The Truth About Evolution and Religion

But you are talking to him as though he was wrong about thermodynamics because he's studied it and misunderstood it. Obviously he is contemptibly, ridiculously wrong about thermodynamics. But the reason for his error is not that he tried to understand it and was stupid and muddled and confused.The reason that he's talking nonsense about thermodynamics is because he was taught to recite nonsense about thermodynamics by the people who indoctrinated him into reciting creationist lies.He has not achieved the dignity of actually being wrong about thermodynamics, because he has not yet even learned what thermodynamics is. From his point of view he might as well be saying: "Hey presto! Thermodynamico! Evolutiono disappearo!"To him the gibberish that he's learned to recite about thermodynamics is just a bunch of magic words. Even if it did relate to reality, he'd be the last person to know.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you ... creationism! I shall ask you again. Would you please quote the next paragraph of that essay?Apparently you place a great deal of significance on what von Bertalanffy has to say. It seems that this guy who I've never heard of is very important to you. You seem to hang on his every word. So please tell me what he said next.Thank you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, you did say that.You actually did. You just said it again.You are actually trying to pretend that this absurd lie is true.Now, the question I always want to ask people like you is this --- whom do you hope to deceive? When you come out with flagrant falsehoods such as this, who the heck do you think that you might fool?

No. No. Because I am not a insane lying ignorant halfwitted religious fanatic, and for this reason I do not tell stupid and contemptible lies.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I should like to add a point.Creationists like to pretend that thermodynamics and evolution are somehow in conflict.They are, of course, not telling the truth.But suppose for a moment that they were telling the truth. Suppose that the two ideas were genuinely in conflict.Then given the weight of the evidence for evolution we'd have to say that thermodynamics was wrong, wouldn't we?If in some magical fantasy world creationists could prove that there was a conflict between thermodynamics and evolution, then the concept we'd put in the trash would be thermodynamics. The things that we know to be true by observation smack down any theory, no matter how beautiful.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No. Obviously the more orderly something is the less complex it is. Actually, the state of our knowledge has nothing to do with it. A thing could be orderly, or complex, without us knowing anything about it at all.Is there anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

Specifically, you. Though of course if you believe the ludicrous gibberish you come out with, it is not technically a lie, which implies intent.But it's still fairly contemptible that you should dribble out trash like this when a few minutes' research would have showed you how wrong you are. If you are not, strictly speaking, a liar, you are at least a bullshitter. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Except that, since they are biologists, they neither say nor imply that there are any. And Gerhart and Kirschner, in common with the rest of the scientific community, know that you are wrong. How can they be "forthright" about the fantasy world in your head? They don't have the dubious privilege of inhabiting it. Nowhere in your posts do you say: "2 + 2 = 4". Therefore, we can deduce that you don't believe that two plus two is four. That's logic! Well, it's your logic.

I wonder if there's anyone in the entire would who would be fooled by such a flagrant lie.Certainly no-one on these forums will be.

Yes, we know what you're saying. If this was true and meaningful, which it isn't, it would still be irrelevant. Show your working ... oh, wait, you haven't done any, have you? Now there's a bizarre non sequitur. Thiis is because the people who write peer-reviewed works and textbooks know that the theory of evolution explains the complexity of life. 'Cos of them not being idiots.

Intelligent design consists largely of a set of mistakes about biology. It is bad science. This is where Miller and Behe disagree.

Because the question was so stupid.If biologists spent all their time pandering to the whims of every crank and looney with a bee in his bonnet about evolution, they'd never get any work done.Why the heck should they discuss biology with someone who hasn't been bothered to learn the difference between mutation and selection? Why should eminent scientists spend their time spoonfeeding you stuff the you should have learned in high school?Heck, why am I doing so? Go and buy yourself a book about biology and read it.

No, they all have a specific order.If you believe that there is only 1 "specific order", would you mind telling us what it is, and how it is identified? Actually, you can understand evolution without making your trivial blunders about thermodynamics. Your mistakes are in fact more of a handicap and an obstacle than anything else. Could you please quote the next paragraph of this essay? Thank you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And of course, as every biologist knowns, natural selection was not the only process operating.The process that produced complexity is described in the theory of evolution, of which the law of natural selection is but a part.How many times does this have to be explained to you before you understand it?

So far, everything they've written.To take one example, they pretend that irreducibly complex things can't evolve.