This is great news! I hope Dr. Mastropaolo has a lot of support.
I knew a man who was a teacher at a high school, where he spent
one day in class explaining how the Second Law of Thermodynamics
contradicts all the essential doctrines of evolution. The second
law is the principle that no cyclic process is possible in which
heat is absorbed from a reservoir at a single temperature and
converted completely into mechanical work. One or more of the
students in his class complained that he was taking class time
to disprove evolution, and he was fired from his job on that basis.
Evolution, by the way, is not really a 'theory' but merely an
hypothesis. As the article above states, there is no scientific
evidence for evolution, therefore it cannot be a theory, as all
scientific theories have to be supported by scientific evidence. Any
thesis that is not supported by evidence is merely an hypothesis.
But how often do you hear the phrase, "the hypothesis of evolution?"
Take another look at the article and see: the word "theory" does
not occur, and therefore the phrase "theory of evolution" is absent.
I expect that Dr. Mastropaolo will find a way to make the use
of this phrase impossible in his trial, that is, unless his opponent
is willing to lose his case by using the phrase.
To be more specific, my friend employed the Second Law of
Thermodynamics in regards to Entropy, which says: In any cyclic
process the entropy will either increase or remain the same. Also,
Since entropy gives information about the evolution of an isolated
system with time, it is said to give us the direction of "time's arrow".
If snapshots of a system at two different times shows one state
which is more disordered, then it could be implied that this state
came later in time. For an isolated system, the natural course of
events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy)
state.
Entropy is a measure of the amount of energy which is unavailable
to do work. And, it is also a measure of the disorder of a system.
Since entropy necessarily increases as time passes in a closed
system, such as a living cell into which no new genetic material can
be introduced under natural conditions, any change in the order of
the system will always be in the direction of DISorder. To find a
point in time when the state of ORDER is greater, you will have
to look for an EARLIER point in time, and not a later one. And
since the hypothesis of biological evolution requires that order
increases as time passes, it is in conflict with the second law of
thermodynamics.
Evolutionists should not be offended that their hypothesis is shown
to be a failure, because this is a very natural thing to happen.
It is part of nature that evolution is shown to be false. So this is
an opportunity to be pleased that you can be one with nature
by abandoning your erstwhile adherence to a false hypothesis
which is now shown to be what it is: false.
No. A thousand times no, please stop with the thermodynamics canard. No biological system is closed, whether talking about an organism or a species, because all living organisms must metabolize. In the case of humans, that is consumption of food and respiration. The entry of energy into a biological system, applied through the mechanisms of regeneration (cell respiration and division, etc.) is the means by which entropy is staved off. The proof? Don't feed your pet; see how long they remain extropic.
The problem with applying entropy as an argument against evolution is that it presumes that evolution is a process which always orders or arranges, and that is always advantageous. This is not true. Mutations can certainly be disadvantageous, either instantly as in the case of impairment, or by changes in environment making adaptations no longer advantageous.
I have no problem with people arguing against evolution. Just don't do it dishonestly.
Your "problem with applying entropy" is false.
As an argument against evolution,
it does not presume that evolution is a
process which always orders or arranges. Not at all. It presumes (as the
evolutionists who teach it claim) that the false hypothesis of evolution is a
process that SOMETIMES orders or arranges, but USUALLY DOES NOT.
Even so, it's still false.
Our argument against evolution does not presume that the false hypothesis of
evolution claims to be
"always advantageous." On the contrary, all it presumes
is that the false hypothesis of evolution claims what the evolutionists teach it
does, that it is a process that is SOMETIMES advantageous, which it is not. All
mutations are neutral or disadvantageous, at all times. End of story.
You say "mutations can certainly be disadvantageous..." Well, sure, but that's
only because ALL MUTATIONS ARE ALWAYS DISADVANTAGEOUS. That's why
they are mutations! News flash: the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are a fantasy.
They are not real. I'm sorry if that makes you cry.
I keep running into Catholics who are forced to interface with evolutionists
at their work every day and they have pretty much caved in to the idea, like
you have, JohnGrey, that mutations are capable of being advantageous.
The problem comes from the definition of "mutation." Evolutionists are not
stupid. They might be ill-willed, but that's a different topic. They know that
by fuzzy logic, not unlike the Menzingen-denizens in the SSPX crisis, they
can evoke a mistake in the minds of their would-be victims, making them
think that variations within a species is the same thing as a "mutation."
Dogs are all canines. A wolf is a canine and a Poodle is a canine, but a
Poodle is not a mutant wolf, and a wolf is not a mutant Poodle. They are
both variations of canine that are not unrelated to each other. Same goes
for any other breed of dog, like Great Dane down to Chijuajua. A German
Shepherd might appear to be more wolf-like but that doesn't mean it's less
of a "mutant" than a Cocker Spaniel. Neither one is a mutant. They are
both variants.
Some doctors get all bent out of shape on this because they have taken
sides with the evolution nonsense, perhaps without realizing it, in order to
advance their careers. You have to go along to get along, you know, like
+Fellay and the Menzingen-denizens. Slow boiled in the frog pot.
In my example, my friend would not have been fired if it were merely a
matter of him getting his facts mixed up. He was touching on the Achille's
Heel of evolution, and his school administrators knew that, so they found
a way to fire him because he was too much of a threat to their sacred cow
of the false hypothesis of evolution.
Topic: Creationist stakes 10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution (Read 1083 times)