book the best McIntosh can recommend? And why does he say, of such an obscure book, unavailable from Amazon UK, that ±«Óătv blog readers should "read AGAIN if they have not done already"? Another matter on which he is out of touch with reality?

Andrew McIntosh has asserted more than that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, he has asserted that the formation of a specific molecule DNA vital to life, cannot possibly be created without divine intervention in the universe because it would be in violation of natural law, namely TSLOT.

A.C. McIntosh, I put it to you again sir, specifically how does formation of DNA from biologically inert matter violate the second law of thermodynamics? Which atom forming which chemical bond with which other atom is not possible without divine intervention?????

Homo Sapien / Microbiologist

I regularly state on this blog I have no science, fyi.

I'm not sure exactly what point you are both making, are you both saying that increasing resistence from viruses to medical treatments IS evolution?

If so how does that square with Dawkins's view that you cant observe evolution....?

....and why has nobody ever found a half evolved feather??????????

I have asked this about a dozen times now and nobody seems brave enough to grasp the nettle.... come on all you scientists ...step up to the mark!

PB

Folks:

Might I suggest that we all terminate the discussion at this point on this thread and move to continue it under the "Andy McIntosh Replies" thread.

That way we can all work off the same page in this discussion.

Let this be the last posting here.

See you on the other blog.

Regards,
Michael

One must be careful when pontificating on matters of science, that one has the requisite scientific knowledge and understanding to speak authoritatively on the subject. This blog contains numerous posts hammering a professor of thermodynamics for comments he made on the second law of thermodynamics, though this seems to have degenerated more into a general swipe at the same professor for his views on origins. I question whether those criticising Professor McIntosh are experts in thermodynamics. On the contrary, I suspect that few, if any of those commenting have a level of knowledge on the subject equal to that of Prof McIntosh. True, you don’t need to be a specialist to comment constructively, and I'm not a specialist in this area of science. But then, I don’t presume to mock one who is, at best using my own over-simplified explanations, and at worst, regurgitating the arguments of Dawkins et al, who evince a religious zeal in their promotion of atheism, which suggests they have moved away from the realm of true science.

Given the lack of ANY empirical evidence for macroevolution (*still* only a theory), I think a good dose of humility in the pro-Dawkins camp would be appropriate, for, there is much for which Dawkins and his supporters have no satisfactory explanation.

REF:POST 110

One of the necessary mechanisms of the evolutionary argument or theory is mutations, a small accidental change in the biochemical structure of the gene, but this basis forms an inadequate argument, mutations do cause physical and physiological changes in organisms which are usually harmful and lethal almost always resulting in destructive regression not evolution, good to bad, resulting in physical and mental handicap this is hardly the foundation of a evolutionary argument, such change is hardly a vital process to assist change in organisms causing advantageous complex development.

If positive mutations did happen how would they become established in the population based on rare occurrence?

Distorted DNA information (mutations) is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, going from a normal state to a state of distortion, going from good to bad, from complexity to chaos.

The evolutionist always fails to look at the big picture the whole picture; evolutionists violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics there information becomes twisted and distorted from the truth,going from good to bad information.

Can someone tell me an instance where the second law really could be in danger of being violated? How would the the violation be identified? Would it take the entire universe and perhaps all of the unknown dimensions to figure out if there were a possible violation or not?

So let me get this right, nothing can violate the second law, all events that happen by chance occurance will eventually just appear to be temporary local space-time violations.

However, taken all together, everything must get scrambled together, but in our little corner of the world order is allowable for as long of a temporary period as is needed to make unguided chance evolution credible or even possible.

Oh, I see it now, It's perfectly clear to me. Time and chance are on evolutions side even though they are not on the same side as the second law. These two just must not be on speaking terms with each other.

But then how can one claim that the second law has any merit at all if apparent observations can't disprove it wrong.

Isn't that called unfalsefiable science?

I applaud A. Mc's stand against R.D.because he kept to the scientific debate, which is the only sensible meeting point. As in the past R.D. has resorted to rant and personal invective. Many more scientists are currently moving away from ev., as it is a belief system devoid of provable science. The 2nd Law is only one of many disproving ev., despite some valiant efforts to gainsay this.
Why do evolutionists nearly always refuse real debate with creationists?
Are they really so sure of their ground?

