Turkey Tries to Censor Evolution on the Web












Internet freedom groups are challenging a Turkish
censorship program.

Summary: The government of Turkey has been trying to keep children
from stumbling onto evolution websites, according to a report in
Hurriyet
Daily News. Websites explaining Darwin’s evolution theory were
inaccessible to users applying a “Children Profile” to their connection.
This is a filter designed for under-aged users in compliance with
government regulations.  However, the censor reportedly allows access
to creation websites.

The editor of a Turkish science and research magazine said the ban was
not against the theory of evolution specifically because not all websites
containing the word “evolution” were banned.  But a particular evolution
website “may have been banned for containing harmful material to
children.”

After the report in
Hurriyet Daily News was published, the ban was lifted,
but science advocates and Internet freedom activists say they are still
worried about the government’s attitude toward evolution.  Turkey’s
filtering program, which was launched in late November, was criticized
because it also filters political sites of opponents of the government and
sites that go against “Turkish values.”

The ban came to light when Aykut Kence, a biologist at Middle East
Technical U. in Ankara reported in an e-mail that children were being
blocked from evolution sites. That shows the “mentality of people
censoring the websites,” he wrote. “Apparently they thought that this
was deleterious for kids.”  Anti-evolution websites developed by “Harun
Yahya” remained accessible without any restrictions.

According to Yaman Akdeniz, the entire Internet censorship program is
being challenged by Internet freedom groups in the Council of State,
Turkey’s highest court.

To read the entire article, click on
SCIENCE.

Comment: Anti-evolutionism used to be (and maybe still is) portrayed
by mainstream scientists as merely being the product of some
fundamentalist Christian groups. That portrayal took a big hit with the
advent of the Intelligent Design movement whose scientists aren’t
necessarily even Christians, much less Bible-based ones. The article
above reminds us that many or most
Muslims are also strong anti-
evolutionists, or even creationists in the sense that many accept Adam
and Eve and a six-day creation.  Islam is the dominant religion in
Turkey.

This article also reminds us that when the shoe is on the other foot,
evolutionists will not hesitate to cry foul. Although there is no
government ban on Americans going on the Internet to visit creationist
sites or even the suggestion of such a ban, creationists see a ban
against anti-evolutionism in many other arenas, such as public
museums, public college classrooms, mainstream media, and so on.
The courts have also (
until recently in some cases) not been friendly
regarding the right to present the scientific case against evolution in all
public forums. So, it would be great if all scientists and freedom-of-
information advocates would criticize the virtual ban on anti-
evolutionism in these public places in America just as evolutionists and
freedom-of-information advocates have criticized the ban in Turkey.

We creationists should not be afraid of confronting our opponents, as
Darwinists often appear to be. We have God’s Word on our side. It is
“sharper than any double-edged sword” (Hebrews 4:12) and has yet to
be proven wrong. We also shouldn’t be afraid to study God’s natural
world which shows us the true Creator and testifies to the truth of the
creation account in Genesis (Romans 1:18-20).

The Answers in Genesis link above suggests that similar beliefs in the
two religions regarding creation could be a bridge in bringing the
Gospel to the millions of Muslims living in North America and Europe.
Why should Muslims be denied the right to hear about the love the
Creator had for his children in sending His Son, Jesus Christ, down to
Earth to become our Savior?  Jesus said, “
Therefore go and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit
” (Matthew 28:19).

PRINT (Black type on white background)

***************************************************************************

Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new
post? Just e-mail your request to
[admin@lutheranscience.org].

***************************************************************************

QUESTION OF THE DAY

Are all white deer albinos?













***************************************************************************
28 Comments

Craig Schwartz wrote: Wow, what an "in" this could be with the
Muslims.  Something for all of us in the creationist movement to ponder.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Given that creationism is so obviously a
religiously-motivated movement (with religious groups banning
evolution websites and touting "We have God's Word on our side!"), is
it really any wonder that it isn't taught in the science classroom?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: But since evolution violates so much science such
as the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), the law of
biogenesis, and genetics, is contradicted by the fossil record as well as
the multitude of examples of planning and design in nature, and cannot
be falsified, it must be considered a "religion of scientists" in its own
right.

