Arguments 'evolutionists' should NOT use

quote:

---

Somewhat right?

---

A good question...I almost wrote a reply. I guess I will now.The way I see that it is "somewhat wrong":
1. It doesn't refute the idea that the 2nd Law is about "disorder". The 2nd law isn't about disorder, it's about entropy (which in SOME cases can be intuitively understood as disorder, but NOT all).2. It states that the 2nd law 'only works for a closed system', which is untrue (by the proper formulation of the law). It works for all systems; however, there are limits on total entropy change of a closed system not present in an open system (at least in the short term).I'd be interested in Taz's response as to the better way to address the "2nd law" argument.

I agree with your second point just fine, and it's compatible with what I said. I was just indicating why the stated formulation was only "somewhat" right.I completely disagree about "mak[ing] a case for defining disorder as identical with entropy."The English word "disorder" is seldom-to-never used in a way that means "the measure of a system's thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work." (Encyclopedia Britannica def. of entropy).For a really good discussion of why you shouldn't use the term "disorder" in discussing the 2nd law:http://www.secondlaw.com/six.html

The definition I gave is indeed the correct definition from classical thermodynamics, and it does indeed have the correct units (joules/Kelvin).Other definitions are useful for different sorts of problems, but all of them have one thing in common: none of them equate entropy with disorder.As soon as you "pretend" the 2nd law deals with "disorder" you open up an enormous load of misconceptions and unproductive intuitions.For example: "The Big Bang can't be true, because the Universe is more ordered now than a big explosion".Here's an additional article on the pitfalls of "pretending" that entropy = disorder.http://www.entropysite.com/cracked_crutch.html