It seems a bit rich that pro-evolutionists are accusing ID-ers in general and Prof McIntosh in particular of being unwilling to debate isses of thermodynsmics and information. Most pro-evos (including RD) positively avoid debate and seem to prefer straw men and ad hominem arguments to a rational debate and discussion of the issues. Come on RD and friends name the time and place.

Well I can hardly stop laughing at Mr Waltons comments! talk about the pot calling the kettle black! ID got is butt kicked at Dover. RD has stated that he "does not want to give the yapping terriers of ignorance" the oxygen of publicity.

Anyway if you want a debate go to

The place has been mentioned and any time you want!

In reply to Peter Klaver (post 106); I find your assertions here very puzzling indeed. How exactly does having a scientific debate about evolution, based on the facts, undermine science? Surely it is the unquestioning acceptance of evolution, despite its flaws, that is the more damaging. As for the need for good scientists to progress technology, I'd put it to you that many of today's most economically significant technologies, such as the fields of electronics, optics, and wireless communications, spring from the work of scientists such as Faraday, Maxwell and Kelvin who were familiar with Darwin's theory but nevertheless rejected it - on scientific grounds. We certainly do need to train our students in rigorous scientific thinking, and it is for precisely this reason that banning debate on such a key subject seems like the last thing we should be doing.

Ordinarily, I don't use my doctoral title in a blog, but the two previous creationist commentators have, so I thought I would. Just to point out how ludicrous their display of academia is. Creationist academics regularly use their qualifications in unrelated fields to pull the wool over the eys of ordinary church members. He has a PhD, so he must know what he's talking about. As RD would say: an argument ad doctorem.

Also guys, Dawkins HAS debated a creationst. Live on air. He named the time and place already and the guy was Andy McIntosh. Answers in genesis. Trust in Science. Professor. He's one of your big guns. And he misfired every time he spoke on a 2-hour radio debate on Sunday Sequence.

My Pa was a cowboy and I'm going to presume to speak for him. Dawkins is such a pompous brayer that he doesn't deserve a cultured response. Here's what Pa would say to Mr. Dawkins, "If I had a dog that dumb, I'd shave his behind and lead him around backwards."
Joe Taylor, from Texas, where even dogs and burros know they didn't evolve from apes.

I'll explain why evolution is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Part 1

Energy is an abstract idea. The basic scientific definition of 'Energy' is: "The ability to do work".

We humans developed this idea to enable us quantify the amount of work that material things and processes will allow us to perform, and to measure the efficiency of the work being done.

The impetus for developing this idea of 'Heat' to describe one form of energy came in the 19th century due to the ever increasing use of steam engines. Steam was dependent on fossil fuels which had to be mined and transported. The use of steam engines cost money. Thus it became increasingly important to corporate profits to replace inefficient steam engines with newer more efficient, more productive steam engines. This was simply a case of invention not driven by science, but science driven by invention. The new science was named 'Thermodynamics'. As one commentator noted, "Science owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to Science.” [Chemical Biologist L. J. Henderson (1917)]

Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a system boundary to another system or surroundings that is/are at a lower temperature/s.

Accordingly, by this definition, isolated system containing cold water, and isolated system containing molten lava, share a common property, neither have any heat. That is not to say that the molten lava or the cold water do not contain energy. Both contain kinetic energy in the form of moving molecules, Molecules of the molten lava of course would be moving much more rapidly. No work can be done by a system in equilibrium. These molecules also have other forms of energy such as the potential energy of their mass (E=MC^2) and potential energy from being in a gravitational field.

If the isolated molten lava system should come in contact with the isolated cool water system (thereby becoming thermally connected) heat is transferred from the Lava to the water and this heat transfer is available energy for performing work, at least until the system's equilibrium in temperature is established. At the point of equilibrium we no longer have heat transfer. The kinetic energy of the Lava due to molecular movement will have decreased and the kinetic energy of the water molecules will have increased such that the total heat energy of the new isolated lava/water system will be identical. If this isolated system remains isolated (i.e. thermally disconnected from any other system) it would remain in this ‘heat death’, even though it still may have a good deal of molecular movement.