Religious and creationist sites are not government tax-supported sites.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Here's the thing: evolution DOESN'T violate the
2nd law of thermodynamics. The tendency for a system to increase in
entropy over time applies only to closed systems. But the earth is not a
closed system; it receives energy continually from the sun. Therefore,
evolution is no more a violation of the laws of thermodynamics than the
growth of an embryo or the formation of a snowflake. This is basic,
high-school level physics.

Having cleared that up, your other misgivings about evolution are of the
same caliber. This is why the so-called "evidence against evolution" is
not being taught in the science classroom or admitted in the court.
These arguments have been refuted time and again, but it's pretty clear
that the religious motivation of the creationists is preventing them from
listening to reason. I think you've just demonstrated that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Editor wrote: Nutcracker, give me a break.  You know full well that
things wear down with time or become disorganized.  That’s why we
need painters to repaint houses, mechanics to fix cars, and morticians
to bury dead people.  Embryos and snowflakes do their things because
of ingenious programming, but embryos develop into adults who die and
snowflakes don’t keep their beautiful shapes forever.

The “earth is an open system” argument is an old, worn-out argument
still apparently being used by evolutionists as a crutch. Entropy applies
equally well to both open and closed systems. The sun’s energy has no
creative power. It can’t turn a rock into a flower and can only help a seed
turn into a plant because of the programming already built into the
seed’s genome.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Your religious fervor is causing you to mislead your
readership again. No, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply
"equally well to both open and closed systems". Look it up in an
introductory physics textbook. Here, I'll even quote the Wikipedia article
for you: "The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the
tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and
chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system." Note the
qualifier: "isolated" system. And since neither Earth, nor species, nor
populations, nor individuals are isolated systems, the 2nd law doesn't
apply. In fact, you admit as much yourself when you say that organisms
can harvest the sun's energy to grow. Your insistence that this
nevertheless requires some form of pre-programming is besides the
point. The fact of the matter is that the 2nd law doesn't apply to life,
which is an open system. If the law did apply, life would be impossible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: “There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated
systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.” Dr.
John Ross of Harvard University
, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July
1980, p. 40

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: "Walking the tightrope of creation science
in the church, I believe, gets us all into trouble.  The processes of
science should remain in the market place where ideas ... may be
debated freely without loss to God's kingdom.  Science among our
people must not be cloistered in a WELS institute. ... A fraudulent use
of the Second Law of Thermodynamics today turns the church into court
jesters professing laws a century outdated, before atoms, and in
harmony with erroneous caloric laws."  Prof. Martin Sponholz, WELS,
"TWO TOWERS - The Relationship Between Science and the Bible,"
April 20, 1982, p. 20.  

Warren - In any debate, where both sides ought to be working together
to get to mutual edification, you should allow an opponent to make a
point for his side, and then expect a greater willingness to agree with
your key, essential arguments, starting with how nothing in Creation
could have created itself.  Same for fossil geology - evolutionists freely
admit that they have zero argument against the purely religious answer
of: All Created Thus.  Since both sides are playing to one great
audience in the marketplace of ideas, won't you ever see the value to
the Church of ending the endless wrangling about fossils with my
credible "out" so that you can turn your full attention to sharing the
Gospel?  GLL

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote:  Hi Editor,

Ignoring the fact that a two-sentence quote from a non-peer-reviewed
engineering news magazine does not count as scientific evidence for
anything, your religious fervor is now causing you to perpetuate out-of-
context quote mines. I did some sleuthing around and managed to
come up with the full context of the quote from Dr. Ross:

"SIR: I am referring to the article entitled 'Physical Chemistry,' C&EN,
June 2, page 20. Toward the end of the article is stated: 'Another area
where physical chemistry likely has important biological applications is
the study of the properties of steady states far from equilibrium. These
are stable systems that do not follow the second law of thermodynamics;
instead they require a continual supply of energy from outside the
system to maintain themselves.' Please be advised that there are no
known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the
second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems. I recognize that it is very difficult to write
an article on as broad a subject as physical chemistry in two pages, and
ordinarily I would not bother to point out minor errors. However, there is
somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena
the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.
It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."

