talkback:

ken on entropy in evolution

Add your comment

From:	dr2	2002-06-08 15:41:58
Subject:	poll describing creationists
Comment:	Your poll concerning creationists is incomplete because it does not offer a spot allowing the option 'purveyors of truth' or some such choice that gives creationists the 'benefit of doubt'. This oversight is reprehensible given the degree with which you folks admire open-mindedness and free thinking. One is tempted to jump to the conclusion that you are disingenuous and the poll 'as is' belies your prejudice against creationism and those who in good conscience believe a Creator is the source of all that is. However, it could have been an honest mistake and I hope you will consider altering the poll to reflect this additional possiblity concerning creationists. Such a gesture would go a long way in dispelling any suspicions as to the existence of prejudice towards opposing veiwpoints among so-called free thinkers.
From:	Mike	2003-09-20 22:27:44
Subject:	Credentials?
Comment:	You forgot one, 'Wise old Sage'!!:)
From:	Pixie	2004-01-06 09:38:23
Subject:	Melting ice
Comment:	In your example with an ice cube suspended in air, I think you will find that the overall entropy has increased. That is what the Second Law is all about, afterall, and this is a non-reversible reaction. If you think about the heat capacities, you may find you need a room full of air to melt your ice cube... Pixie
From:	Student	2004-09-03 07:01:12
Subject:	Entropy
Comment:	Nothing you said even makes sense if you don't first presuppose a theistic worldview. I challenge you to provide a basis for any law of science or law-like principles in the framework of an atheistic worldview. And the comment about your survey leaving out some options is right on. I know, it is not intended to be a real survey. It is a comical jab at those backwards creationists and so providing a slanted selection is legitimate. Sounds a lot like the way in which most naturalistic scientists conduct their research: conclusions must fall in the acceptable parameters of naturalistic assumptions or they are thrown out as a margin of error. That’s not science, at least according to your definition.
From:	Todd Greene	2006-07-10 01:34:38
Subject:	No benefit of doubt
Comment:	The idea that creationists deserve the benefit of the doubt is based on the false premise that there's something about the relevant science that's in doubt. It would be like giving some flat-earth believer the benefit of the doubt. But we know that in terms of the relevant science the guys is out in some la-la land somewhere, so he is either 'ignorant of science' or he is being deceitful in his claims, or both. There are no other choices.