In the real world, all real processes are irreversible, entropy rules, and molecular movement will approach minimal temperature equilibrium. If something moves, entropy increases. This is the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

Since the 19th century, scientists have disocvered the equivalency of all types of energy, thus the 2nd law applies to all types of energy.

The physical property of entropy is defined in terms of probability. From this point of view the net increase in entropy that occurs during an irreversible process can be associated with a change of state of the molecules en masse from that of a less probable state to that of a more probable state. The more probable state of a cup of hot coffee will be to cool to the same temperature as its surroundings.

Part 2.

Though in experiment after experiment the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics held sway, not just for closed systems, but for open systems too, provided energy transfers occurred within well defined boundaries. The 2nd law became very valuable for analyzing the amount of work and efficiency systems utilizing energy can perform even though no one knew exactly why the 2nd law held. However, a physicist in the 1930's (whose name I can't remember) discovered that the 2nd Law is simply the result of a greater principle of Physics: "Massive amounts of Molecules, atoms, atomic particles -tend over time to flow (i.e. rearrange themselves) from states (i.e. configurations, energy) of low probability to states of ever increasing probability.

Physicist Richard P. Feynman explained entropy as the flow from order to disorder, from states of lower probability to states of higher probability. He gives the example of filming two gases, a gas of white particles and a gas of black particles, in a container separated by a boundary. He calls this state highly ordered as all the black particles in the container are all on one side and all the white particles are on the other side. When the boundary is removed, the particles will mix together, order decreases and disorder increases. This is considered an irreversible process. But Feynman has an objection, if you play the film backwards, the particles separate and all the white particles go to one side of the container and the black particles go to the other side of the container, and not only that, but careful observation shows that no physical laws are broken, all the particles are moving at just the right speed and are forming just the right collisions at just the right angle for this to happen. Thus the process is reversible and, Feynman adds, so are all the fundamental laws of physics. So what is it that makes the natural mixing of the two gases irreversible? Feynman's answer is `probability'. The number of states (particle distribution) of disorder far outnumbers the number of states of order, so much so that it becomes unrealistic to expect reversibility. The gases are moving from states of very low probability to states of much higher probability, from order to disorder. Feynman considered it a mystery how the universe as a whole began in such a low state of entropy.

A 2nd example from Feynman: When a large vase falls and smashes onto a stone floor, it would produce little tea cups if the probability of the molecules arranging themselves into cups was much higher as compared to other possible configurations. But the laws of physics being what they are, the vase breaks up into many pieces of varying sizes and shapes that will be meaningless in terms of performing a useful function for human beings. Upon shattering, The molecules of the vase have "naturally" undergone a change in arrangement from a specified complexity that performed a function for humans to a much more probable disordered chaotic functionless arrangements.

Science has demonstrated that the molecular arrangements needed for life, both abiogenesis, and for Darwinian Evolution (the Hypothesis of common ancestry). Evolution Theory posits an initial progenote that had initial simplicity in the biological world and that through repetitive reproduction there has been a steady upward movement in biological complexity by means of mutations to the genome. The flow of molecules in both situations is from very high probability states (the arrngement of potential bio-molecules before life on earth) to extremely low probability states (no life to amoeba to man). This is a real violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Physicists have acknowledged this and have quietly suggested that Evolution is in need of a new physical law, one that would provide molecules an ordering principle.

The 2nd law is a central question for those who hold to spontaneous generation:

Nobel Laureate, Biologists Christian De Duve, in his 1995 book `Vital
Dust', states that any and all scenarios for spontaneous generation
must be certain that each step of the process flows from lower
probability molecular states to higher probability molecular states so as not to violate the 2nd law.

According to the information theoretician & evolutionist Yockey:
" An uninvited guest(Schroedinger, 1955; du Nouy,1947; Prigogine,and Nicolis 1971; Gatlin, 1972; Prigogine, Nicolis & Babyloyantz, 1972; Volkenstein, 1973) at any discussion of the origin of life and evolution from the materialistic reductionist point of view, is the role of thermodynamic entropy and the 'heat death' of the universe which it predicts. The universe should in every way go from states which are less probable to those which are more probable. Therefore,
hot bodies cool; energy is conserved but becomes less available to do work. According to this uninvited guest, the spontaneous generation of life is highly improbable ( Prigogine, Nicolis, and Babyloyantz, 1972). The uninvited guest will not go away nor will the biological evidence to the contrary notwithstanding."