This is a letter to the editor written in response to a previous article. Note
what Ross is saying: that by requiring a continual supply of energy,
biological systems DO follow the 2nd law, rather than violating it as the
author of the previous article implied. I may have slightly erred earlier by
saying that the 2nd law does not apply to life -- what I should have said
is that life does not violate the 2nd law because it is not an isolated
system. If life did violate the 2nd law, it would entail a decrease in
entropy WITHOUT external energy input. And if you believe that, you
must be living in another universe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bruce Holman wrote: Nutcracker has sited a principle of
thermodynamics which is true of some open systems, but not for the
case at hand.  To expand on Dr. Ross' comments, for energy input to a
system to cause an increase in order (decrease in entropy) there must
be a mechanism which directs the energy into an ordering rather than
the usual disordering process. This does happen in certain cases, but
is not the general rule. Normally energy input into a system results in an
increase in entropy.

Think for example about the melting of ice. Energy input causes the
molecules to become more disordered. With regard to the sun and the
earth normally the sun's energy input results in simple heating which
would unequivocally cause an increase in entropy in almost all cases.
For the energy input from the sun to result in an ordering process a
mechanism for channeling the energy into an ordering process is
necessary.  On earth there is such a mechanism. It's called
photosynthesis. This process turns the energy input of two photons of
light into a capture of a molecule of carbon dioxide gas... an ordering
process.

But here's the problem, Nutcracker, photosynthesis is a very complex
process that would have required a significant amount of "evolution" to
create. Even granting that there could be a mechanism for causing the
considerable ordering necessary to produce a photosynthetic organism,
there is no mechanism for coupling photosynthesis to the creation of
order within the nucleus of the cell. That is there is no way for the
capture of carbon dioxide to add genetic information to the nucleus of
the cell increasing the genetic "order" of an organism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bruce Holman wrote: Nutcracker, you have gotten very close to a
crucial point.  I would ask you to consider the fact that photosynthesis
allows the ordering process of life to occur for only a short time. That
there are disordering process which eventually overwhelm that ordering
process.  I would submit that life IS impossible outside of the ordering
hand of God. By nature we are doomed to die, and God has caused it
to be so because he wants to rid the universe of sin. But for mankind he
has provided a savior who is God himself, and the author of life. He
became human to receive the punishment we deserve for our sins at the
hands of a righteous God. This redemption is available to every human
being on earth. It is available to you.

The Bible, and the preaching of the gospel is the mechanism God uses
to cause people to make use of the righteousness of God. It causes
people to put their trust in the God who has saved them, and thereby to
receive a life for which there is no process that will stand against it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Dr. Holman, thanks for confirming what I've been
saying all along. Sure, there's a mechanism required to convert energy
to order. I'm more than happy to admit that. But it's completely besides
the point. The point is that, in an open system, like a plant or an animal,
energy can be added to produce growth. This doesn't violate the 2nd
law of thermodynamics in any way, contrary to what the Editor has been
saying. The only way to violate the 2nd law would be to have entropy
decrease in a CLOSED system, which is not how evolution works. The
Editor is just plain and flat-out wrong on this one. If your concern is with
the gospel, then I would suggest that you not tie it to such demonstrable
lies as "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics", lest more
informed people laugh you off the face of the earth. St. Augustine had
some pertinent words on the matter:

http://dracil.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/st-augustine-on-using-the-bible-
against-evolution/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Since my name was mentioned, let me add my two
cents worth. Nutcracker, don’t all living things wear out and die despite
the constant stream of sunlight upon the earth?  Isn’t this entropy? And
even the growth in living things can’t take place without their
intelligently designed genes. What you want people to believe might be
compared to the idea  that merely adding fuel to an automobile can
keep it from wearing out or might even cause it to develop new features
all on its own. Also, you call Dr. Sanford’s  work on genetic entropy bogus
although I doubt you have spent even 1% of the time he has on that
subject. Merely calling the serious implications of the widely accepted
2nd law of thermodynamics for the theory of evolution a “lie” isn’t going
to make it go away. Please reconsider.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Hi Editor,

