Francis Beckwith wrote:
An explanation doesn't have to be a theory. For example, if I were to claim
that "undefined designer operating at some point in the past had to
intervene in order for event X to occur since the event X exhibits the
characteristics of a designed entity," I am
Sandy, I agree that there is value in multiplicity in the three examples you mention, including critiques of evolution. But there is a difference between evolution (an established fact) and disagreements about the mechanism by which it works. Requiring teaching that evolution is false is not an
Evolution appears to violate the law of entropy. That is things tend to
disorder. (examples: a deck of cards, any teenagers bedroom.) Evolution
assumes that things become more ordered.
Physicists in industry are not going to spend the time on it because it
will not help produce a product.
That things tend toward disorder does not mean that order cannot and does not arise. Order arises in all physical systems without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The laws relating to chemistry and biology also matter as do such laws of physics like quantum dynamics.
The specious entropy
Hi Frank, good to "see" you again. I'll be curious to see how the DI
handles this if it goes to trial. They are certainly right that the
actual policy adopted is incoherent, as I argued in great detail on the
Panda's Thumb a couple weeks ago. But if it goes to trial and they are
asked to
I'm not sure that the following intervention will be productive, but:
My sense is that this discussion has reached beyond the limits of
list-relevance in its discussions of the substance of ID, evolutionary
theory, etc. (I remember enough about physics from college to know that
the law of
Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote:
Evolution appears to violate the law of entropy. That is things tend
to disorder. (examples: a deck of cards, any teenagers bedroom.)
Evolution assumes that things become more ordered.
Oi vey. Alan, seriously, this is utter nonsense. The law of entropy does
not say
://francisbeckwith.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 4:16 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover
evolution policy
Title: Message
Francis J. Beckwith wrote:
I think Sandy's right in this
regard: the positions that get labeled "science" are "knowledge" and
religion merely "opinion." In one of the ironies of political
liberalism (of the Rawlsian sort), these distinctions turn out to be
How does evolution appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics? And if
it does, why haven't physicists figured it out?
Michael R. Masinter Visiting Professor of Law
On Leave From University of Miami Law School
Nova Southeastern University
On 12/14/04 7:03 PM, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote:
There are many holes in the theory of evolution. Evolution appears
to violate the laws of thermodynamics. There are also many things that
have been presented as evidence of evolution that have been proven
sage-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Sanford LevinsonSent: Tuesday, December 14,
2004 4:16 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law
AcademicsSubject: RE: Wait, there's more: "Leading ID think tank
calls Dover evolution policy "misguided, " cal
My training in physics was that a theory is an explanation that fits
the facts. For example, the theoretical physicist comes up with a
theory. The experimentalist runs the experiment and gives the results
to the theoretical physicist who then modifies the theory.
There are many holes in the
13 matches
Mail list logo