With regard to confirmation of the extremely low probability molecular arrangements required for the Evolution of life:

Distinguished scientist and expert on origins, A.E. Wilder-Smith stated: "The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms or the molecules"

The Theory of Evolution demands that since the very earliest life, new classes of proteins must have come into existence and new instructions must be continually encoded into DNA to produce novel physical features, organs, traits that we know have come to exist.

Hubert Yockey, in 1978, did theoretical calculations to determine the information content of cytochrome C while allowing for ambiguity. Mr. Yockey based his calculations on phylogenetic sequence comparisons. His calculations revealed that an undirected search arriving at this a protein has a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10^65.

Such a probability is certainly very damaging to any possibility of macro-evolution being at all plausible. To counter this, a scientist with excellent mathematical skills, Mr. Ken Dill, using different assumptions than Yockey, arrived at a 1 in 10^15 probability of finding via an undirected search a protein molecule the size of cytochrome C, which under other reasonable assumptions may occur as frequently as once every 32 years.

Yockey's analysis had more support from actual studies on varying amino acids in cytochrome C, but this was inconclusive and Dill's analysis may be correct. Hard experimental data was needed to resolve this issue and Sauer et. al. provided the solid empirical data which turned out to confirm Yockey's analysis.

Robert T. Sauer and his M.I.T. team of biologists undertook the scientific research of substituting the 20 different types amino acids in two different proteins. upon each substitution, the protein sequence was reinserted into bacteria to be tested for function. They discovered that in some locations of the protein's amino acid chains, up to 15 different amino acids may be substituted while at other locations their was a tolerance of only a few, and yet other locations could not tolerate even one substitution of any other amino acid. One of the proteins they chose was the 92 residue lambda repressor.

Sauer et. al. calculated that:

"... there should be about 10^57 different allowed sequences for
the entire 92 residue domain. ... the calculation does indicate in
a qualitative way the tremendous degeneracy in the information
that does specifies a particular protein fold. Nevertheless, the
estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the lambda
repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in
10^63, of the total possible 92 residue sequences."

Sauer et. al. go on to highlight that Yockey (1978) had obtained a similar result for cytochrome C.

Biologists R.T. Sauer, James U Bowie, John F.R. Olson, and Wendall A.
Lim, 1989, 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science's USA 86,
2152-2156. and 1990, March 16, Science, 247; and, Olson and R.T.
Sauer, 'Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics', 7:306 - 316, 1990.

This hard science is a striking confirmation of Yockey's theoretical work

In summing up, I quote the accurate analysis of creationtionary scientists Professors Percival Davis (Ph.D., Life Sciences) and Dean Kenyon (Ph.D. Biology):

"These calculations [Sauer's] showed that the odds of finding a folded protein are about 1/10^65, a striking confirmation of Yockey's calculations. It means all proteins that have been examined to date, either experimentally or by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences. There are in fact no "stepping stones"! In other words, an undirected search will not hit upon any of the end protein sequences sought in the time allowed by the age of the universe. The various functional classes of proteins apparently are so isolated, they could not have risen from one another."

(Of Pandas and People, 1993 edition).

Part 2

In the 1930's, a physicist discovered the principle of physics as to why the 2nd law holds true.

The 2nd Law is simply the result of a greater principle of Physics: "Massive amounts of Molecules, atoms, atomic particles, etc., tend over time to flow (i.e. rearrange themselves) from states (i.e. arrangements) of lower probability to states of ever increasing probability.