Yes, individuals absolutely die out over time. They die because their
telomeres shorten with every cell division. But individuals also grow
and reproduce for much of their lives, and they do so because they
are able to assimilate energy from their environment and convert it to
anabolism.  Attribute this to your god-of-the-gaps theology if you wish
-- it doesn't matter. The point is that none of this in any way violates
the 2nd law of thermodynamics, despite your repetitive insistence that it
does. And so long as those individuals reproduce before they die, their
populations will persist, evolving with time as the allele frequencies flux
automatically in response to environmental change. None of this
violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, either. If evolution was in
violation of the 2nd law, you would have to show that life is, in fact, an
isolated system that is capable of increasing order without an external
energy source. This, of course, is ridiculous and you haven’t come even
remotely close to demonstrating it. You are hitching the gospel to a
demonstrable lie, dooming it to failure with those who know better.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote:  Nutcracker, you really didn’t deny the fact that
organisms wearing down, dying, and losing available energy fits the
definition of "entropy," because you can't. This means that open
systems do indeed experience entropy. And you can’t appeal to the
ability of creatures to reproduce unless you can explain how pure
energy can design such complex reproductive systems. Again, I hope
and pray you will reconsider your faith in the hollow doctrine of
evolution that offers people no hope for the future and instead return
to biblical Christianity with its promise of a wonderful existence in
heaven.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bruce Holman wrote: Just to be clear. The biochemical processes
of life do not violate the second law. That's one reason why
macroevolution does not occur.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bruce Holman wrote: Here's the crux of the issue regarding
whether energy input can fuel evolution:  There is no mechanism for
channeling the energy into greater genetic information content
(order) in the nucleus.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: I am more than happy to admit that individuals die
with time -- call it "entropy", if you like. But you're either
misunderstanding or misrepresenting me if you think I'm saying that
open systems do not experience entropy. My point is simply that when
organisms are growing and reproducing, they do so because they are
taking in energy. In other words, organisms are able to decrease
entropy -- even if only temporarily -- because they are open systems.
This is entirely in line with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The only
way organismal growth and reproduction would violate the 2nd law
would be if they were CLOSED systems. Are you so proud that you're
completely unwilling to admit your blatant error on this matter?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Nutcracker, I did not understand that you are now
willing to say that open systems can experience entropy. You previously
seemed to object to the statement that “the second law applies equally
well to open systems.” Meanwhile, please give additional consideration
to my plea in the last sentence in my comments above.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Ahhhh... I think we're finally getting to the heart of
the matter. According to Dr. Holman, you guys think evolution violates
the 2nd law because it sometimes entails the appearance of novel
functions ("new information") for which you believe there is no known
mechanism. I have two responses to this:
1) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that an evolutionary increase in
information is possible -- the mechanism for which remains unknown --
this would still not violate the 2nd law because ORGANISMS ARE OPEN
SYSTEMS. The only way to violate the 2nd law would be to have a
decrease in entropy within a CLOSED system, which neither of you
have demonstrated is the case with evolution. I don't know why I have
to keep repeating this.
2) We DO, in fact, know of mechanisms by which to increase genetic
information and produce novel functions. A big one is gene duplication,
coupled with mutation of the duplicated gene. A perfect example of this
was demonstrated recently when this mechanism was shown to confer
on Arctic eelpout the ability to withstand freezing temperatures
(
http://www.news.illinois.edu/news/11/0112genes_cheng.html).
This same mechanism is believed to have given rise to numerous
copies of the Hox gene present in complex animals, resulting in novel
body plans. It's very tiring when creationists argue that there are no
known evolutionary mechanisms for increasing genetic information
because this is demonstrably false. To tie this back to the original
subject matter of the thread, I suspect that creationists continue to
perpetuate this lie because of their religious motivation, and not
because of an honest interest in science.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bruce Holman wrote: Some misunderstandings should be
corrected here.  Entropy is a quantifiable property of a thermodynamic
system like energy or mass, not an event.  It is incorrect to say that
something "experiences entropy," just as it incorrect to say that
something experiences mass.  

