One of my favorite comics - Non Sequitur - is running a series suggesting that people who believe in creation are dismissing proven science whenever it contradicts their beliefs. Today's strip has Danae suspending her belief in gravity... ha, ha, ha.
What is REALLY funny is that the evolutionists are the ones who dismiss proven science when it contradicts their beliefs about evolution. One obvious example is the second law of thermodynamics - the well established fact that all systems tend toward entropy. According to this law, no system could become more complex apart from a huge input of energy.
My second example: A day or so ago, I heard a radio program interviewing an ivy league scientist who has observed that humans "have evolved" to need high quality prepared food. He points out that "other animals" live on raw foods - plants or meats. They find it and they eat it. Humans, on the other hand, need to have foods that are chopped or ground up and cooked.
This is weird and funny because it contradicts the basic concept of natural selection. Natural selection says that those who have characteristics that make them more likely to survive and thrive are the ones who will pass on their genes. Wouldn't it be easier to survive and thrive if you could just go out in the back yard and eat grass? But no! We need higher quality food to begin with and then we need to grind it and chop it and cook it to get the good out of it.
My last recent example is a professor, John Long, at Vassar College, who creates robots with fins and tails, etc. He and his students make these robots to represent early life forms, and to test theories about what effect different evolutionary changes (e.g., stiffer backbones, etc.) would have had.
What? Did these robots evolve or were they created by design? Do these changes evolve, or are they design changes? What could these robots possibly prove about evolution? At the most, they are a way to "act out" the proposed theories about how subsequent changes would have affected the descendents.
These robots are infinitely more simple than real animals. How ironic that it takes so much intelligent design just to act out a theory that denies the need for intelligent design!
This is science? Ha, ha, ha!
"According to this law, no system could become more complex apart from a huge input of energy."
ReplyDeleteThe second law of thermodynamics applies to isolated, closed systems. The Earth is an open system, because the Sun forms a huge input of energy. See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html, very interesting website.
"He points out that "other animals" live on raw foods - plants or meats. They find it and they eat it. Humans, on the other hand, need to have foods that are chopped or ground up and cooked."
You might find this article interesting: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090213-human-diet-cooking.html
Sounds rather reasonable, right?
- "the atheist"
Thanks for your comments. I will look at these articles.
ReplyDeleteThe sun does put energy into our system -but not the kind of energy needed for the results observed. Our world runs on solar power, but that is much different than the organization of information and material.