Physicist Richard P. Feynman explained entropy as the flow from order to disorder, from states of lower probability to states of higher probability. He gives the example of filming two gases, a gas of white particles and a gas of black particles, in a container separated by a boundary. He calls this state highly ordered as all the black particles in the container are all on one side and all the white particles are on the other side. When the boundary is removed, the particles will mix together, order decreases and disorder increases. This is considered an irreversible process. But Feynman has an objection, if you play the film backwards, the particles separate and all the white particles go to one side of the container and the black particles go to the other side of the container, and not only that, but careful observation shows that no physical laws are broken, all the particles are moving at just the right speed and are forming just the right collisions at just the right angle for this to happen. Thus the process is reversible and, Feynman adds, so are all the fundamental laws of physics. So what is it that makes the natural mixing of the two gases irreversible? Feynman's answer is `probability'. The number of states (particle distribution) of disorder far outnumbers the number of states of order, so much so that it becomes unrealistic to expect reversibility. The gases are moving from states of very low probability to states of much higher probability, from order to disorder. Feynman considered it a mystery how the universe as a whole began (i.e. Big Bang) in such a low state of entropy.

If there were many more `orderly' states that molecules can arrange themselves in than there were `disorderly' states for the molecules to arrange themselves into, then the natural flow would be from states of disorder to states of order. If this were true and we also define "Orderly" as the molecular states needed for the origin of life and for the origin species, then Evolution could be possible.

For example, when a large vase falls and smashes onto a stone floor, it would produce little tea cups if the probability of the molecules arranging themselves into cups was much higher as compared to any other possible configurations. But the laws of physics being what they are, the vase breaks up into many pieces of varying sizes and shapes that will be meaningless in terms of performing a useful function for human beings. The molecules of the vase have "naturally" undergone a change in arrangement from a specified complexity that performed a function for humans to a more probable disordered chaotic functionless arrangement.

Physicists are aware that Evolution is in need of a new natural law. A 1993 Time Magazine issue covered the astonishing explosion of diverse biological life that occured in a very narrow range of the Cambrian period. Nearly every known Phyla of life appeared at that time. Physicists have argued that Evolution will never make sense unless some new physical Law is discovered that will provide an ordering principle that can account for the natural organization of molecules into arrangements required for life.

e.g.

Physicist Henrik Lipson, an agnostic, examined evolution theory from the point of view of the 2nd law. His conclsuions was published in a science peer reviewed journal. The following are excepts of that aricle.

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of it's ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think they do. ... To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."

"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

(Physics Bulletin, "A Physicist Looks at evolution," Lipson, 1980, Vol. 31,p. 138.)

Professor J. Wolfgang Smith wrote:

"Today, a hundred and twenty years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. There was a time. not too long ago when it seemed to the world at large that triumphed once and for all, and that the issue was henceforth closed. And yet, within the last two or three decades the debate about evolution has not only revived but is showing signs of heating up. Indeed, the question whether claims are justified is currently being discussed and argued, not just in fundamentalist circles, but also on occasion in research institutes. and in the prestigious halls of academe. The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing descent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that most of these `experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but strictly on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully, as one could say."

"The salient fact is this: If by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall) then it can be said with utmost vigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there is not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macro evolutionary transformations have ever occurred. ...

"We are told dogmatically that evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consist." Professor
J. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. Mathematics, MS Physics, 'Teilhardism and the New Religion', 1988, Tan Books and Publishers. pp. 2,5,6.

With regards to the original point about evolution and the second law of thermo-dynamics, may I ask a few questions of the physicists?

1. The earth is bathed in radiation from the sun. If I were to imagine a sphere around the earth, then I assume it is possible to calculate the entropy of the radiation crossing that sphere and arriving on the earth. Has anyone done this, and if so what is the answer?

2. The energy in this radiation from the sun drives many biological, chemical and environmental processes. Many of these radiate energy from the earth. Some more is simply reflected. What is the entropy leaving the earth across the same imaginary sphere as above?

3. In a closed system, entropy increases. If we have an open system but know what happens on the boundary (i.e the earth with my imaginary sphere) then what happens? I assume that the entropy of the system plus the net transfer across the boundary increases?

4. Therefore, if the entropy of radiation leaving the earth is greater than that arriving, there is scope for many processes inside the sphere to decrease entropy on a relatively small scale (the total number of particles in all living things must be vanishingly small compared to the massive number of particles arriving in solar radiation). Specifically, what is the entropy of the earth's biomass? How does it compare to the difference in entropy across my imaginary sphere?

I confess I am a 'post-Christian atheist', to quote a previous entry, and I know what I want the answer to these questions to be. However I have always struggled with entropy. I love Feynman's elegant description, but carrying that over to getting some actual answers out has always been beyond me.