One form of the second law of thermodynamics states that for any
spontaneous process the entropy of the universe increases. This also
means that the entropy of an isolated system increases in any
spontaneous process.  Nutcracker is exactly right that an open system
can increase its order, and I compliment his cogent statement of his
position.  He has also made an appropriate application to an organism.  
Organisms grow and increase in order over their lifetime not
only because they are open systems, but also because there are
biochemical mechanisms in place to convert energy into their growth
and development.

However, all this is beside the point with regard to the creation/
evolution debate.  In this debate creationists just don't see how more
genetic information can spontaneously develop within the nucleus of a
cell, let alone all the cells of an organism.  It is not enough to say that
the nucleus, or the cell, or the organism is an open system, there must
also be a mechanism to convert the energy into order rather than the
usual disordering process. The point is: there is no mechanism for
translating any energy input into ordered nucleic acid pairs which
correspond to the exact genes and gene expression apparatus for a
higher order species.  All this additional genetic information must be
formed nucleus of the organism’s before natural selection can select the
new species by survival.  This is why we have never observed a single
case of macroevolution, and why in every instance we observe
organisms reproducing "after their own kind," as scripture says.

Finally Nutcracker brings up an interesting point about the implications
for the gospel in regard to the creation/evolution debate.  Faith is proved
right more effectively by its implementation than its criticism.  Will that
chair over there hold my weight?  We can examine the materials,
diagram the forces, and debate for a long time, but if we actually try to
sit in it we will quickly find if the chair is worthy of our trust. There was a
time when we didn’t know how to answer Darwin, and those Christians
who stood up for the simple teaching of scripture were ridiculed by a
majority of people who seem to know what they are talking about.  But
today we know a lot more science, and we are a lot less intimidated by
those who scoff.  Even though as limited human beings we may not
know how to answer every question, we can see that the Biblical account
was much more in accord with the facts than many dared to believe.
Add the fact that the creation account was written 4,000 years  ago, and
you realize it was not just Moses' own ideas, but God's revealed Word.  
Moreover, God told us Christians that we would be in this situation.  The
Bible tells us that in the wisdom of God the world through
its own wisdom did not know him, so God was pleased through the
foolishness of the simple message of the Bible to save some.  The
wisdom of the world is foolishness to God, and he has chosen what are
in the eyes of the world foolish things, to shame those who are wise in
the eyes of the world.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: It's almost as though you're completely ignoring
me, Dr. Holman. I gave you an explanation for how to increase genetic
information within the nucleus of a cell: gene duplication with
subsequent mutation of the duplicated gene. This has been
demonstrated empirically to give rise to novel functions (e.g.,
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/50/21593.abstract?sid=c12a7d0a-
07fd-4458-851d-d83bd7210112), but you have not addressed the
matter. Instead, you continue  as if the research was never conducted.
It's hardly surprising that creationists think that the biblical account is
"more in accord with the facts than many dared to believe"; if you
ignore facts that contradict your position, how could you think
otherwise? That type of "biblical Christianity" is not for me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Editor wrote: Nutcracker, I want to remind you that this discussion
really got going when you objected to the statement: “the second law
applies equally well to open systems.” In one of your first comments, you
erroneously wrote: “The tendency for a system to increase in entropy
over time applies only to closed systems.”

I seem to recall reading once that aging and the dying process in people
begin the moment they are born, which would imply that entropy applies
immediately to living organisms.  So I did some research on the Internet
and came across the interesting website article linked below, written by
an evolutionist, Leonard Hayflick. He writes, “Although there is no direct
evidence that genes drive age changes, their critical role in longevity
determination is indisputable. There is a huge body of knowledge
supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing
entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and
accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems.”  Later, “The
common denominator that underlies all modern theories of biological
aging is change in molecular structure and, hence, function. These
changes are the result of entropic changes, which is now supported
by the recent reinterpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
where the belief that it only applies to closed systems has been
overturned.”

