{"id":2793,"date":"2008-04-30T08:34:48","date_gmt":"2008-04-30T12:34:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/2008\/04\/30\/darwinism-bumbleology-with-a-fake-id\/"},"modified":"2008-05-08T12:03:35","modified_gmt":"2008-05-08T16:03:35","slug":"darwinism-bumbleology-with-a-fake-id","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/2008\/04\/darwinism-bumbleology-with-a-fake-id\/","title":{"rendered":"Darwinism, Bumbleology with a Fake ID"},"content":{"rendered":"

ARN<\/a> | Roddy Bullock | Apr. 29, 2008<\/p>\n

Q: How many materialists does it take to change a light bulb?
\nA: None. Given time the light bulb will change itself.<\/p>\n

No joke. Light from darkness, life from non-life, mind from matter; it’s all a mere marvel of matter in motion. Never mind where matter came from, and no matter where mind came from, for matter-only materialists everything that is came unplanned from everything that was in a string of unguided eternal change. Magically transforming the mundane into the marvelous, it seems nothing is impossible with change–time makes light work of miracles. For the life sciences branch of materialist philosophy, Darwin’s theory mandates the same explanation for all life: unguided change over time gave us eyes to close and mouths to open in the service of a dead philosophy emanating from a brain that thinks it has a mind. Who would have thought? <\/p>\n

“Evolution” is described by those who know better as simply “change over time”. And why not? After all, change over time is observable, and observable change over time is incontrovertible and uncontroversial. Observed change over time in biology works its magic by changing beak sizes among finch populations, changing antibacterial resistance among bacteria populations, changing virtually nothing of interest in fruit fly populations, all showcased as “evolution in action”. But is “change over time” alone really sufficient to make life, and life more abundantly? It seems not; no unguided change agent has been observed to make anything but finches from finches, bacteria from bacteria, and legions upon legions of hapless fruit flies that cannot become something more than they are already. At best the observed change over time in the unguided forces of nature due to undirected energy acting on matter always acts in one direction: toward less order and more disorder. It seems that unguided change is more bumbler than tinkerer.<\/p>\n

“Directional” change doesn’t sound so bad. In fact it isn’t bad if you aren’t constrained by a philosophy that requires “directional” to mean unguided progression of matter to increasing (and increasingly) improbable complex specified order. But for materialists who depend on unguided, undirected change to produce massive amounts of the increasing improbable change theorized by Darwinism, the observed directional nature of change is a disaster. Because in nature the observed change of unguided, undirected matter always conforms to physical constraints. Under immutable physical laws the change is at best to simple order, as in crystal formation where matter is rigidly constrained by unguided atomic forces, or to random disorder, as in the diffusion of food coloring in water (which is nevertheless still simply obeying constraints of atomic forces). The disordering of matter in nature when left to undirected energy in time is so well understood that it’s one of the few features of nature described by a law, and not just any law–one of the most robust laws known: First Theory of Evolution meet Second Law of Thermodynamics.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately for truth (but fortunately for those who wish to suppress it) the Second Law of Thermodynamics, while conceptually simple, is expressed in various scientific disciplines in complex-sounding language. Setting aside strange concepts like “entropy”, “Gibb’s free energy” and “closed or open systems”, the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be simply understood as the idea that left to the undirected forces of nature, undirected energy always expends to cause existing matter to go from a more ordered state to a less ordered state. <\/p>\n

If you grasp the words of that last sentence, you will always and forever know why “evolution” is a dead-end theory when stated in its strong form, i.e., the massive ordering of increasingly complex information by unguided forces of nature to produce new and more complex features (like wings and eyes) in living organisms. Very simply, it is easier to make a mess than to clean up a mess; it is easier to destroy a house than build a house; and it is easier to corrupt computer software than to program computer software. And “easier” is not the real issue, the real issue is one of possibilities due to intelligent intervention–in every example above, the former condition can be effected by mindless activity but the latter must, in every case, involve a mind. Nature has no secret mind substitute.<\/p>\n

Here’s the catch missed by the evolution-is-merely-change-over-time crowd: there are two kinds of scientifically observable change: intelligently manipulated change (or guided change) and unintelligently occurring change (or unguided change). On the observable effects side, scientific evidence shows two corresponding categories: guided change results in improbable complex order (e.g., computer codes or DNA) while unguided change results in probable simple order (e.g., iron filings to a magnet or crystals) or what appears to be random disorder (e.g., bits of shattered glass or pattern of fallen leaves). Unguided changes are well-studied in nature, and in complete agreement with the Second Law of Thermodynamics they always in every observed case result in systems going from a more ordered state to a less ordered state. It is the Law.<\/p>\n

On its face, therefore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics stands diametrically opposed to any theory, including biological evolution, that requires matter to go spontaneously unguided and undirected from a simple, random form to a more complex, specified form. The stock reply from virtually all Darwinists, invariably flashed like a fake ID to get past all but those who actually care, is that the Second Law applies only to closed systems. In our case, Darwinists say, the Second Law’s tendency to prevent the incredibly improbable creations necessary for “evolution” is circumvented by including the sun’s energy input in our local earth system. But as any free thinker knows (and even a few Darwinists), it is not the mere presence of raw, undirected energy in a system that matters. Even in an open system in the absence of energy direction (like the coded instructions used in photosynthesis), the raw energy of the sun must obey the Law, and the result of the sun’s energy on matter will be to rot, fade, decompose, decay and otherwise destroy. <\/p>\n

. . . more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ARN | Roddy Bullock | Apr. 29, 2008 Q: How many materialists does it take to change a light bulb? A: None. Given time the light bulb will change itself. No joke. Light from darkness, life from non-life, mind from matter; it’s all a mere marvel of matter in motion. Never mind where matter came … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":497,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"generate_page_header":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[11,51],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2793","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intelligent-design","category-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2793","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/497"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2793"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2793\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2793"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2793"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2793"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}