Hello Tim.

If something moves, entropy increases. Entropy never decreases. Sometimes it may appear that entropy decreases, but when the full balance sheet of all events involved in that local entropy increase are taken into account, it will always be true that entropy increased. And this because masses of molecules will naturally flow from low probability states to higher probability states, from low entropy to ever higher entropy states, and there are far far more disorderly states for molecules to naturally assume than there are of orderly specified complexity.

This fact does not diminish the point that you are trying to make. The energy from the sun arriving on earth gaurantees that there will be plenty of free energy available for work to be done. Creationists agree that, due to the sun, there is more than sufficientenergy available for living processes to occur.

Your approach to applying the 2nd Law to open systems is also correct. In order for the 2nd law to be applicable to processes occurring in open systems, one must include all systems taking part in the specified process. `locally' refers to said set of all systems in which the process under consideration occurs. it could be a heating system, an electrical system, or a chemical reaction within a biological cell.

However, none of this alleviates the problem that the 2nd Law presents to evolution and to abiogenesis.

When the sun shines on my newly painted home, the energy it provides works to expedite the wear on the paint and thereby increases disorder. The energy from the sun creates tornados and hurricanes, which wreak havoc, destroying homes, animals, cars, etc. rapidly transforming order to disorder.

Atheist and evolutionist Isaac Asimov, once described the 2nd Law this way:

"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten out a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again, very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult it is to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out - all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."

In order to reverse the process of order to disorder, you need something that will tap the free energy the sun provides the earth and use it to transform disorder into order. In thermodynamics, we call this something- an engine. For snowflakes, the engine is the internal atomic forces of the H2O molecules.

To satisfy the second law, more is required than simply having an open system and a flow-through of energy. The flow through of energy is a necessary condition for reversing entropy in a system, but not a sufficient one. Sunshine may flow into Asimov's room, and the heat may be turned on at night, but neither will reverse the increasing entropy in that room.

What is needed is an engine, a converting mechanism, some sort of coupling mechanism that will convert the free energy into negative entropy associated with configurational entropy and the corresponding information. This is the problem the second law presents to evolution. Until such an engine is found, evolution is in violation of the second law.

Consider, a planet like earth that is totally void of animals and plants. We will see mountains and hills; rivers, lakes, and oceans; volcanoes, rain and wind storms. All these are the result of natural cause. The laws of physics and probability resulting in high entropy states.

If one of the mountains had carved in it the faces of four men, an intelligent being would quickly conclude that they are the result of an intelligent cause. This is because we recognise specified complexity and we immediately accredit such to an intelligent cause. Why? Because it takes wisdom and know how to impose boundary conditions on the natural laws of physics to form the four faces of men, a very low entropic state. When we see a bird's nest, beehive, or a city, we know they were each created by an intelligent cause. In light thereof, how can we assume the far more specifed complexity of a living cell is the result of natural cause.

My previous posts explains why natural cause can not account for abiogenesis or Darwinian Evolution (e.g. Feynmans examples). Only intelligent cause can bring about life and life as we know it.

Arthur,

Thank you for your response. I'm not sure you answered my questions, so let me expand, taking your example of the ice crystal.

Imagine a droplet of water in my freezer. Observe that some of molecules are about to crystalise into ice. As they do so, clearly there is a local decrease in entropy for those molecules. However if we look across the boundary of the cooler we see that a number of refrigerant molecules have evaporated. Therefore the total entropy of the coupled system has increased. You assert that the local entropy decrease is enabled by two things;
1. The energy flow through the system (the refrigerant, motor etc) and
2. An engine which allows the local entropy increase, in this case the internal atomic forces of the H2O molecules.
What do you mean by this latter point. How is this different from replacing the freezer with the earth, the heat transfer engine with solar radiation and the H2O with DNA?

Sorry - typo in point 2

2. An engine which allows the local entropy decrease, in this case the internal atomic forces of the H2O molecules.

I defer to Arthur for a precise definition in terms of the thermodynamics, but I would just point out the essential differences between the formation of a living organism and the process of 'crystallization'.

