Things aren’t going very well for the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).
At their blog today is this new post by Granville Sewell: Are You Looking for the Simplest and Clearest Argument for Intelligent Design? We’ve written about Sewell before (see Discovery Institute Touts Another Genius).
We won’t spend any time rebutting what Sewell says today, because it’s not worth the effort. But it’s definitely worth noting that the Discoveroids think this is their best argument. Sewell starts out quoting something he wrote earlier. The bold font was added by us:
[I prefer to dwell further on] the much simpler and clearer second point of my article, which is that the increase in order observed on Earth (and here alone, as far as we know) violates the laws of probability and the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular fashion.
It’s our old friend — so often cited by creationists — the second law of thermodynamics. Sewell continues quoting himself:
Evolutionists have always dismissed this argument by saying that the second law of thermodynamics only dictates that order cannot increase in an isolated (closed) system, and the Earth is not a closed system — in particular, it receives energy from the Sun. The second law allows order to increase locally, provided the local increase is offset by an equal or greater decrease in the rest of the universe.
Yes, that’s right. Then Sewell (still quoting himself) carries things to a bit of an extreme:
This always seems to be the end of the argument: order can increase (entropy can decrease) in an open system, therefore, ANYTHING can happen in an open system, even the rearrangement of atoms into computers, without violating the second law.
We’ve never heard anyone (except a creationist) make such a claim, but that’s Sewell’s defense of his Second Law argument. Now let’s give you one more excerpt from the end. Here, Sewell isn’t quoting himself; he’s writing in the present:
I still consider this argument to be the simplest and clearest argument for intelligent design that it is possible to make, and I consider this video [at the Discoveroid post] to be the simplest and clearest presentation of this argument I have ever made … . Unfortunately, it seems to be too simple for many scientists, and generally only appreciated by non-scientists…and mathematicians.
So there you have it. You’ve seen the very best argument for intelligent design. If you’re not persuaded now, there’s no hope for you.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.