Second Law of Thermodynamics

This is a common assertion of evolutionists today. Can anyone actually substantiate this however? It appears to me to be a bald assertion.For example, assuming for the moment that common descent (evolution) occurred, it would have to occur within the boundaries of very well-defined principles, such as "the laws" or rather principles of physics and chemistry. That alone is a tremendous amount of direction right there.Now, I am not sure how evos explain the appearance of DNA, but presumably if it could even evolve as they claim, it's evolution would be greatly affected and restricted by the properties of physical principles. So one would have to say whatever created/produced those physical principles at a minimum indirectly guided evolution and that these rules or properties give direction to evolution.But let's go a step further. Let's look at the order in the material world. Why are there principles that seem universal over a large span? That indicates order that is imposed or part of all of the known universe....hmmmm? From our human experience and scientific knowledge, where do such rules come from?Let's say we look at a computer program and it behaves a certain way. We know, hey, the rules are written into the program by an Intelligent Designer. Same with the physical universe. The universe has RULES. It appears to be GOVERNED.So it seems to me quite logical to think an intelligent cause is what created the order in the universe. Now, an intelligence that far-reaching,....probably could tell what would happen with evolution, dontcha think?So when the rules were put in place, and presuming evolution occurred, it is incorrect to claim that evolution has no direction. The direction was there all along, and if evolution is true, it is evidence of an Intelligent Designer, not of a random self-existing universe creating life forms all on it's own, as evos claim.

How so? Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.This message has been edited by randman, 01-24-2006 04:34 PM

WK, I don't really get where your post is refuting what I wrote. Maybe I am missing something, but I laid out where physical principles in the universe govern over the direction of evolution, imo, in all areas. So the idea of "directionless in respect to" still doesn't work.Btw, even the claim of furthering adaptibility is a directional claim.

It's not my fault that you guys continually assert vague, unfounded claims such as "directionless" or random, but cannot substantiate the claims, nor often even define your claims. Evolution claims to be science, but more often than not, is governed by vague, imprecise philosophical assertions.Btw, if the laws of physics guaranteed evolution, then the Creator of those laws most likely planned for evolution, and evolution, as such, is guided and is a form of ID.