To be fair, Mr. Hayflick says a “purposeful” (I find the choice of that
adjective interesting) genetic program governs the changes that occur
from the beginning of living systems until  “reproductive maturation.”
Thus, if I understand him, he implies entropy is held in check until
individuals achieve reproduction maturation after which he believes the
repair and replacement capability of organisms is “exacerbated.”

At best then, Mr. Hayflick seems to be saying that whatever decrease in
entropy that occurs in organisms is only temporary. At worst, entropy is
occurring in all of us and other creatures too from the moment we
appear on this planet, and the fact that we grow and become stronger
for a while might be giving a false impression. I once knew a young lady
who suffered from cystic fibrosis. She grew and became stronger and
even was chosen as a member of her high school’s cheerleading squad.
Nevertheless, her genetic disease was continuing to eat away at her,
and she died very young. Perhaps this is an exaggerated example of
what is happening to all of us.

The article link---
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/
journal.pgen.0030220

P.S. Nutcracker, please note that Dr. Holman’s last comment was written
before he had a chance to read your comment that immediately
preceded his.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Editor, nothing you've said to date in any way
supports your original contention that evolution violates the 2nd law.
When you are able to show that life is an isolated system in which
entropy decreases, you will have validated your point. Until then, you
are propagating a lie in the name of Jesus. It's that simple.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bruce Holman wrote: Fascinating article Warren, and very
appropriate to the present discussion.  

Nutcracker, I do apologize for appearing to not give you the attention
you feel you deserve, and I must say your responses have been
consistently intelligent, and appropriate within the context of the
discussion.  You genuinely deserve the thanks of everyone who reads
the blog.

The article you have cited brings up an important distinction that needs
to be made when thinking about the creation/evolution issue.
Creationists rightly distinguish between macro and microevolution.  We
recognize that genetic material within the nucleus of an organism’s cells
can be rearranged or biochemically expressed differently to produce
new traits that might be beneficial to the survival of the species.  This
process happens all the time and has been well documented since the
time of Gregor Mendel.  This situation we refer to as microevolution.
But the Bible says that God created different kinds of organisms that
reproduce according to their own kind. Different kinds of organisms in
this sense differ genetically by having whole sections of nucleic acid
sequences that bear no resemblance to each other, and usually a
completely different chromosomal structure.  The changes discussed in
the article you cite involve the translocation of a subunit of nucleic acid
sequences.  This minor change keeps the sequence of the subunit
intact, and is at best a negligible change in entropy.  Darwin thought
that the fossil record would show gradual changes from one species to
another, but we consistently see distinct species of fossils that appear
with their unique functional equipment completely intact.  The genetic
differences in different created kinds involves many thousands of new
genes with sequences that bear no resemblance to each other.  This is
a significant change in the order and entropy of the genome.  Once
again, there is no biochemical mechanism for decreasing the entropy
(increasing the order) of the genome.  When are told “it can’t be done”
our natural tendency is to immediately try to do it.  But just as there will
never be a perpetual motion machine, so there will never be a
spontaneous process that results in macroevolution.  The situation is
very similar when we hear God’s law.  God gave that law in love with the
promise that our lives would be blessed if we followed it.  We are
continually trying to do God one better. We try to invent blessings
outside of his boundaries and the disorder of our life increases.  Only
God himself can put the pieces of our life together.  Jesus came to do
just that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert wrote: Gerhold L. Lemke wrote: "Walking the tightrope of
creation science in the church, I believe, gets us all into trouble.  The
processes of science should remain in the market place where ideas
... may be debated freely without loss to God's kingdom.  Science
among our people must not be cloistered in a WELS institute. ... A
fraudulent use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics today turns the
church into court jesters professing laws a century outdated, before
atoms, and in harmony with erroneous caloric laws."  Prof. Martin
Sponholz, WELS,
"TWO TOWERS - The Relationship Between Science and the Bible,"
April 20, 1982, p. 20
*************************************************************************