The latter happens frequently in nature - not just ice crystals but salts, minerals etc - and although the resulting state is certainly 'ordered' it still has quite high entropy because the molecules within the crystal are indistinguishable from one another. That is to say, we could exchange the molecules with one another at will, a very large number of times, but we'd still have totally equivalent states. In this sense, the crystal doesn't encode any information of any sort.

In a DNA molecule, on the other hand, the order of the individual atoms is critically important, as is the overall shape of the molecule and its chirality (or 'handedness'). It is this 'order without crystallinity' that enables it to encode information. There are far fewer changes we could make to it while retaining an equivalent state. The entropy is therefore dramatically lower than that of a solid crystal, and its hard to conceive of the 'engine' that created the one also being able to create the other.

Hello Tim.

If something moves, entropy increases. Entropy never decreases. Sometimes it may appear that entropy decreases, but when the full balance sheet of all events involved in that local entropy increase are taken into account, it will always be true that entropy increased. And this because masses of molecules will naturally flow from low probability states to higher probability states, from low entropy to ever higher entropy states, and there are far far more disorderly states for molecules to naturally assume than there are of orderly specified complexity.

This fact does not diminish the point that you are trying to make. The energy from the sun arriving on earth gaurantees that there will be plenty of free energy available for work to be done. Creationists agree that, due to the sun, there is more than sufficientenergy available for living processes to occur.

Your approach to applying the 2nd Law to open systems is also correct. In order for the 2nd law to be applicable to processes occurring in open systems, one must include all systems taking part in the specified process. `locally' refers to said set of all systems in which the process under consideration occurs. it could be a heating system, an electrical system, or a chemical reaction within a biological cell.

However, none of this alleviates the problem that the 2nd Law presents to evolution and to abiogenesis.

When the sun shines on my newly painted home, the energy it provides works to expedite the wear on the paint and thereby increases disorder. The energy from the sun creates tornados and hurricanes, which wreak havoc, destroying homes, animals, cars, etc. rapidly transforming order to disorder.

Atheist and evolutionist Isaac Asimov, once described the 2nd Law this way:

"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten out a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again, very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult it is to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out - all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."

In order to reverse the process of order to disorder, you need something that will tap the free energy the sun provides the earth and use it to transform disorder into order. In thermodynamics, we call this something- an engine. For snowflakes, the engine is the internal atomic forces of the H2O molecules.

To satisfy the second law, more is required than simply having an open system and a flow-through of energy. The flow through of energy is a necessary condition for reversing entropy in a system, but not a sufficient one. Sunshine may flow into Asimov's room, and the heat may be turned on at night, but neither will reverse the increasing entropy in that room.

What is needed is an engine, a converting mechanism, some sort of coupling mechanism that will convert the free energy into negative entropy associated with configurational entropy and the corresponding information. This is the problem the second law presents to evolution. Until such an engine is found, evolution is in violation of the second law.

Consider, a planet like earth that is totally void of animals and plants. We will see mountains and hills; rivers, lakes, and oceans; volcanoes, rain and wind storms. All these are the result of natural cause. The laws of physics and probability resulting in high entropy states.

If one of the mountains had carved in it the faces of four men, an intelligent being would quickly conclude that they are the result of an intelligent cause. This is because we recognise specified complexity and we immediately accredit such to an intelligent cause. Why? Because it takes wisdom and know how to impose boundary conditions on the natural laws of physics to form the four faces of men, a very low entropic state. When we see a bird's nest, beehive, or a city, we know they were each created by an intelligent cause. In light thereof, how can we assume the far more specifed complexity of a living cell is the result of natural cause.

My previous posts explains why natural cause can not account for abiogenesis or Darwinian Evolution (e.g. Feynmans examples). Only intelligent cause can bring about life and life as we know it.

I have yet to hear any evolutionist that can explain the origin of information. Where did information come from? Professor McIntosh has answered that question, but what is the answer from the evolutionists? It seems that they infer that information comes from evolution, but this is circular reasoning.

Judging from the comments posted here there are many that do not like Professor McIntosh's presuppositions. Could it be possible that the evolutionary answer to the question contradicts the evolutionist's own presuppositions?

WHAT IS THE EVOLUTIONARY ANSWER TO THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION? ANYONE PLEASE!