The Truth About Evolution and Religion

It is a poorly defined concept, but if you feel differently by all means define it. That can be defined. It's the ability to choose and the ability to understand self-actualization. Why are you amazed that Gould, a naturalist, doesn't care about souls? Souls are purportedly not physcial, right? If they have no realm in the physical world then science is disinterested in metaphysics, no? What exactly is your point?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Your thought process seems very disjointed. Who cares if Gould believed in souls or not? What is your point?Secondly, everyone in here I would think freely admits that such a thing as freewill exists for the sole fact that we all have the ability to choose things. Where they may differ from you is whether or not freewill was imparted by God.What precisely is it you would like to discuss because you seem to be all over the place?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Never post your real name and phone number, Dave. I suggest you edit that out immediately for your own good. Because these people have bigger things to do than argue semantics with a layman.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : edit to add

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

You are taking two different definitions of entropy and confusing the terms, one relating to thermodynamics and your version which relates to configurations. We'll distinguish them as "Thermodynamic entropy" and "Configurational entropy."Classical entropy, which is thermodynamic entropy, refers to an isolated system as it relates to 2LoT. This doesn't conflict or invalidate natural selection because the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant when it is applied only to a CLOSED system. Is the Earth a closed system? Whenever a system can exchange heat with its environment, an entropy decrease of that system is entirely compatible with the second law. So since the earth is clearly not a closed system, what does it have to do with your argument? I'll spare the suspense. It doesn't.Your version of entropy relates to configurational entropy, that is, that all things tend towards disorder when left to itself. In a sense you confuse Boltzmann's constant with Claude Shannon's theories on information loss. Though they have similarities in how loss works, they aren't the same thing.So when referring to entropy from now on, you might want to distinguish between the two kinds of entropy. 2LoT and evolution have nothing to do with one another.Information loss and heat/energy loss are similar, but they aren't the same thing. Please stop saying things like evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because it's just not true. If you want to use the term "entropy" to clarify your point, do so without falsely introducing 2LoT.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Yes, but that's precisely my point. You are using terms that apply to a closed system for a system that is largely open. Therefore it is irrelevant to your most basic premise. I can appeal to authority too and post a thousand quotes that refute this. That's not an argument though.But really, consider the fact that if 2LoT is an issue for evolution, why would it not be a problem for all genetics? More to the point, why wouldn't it apply to all biological systems if it's so problematic? If 2LoT presents a problem for evolution then by the same premise, life itself violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... And yet we know that it doesn't.But now you've piqued my interest. Can you explain to me why natural selection violates the 2LoT?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal