SethPhotopoulos

@sethphotopoulos: The writer's thesis started with homogeny (no diversity in species), spread to specialization through undirected thermal and electromagnetic radiation, and moved to our modern state of ecological equilibrium--homogeny once more. This pattern of undirected energy inciting complexity, compounding complexity, and then diluting complexity is seen no-where in nature, except, of course, in the mind of the one who believes it is the pattern of life on Earth. But that's simply backing an unsubstantiated theory with itself.

@mcghee: Both are supposed instances of undirected energies in an open system decreasing entropy.

@sethphotopoulos: That paper was the first piece I've seen anywhere that places trans-species macroevolution within the confines of increasing entropy. My read was cursory, but I noted that the intelligence of the species engaging in open system energy exchange (herd instinct, feeding habits, etc.) was not accounted for. The idea the writer postulated is, a perfectly balanced ecosystem is the most obvious example of an entropic system. A quote:

“A system evolves to reach a stationary state with respect to its surroundings. That is to say, when the surrounding environment is high in energy, then the system will evolve to a high-energy stationary state. Matter on Earth has evolved over eons in increasing its energy content to match that of the solar radiation density."

That is to say, the Earth's ecosystem has increased in size and complexity to attain balance with the thermal and electromagnetic radiations from the Sun: a case of undirected energy decreasing (or as the writer calls it, "increasing") entropy. That returns me to my previously stated belief that undirected energy is not enough, and my belief that a self-sufficient ecosystem is one of low entropy, enforced by the intelligence of its members and Designer.

The two viewpoints aren't mutually exclusive. And to propose that science is always incontrovertible fact? Naive. Science is in such constant flux that the most fair way you could describe it would be "this is our best understanding of how things work given present knowledge," but to present it as fact? Don't be so silly.

The truth of the matter is that science doesn't provide a satisfying answer to plenty of things, and until it does you will continue to see creationism and intelligent design in discussion.

Also, be a little less intolerant. You are freaking out over hypotheticals. Do you know how many times I've had to deal with people that don't share my belief system? Plenty. How many times have I gone on a vendetta against them? Not once. If you are comfortable and firm in your beliefs you won't be shaken by a single incident. And again, the stuff hasn't shown up on your exam, likely won't, so keep the blood pressure in check.

@haltiamreptar: One of my initial issues with the theory of Darwinism is--you might have guessed and rolled your eyes--the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

That natural law has been thrown around debate halls for years, and has been misunderstood by nearly every layman who brings it to the table. Creationists often make the mistake of imagining the Earth is a closed system, and Darwinists often come to the mistaken conclusion that the Solar System is a closed system. The idea is that Earth's system is affected by the external effecting source of the Sun, and that our dear thermonuclear hydrogen fusion reactor is capable of decreasing entropy in this open system. A team of construction workers can decrease entropy in a plot of land, a dandelion can decrease its own entropy by growing from a seed to a fully formed plant, and so on. The fatal flaw in the Darwinist thought process is the failure to included the directive force. A construction team directs large (and horribly dangerous, if not distributed and directed properly) amounts of energy to form a completed structure; undirected by intelligent humans, the necessary energy would level cities. A seed without the ability to direct water and nutrients and to photosynthesize would use the damp and warmth to rot away--to actively engage in entropy. At the proper distance and at the proper age, our Sun has vital effect on Earth. That same energy undirected or misdirected would instantly destroy planets. Nearly everything is part of an open system. Systems affected by intelligently directed energy can see entropy decrease. Those affected by undirected energy are all subject to the SLoT.

But I'm a writer, not a physicist. I've Googled this theory of mine many, many times trying to find a reasonable rebuttal without result. I'd be interested in finding a persistent example of an open system exposed to undirected forces decreasing in entropy to examine. Unquestioning belief is foolish belief.

Darwinism is theoretical. Granted, most people find the evidence substantial and worthy of belief, but far too many people were too stupid to recognize the shift from the scientific community's willingness to admit the mutability of it to the current stance of immutable faith in it.

I believe in Creationism. I've studied the evidence myself. Most people believe in Darwinism, including people who share my faith. That's fine; we both think each other gullible. I've been called "stupid," "backward," "retarded," and a few other choice words because of it, and had the figurative door slammed on my face. But I believe in open discourse. I'm all for teaching Darwinism, because I don't believe it stands up to scrutiny. I also think Shrinking Violent Creationists are pathetic. Belief should never shrink before examination, no matter the the belief or the holder, because beliefs should stand or fall on their own. I've bought and read God is Not Great, The God Delusion, and many other books of that sort for just that reason.

I think your teacher should teach both theories, spending much, much more time on what is generally considered Darwinism than on Creationism. You're paying to go to college, not seminary. But you're also paying to learn facts, not what to believe. The list of organisms found in the Permian strata is fact, as are the theories of why those organisms are found there. The moment anyone tells you what to do with the evidence presented, be very suspicious.

I can't wait to see the responses to this, but don't be too surprised if I don't post back. I encourage open discourse, but if I don't respond there's a good chance I don't think you capable of it. Heaven knows I've seen more than my fair share of straw effigies in my image.

Considering that Christians have to hear things they don't believe in and view as false in a near daily basis in college, I think you can handle one mention. Everyone's going to hear stuff they don't agree with/believe is outright false. As BS as you think Christianity/Creationism is, they feel the same way about certain types of evolution and certain scientific beliefs. However, I doubt you would want someone who believes in what you view as BS to cause trouble/argue with/refute a teacher that you respect greatly, and who falls in line with everything you want out of a teacher.

Part of college is hearing different viewpoints and theories. Whether you believe those are true are not is an entirely different subject, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not something you can just force away. Same way from the other side. If you don't like what he's saying, ignore him. He's not going to rip your opinions and beliefs out of you.

Look, I'm not going to argue with you. I don't really care what you do. Get pissy and make a huge deal out of it if you want, it's not worth it though. This isn't some great injustice or anything.

You do the same thing I do when I have to listen people talk about evolution in Biology class. Shut up and believe what you want to believe. Nothing is wrong believing in creationism. There's more evidence for it than you think.

Anyway, I digress. You probably won't get tested on stuff he rants about.

No, its not. Don't be daft.