Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true


It matters because it is wrong.

Something else defying entropy? What was mentioned that could possibly do that?

Unless something is in a state of equilibrium then entropy is either increasing or decreaing. Do you want an example of something in equilibrium? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you understand the term.


It should be, but not always is.

Hmmm - some evidence is tainted. many papers remove evidence that does not fit the expectations. Peer review has many issues right now.

Once again, empirical evidence, that is observable, repeatable and predictable.

Now, if we can look at the same evidence and can both agree what it means we can go forward. ( the evidence still could be wrong) Add in the fact science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe and is provisional and it makes it more challenging. As I mentioned before your view of the evidence is very limited because you will not admit to formal and final causes.


You well know that entropy is always increasing disorder even though there may be local pockets that are in equilibrium. Is your argument the solar system is in equlibrium?


Very wrong. Here’s a question for you:

If you have a cube of ice in a warm room then the ice will melt. Its entropy will have increased. Has the entropy of the room increased, decreased or has it remained in equilibrium?

I’ll give you a clue. It has decreased. Feel free to argue against the second Law as you see fit.

And your ‘local pockets’ would be whole of the solar system (your definition of ‘local pocket’ seems to be different to mine). It is virtually a closed system and so is in equilibrium, disregarding energy exchange between it and the rest of the universe.

Don’t forget to answer the question by the way.


In keeping with your tradition, we should be talking about us rather than the topic. Unfortunately, I cannot correct a reader’s confusion. We are blessed with only a certain level of cousel by the Holy Spirit, and all I can do is try to present my argument in the clearest fashion I can. Beyond that, those interested in expanding their knowledge will have to open their minds to what lies beyond their understanding and knowledge.

Sticking with the subject at hand, I will re-assert that reality goes far, far beyond the limits of empiricism. If we are to discuss life and especially ourselves we must include those psychological and especially spiritual dimensions which define us more than our physical morphology.

Back to your preferred subject - us, I tried to reduce the word count because people did not appear to be reading my responses. Seeing the confusion it caused I posted a long ( I could have gone further) clarification as to the meaning of the words, how they were being used. From your response, I can now assume I was correct and that you did not read my response to Rossum, nor probably anything except to find fault with something I don’t really get. When you do so, the post is deprived of the context and meaning.

Clearly, for anyone willing to understand, entroy was used as a short form for the principle that is stated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that overall the universe is “devolving”. There is an increase in disorganization through random spontaneous reactions, those that are not forced to happen by external energy. Entropy can be thought of as a constant overall process in the universe although the existing order shifts energy from external sources to locally increase the organization of specific structures.

If you want to discuss this, I will be happy to do so.


Utterly irrelevant. Any theory can use any evidence it sees fit. Its proponent can accept or reject any evidence for any valid scientific reasoning.

The question still stands. How do we tell which theory is the best at explaining the evidence? The number of papers written? Number of experts in the relevant fields who accept it?

And you must realise that this answer must be valid for all theories.


Saying that is it a constant process is most definitely not the same as claiming it to be a constant: ‘Entropy can be said to be a property or constant’.

But glad to see that you have corrected your position.


Very subjective.


I missed this reply, as you may have missed his reply.

I think what makes a difference is a relationship with God. Without that Light, the most fundamental of all truths, there is only evolution, the random appearance of life seredipitously, if our presence in this vale of tears is something to be valued, resulting in all this activity, as we read, think and write as one individual person in the community of mankind. If all one has to deal with is matter, the correct theory is not going to emerge. How can one think of creation, if one does not believe in the Creator? Evolution or creation, the basic scientific evidence is exactly the same. The fact is that the fundamental forces and constants of nature cannot predict the existence of living beings, and actually should be arguing against that reality. So, to argue for evolution requires more than just having no proof of God’s existence, but rather an active belief in His nonexistence.


“Clarified” dude. Seriously, what is your point? Lol.


That would be the case if we were just a collection of molecules no different from those that constitute this electronic equipment we are currently using.


Valid scientific reasoning must conform with the scientific method. So no, not subjective. So no, you have still not answered the question in any case.

How do we tell which theory is the best at explaining the evidence? The number of papers written? Number of experts in the relevant fields who accept it? Any idea at all?


So you dermine the validity of a scientific theory on…a relationship with God. How does that work with relativity? Or germ theory? Or lplate tectonics?


Generally speaking, science runs on the explanation that at the moment is the best mnemonic for the data. There have been times when a particular model continues to be used even though it has problems because there isn’t one that is any better. When a discovery comes along that addresses the problems, sometimes it explains why the first model was fine as far as it went, concerning that it couldn’t account for the newly-discovered confounding variable, and sometimes the first model simply has to be discarded entirely, in light of the new way of looking at the problem. It just depends.


Nobody has suggested that. Only you as you were building your straw man. If you like you can search the umpteen posts on this trhead to find one single example of anyone who
has sugested it.

I wouldn’t bother. There aren’t any. It’s a fantasy to deflect from any suggestion that those who deny evolution hold fundamentalist positions. I find it incredible that it’s a barrow you still insist on pushing.


My point, dude, is that you made a statement that was incorrect and are yet to admit it. You cannot clarify an incorrect statment. You can only correct it. Which you have.


So apart from personal opinion (my theory is better than yours), what would be a good indicator that any given theory does indeed explain certain evidence the best way?


Not quite. The SLoT says that the whole universe will become more disorganised. It allows for a small part to become less disorganised while the rest increases disorganisation.

Not everything. When salt water evaporates the water is becoming more disorganised, but the salt crystals left behind have become less disorganised. Many natural processes can decrease entropy locally.


So, if we want to talk about life, which is us, we have to go beyond the forces that govern plate tectonics, the structure of time and space (relativity), and also “germ theory” which I interpret to mean infectious medicine, dedicated to understanding a very narrow, albeit important, area of the physical interaction between viruses and bacteria with other life forms.


And eventually, as that unalterable process continues, the small part will also disorganise.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.