like that would turn out to be a  fair exchange of ideas  .The
evolotionists already run the show now if you havent noticed . now
christians  must shoot our selves in the foot also . do a little lying a little
giving over for the benefit of evolotionists .like that will make and keep
christians. making and keeping christians god clerly is able to do that
through the sacraments and gospel message .. concideing any thing
for the benefit of evolotionary theorys simply is not  going to keep any
one a christian.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert wrote: scientfic evidence from the only one that was there .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-3a1ZlkaMg

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Dr. Holman, likewise, nothing you've said has in
any way demonstrated that evolution is in violation of the 2nd law.

Just to make it crystal clear, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that
entropy cannot decrease in an isolated system. The only way that entropy
can decrease is if the system is open to energy input. What you
and the Editor have since expressly admitted to is that organisms are
open systems which intake energy for conversion to metabolic order for
growth and reproduction, even if only over a relatively short period of
time. Therefore, by admitting that organisms are open systems, you
have contradicted the claim that evolution violates the 2nd law.
Evolution could only violate the 2nd law if organisms were isolated
systems, which you admit they are not. Please stop perpetuating this lie.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bruce Holman wrote: It is not sufficient to say that a system is
open to prove that order will increase in that system.  Think about a
messy dorm room with clothes strewn everywhere.  Energy may enter
the room in the form of sunlight streaming through the window, or the
room may be heated by the heating system, but that energy will not put
the clothes away. The resident of the dorm room may even come in
and go out, but that in and of itself will not clean the room.  Only when
someone applies himself to the task of cleaning up the room will the
clothes get put in their proper place.  So it is in the nucleus of the cell.  
Different kinds of organisms have a significantly different number
and order of nucleic acid base pairs in their genome.  Converting from
one kind to another does not and cannot happen by itself or by
accident. I can understand how this makes you uncomfortable, but it is
the fact.

There are facts that may make us even more uncomfortable.  One day
we will all have to account for the messes we make of our lives before
the one who gave us the order of life.  At that time no excuse will matter,
and no argument of our own will suffice.  Yet someone has already
volunteered to take the punishment we deserve, and he will get down
on his knees to clean up our mess.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bruce Holman wrote: Way Cool, Robert!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutcracker wrote: Dr. Holman, I agree that it is not sufficient that a
system be open for order to increase within the it. For the hundredth
time, my point is that, because life is an open system, evolution cannot
be in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Honestly, it's becoming pretty obvious that you guys just don't want to
fess up to lying for Jesus.

NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: Visitor comments are invited including
those containing alternate views. However, comments containing
profanity
or advertisements will not be published. After  posting a
comment, please allow several hours for it to appear on the blog.
Monday, Dec. 12, 2011       Prefer to read this post in Blogspot?  Click Here.     PRINT
The name you want to appear with the comments.
Comments
<HOME> <ALL POSTS>
White deer are not uncommon, and not all of them
are true albinos. True or pure albino deer have a
genetic defect that causes a total absence of
pigment in their bodies.  They will not even have
pigment in their eyes, which results in pink eyes,
pink from the blood vessels.  Other white deer
also have a genetic defect, but one which makes
their skin and hair white but which can leave their
eyes and hooves with some pigment.

Source:
Creation (January-March, 2012)
The opinions expressed
here are those of The
Editor and do not
necessarily represent
the views of the Lutheran
Science Institute. Please
note that links in older
posts may be broken
.

CLICK FOR
ALL  POSTS
About Me - Warren Krug
The Editor

Decades ago I attended a
so-called Lutheran
university where I could
have lost my faith. The
science professors promoted
the theory of evolution and
made fun of anybody who
believed in the account of
creation as presented in
the book of Genesis.
Thanks be to God, some
creationist literature and
the Bible soon helped get
me back on the right track.
Ever since then I have
taken an active interest in
the creation/evolution
controversy.

Background image from NASA