The law of entrepy is "the more time passes the greater disorder gets". Evolution theory is when time passes the more in order a thing gets. So that doesn't make sense to me; if evolution was true than the law couldn't be true, but the law is true. Does this make any sense to anyone? Just wondering and learning more and more; or at least trying to learn more.

-- Sonya (johnsonya2003@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004

Answers

Response to The Law of Entrepy and Evolution

Actually this is a misconception. The law of Thermodynamics you refer to refers to a CLOSED system, the earht is an open system.

Likewise, by that logic, one woudl nto expect things liek twhcnology to grow in compelxity, or relationships. yet they do.

Plus one has to consider the unique nature of life. How life operates is different than random Chemicles. Life forms have volition, even the mos primative life form can detect its environen and adjust its hbehaviour acocrdingly. The more cmplext he lifeform, the greater its capacity for cvolition, thus the greater its own chance for both survival, and the creation of order agis thte natural world.

If you want mroe details, ask.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 16, 2004.

Response to The Law of Entrepy and Evolution

being a physicist, im all over this one:

The law of entrepy is "the more time passes the greater disorder gets".

not really, that is a horrible way to phrase it. the actual law is PARTICLES within an isolated system tend towards chaos. earth, as zarove said, is not an isolated system, however, there are reasonably isolated systems within the earth (such as your cup of coffee). particle diffusion is the reason when you pour creamer into that cup, it eventually spreads through the cup, even if you dont stir (but by then the cup is cold anyway)

Evolution theory is when time passes the more in order a thing gets.

no, again. the theory of evolution states that as generations pass the complexity of a species of organisms increases. this does not represent a change in order, or chaos for that matter, but a change in complexity. in fact, complex systems, by nature, are more chaotic than simple systems. so you might say that evolution brings about the fulfilment of the second law of thermodynamics.

i hope that makes sense now. so, what does this have to do with religion, or were you just challenging evolution?

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 16, 2004.

Response to The Law of Entrepy and Evolution

I thought it had something to do with religion because evolution is a very heavy topic with Christians from what I understand. There are some arguments I hear challenging evolution which include the law of entrepy, the "missing link", and just that some people want to use evolution as a way to be atheistic. I know that you are not like that last one, but I am more of a Creationist and not a very strong one. I am willing to get all the facts and be open minded as long as I don't have to compromise my faith, which I know that everyone here who answeres my questions shows me that I don't have to compromise. And that there are facts about science and religion that go together, but I don't have all the answers. That's why I wanted to see what you had to say. Thanks for the responses.

-- Sonya (johnsonya2003@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.

Response to The Law of Entrepy and Evolution

No, evolutionary biology has nothing to do with religious belief, except in the very general sense that all science is the study of God's creation. Evolutionary science does run into problems when you try to separate it from God, or use it as a substitute for God - but so does any other area of human study. This is the way an atheist approaches the subject of biological evolution - but it is also the way he approaches every other subject, so the problem here is not with evolution but with atheism.

I, like you, consider myself a "creationist" - but only in the proper sense of the word. I believe that God created all that exists. He intially created the universe by an act of His will, out of nothing; and He created and set into motion complex physical and biological processes of His own design, through which the universe and everything in it entered into a gradual process of evolution (note - "evolution" means "change", it doesn't mean "origins"). We know that the universe changes over time. It is expanding at a great rate of speed. The earth changes over time. Oceans and continents move and change shape, mountain ranges appear where there were none, and erode away until they are gone. Tropical areas become temperate and frigid zones become tropical. All of this continuous change is a natural part of God's creation. We also know for a fact that plant and animal species regularly disappear and are replaced by new species which did not previously exist. This too is part of God's plan for His creation. Biological evolution is simply one of many wondrous natural systems God has provided to ensure the ongoing existence of, and the orderly gradual transformation of the natural world He created.

We know that human beings could not have come into existence by biological evolution alone, even though biological evolution is a work of God, because human beings are not merely biological. We have an immortal supernatural nature which distinguishes us from all other elements of natural creation. Our bodies are biological, so God may indeed have formed them through an orderly process of ongoing biological change. However, our immortal souls could not have come about through any natural process. The human soul must have been infused into the human body by the direct action of God at a specific point in history - an event which the Bible decribes as God "creating us in His own image and likeness".

I too have friends whose Christian churches tell them they must not accept biological evolution, as it is "atheistic" in nature. Some of them are even biological scientists! I feel sorry for them, for the irreconcilable and unnecessary tension they experience between what their professional knowledge tells them must be true, and what their church tells them must not be true. In the Catholic Church, where the fullness of God's truth resides, there is no irrational fear of scientific truth. Rather, there is a understanding that no genuine truth, regardless of its source, can be in conflict with any other genuine truth, regardless of its source.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 16, 2004.

Response to The Law of Entrepy and Evolution

sonya, paul m is right, as usual.

i am a creationalist in the eyes of most evolutionists. I am also an evolutionist to hard core fundies.

im more in the middle because the two theories are not exclusive. i'm what you might call a "Cre-evolutionist." I believe that God created animals and mankind... through evolving them. When i return from rome in a week i will be glad to discuss it with you

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 16, 2004.

Response to The Law of Entrepy and Evolution

Hello all. I am a year out of college. I earned a degree in philosophy, with a minor in theology, and am currently working on an MA in theology. I have recently been hired to teach junior high religion at my parish.

During my interview, I was discussing certain controversial issues with my pastor and the DRE. I assumed it was normal for them to ask about this to make sure my theology is in line with Church teaching.

Well, we were discussing evolution. I was told that they preferred that I did not discuss evolution in class. I told them that John Paul II has said on numerous occasions that evolution poses no problems to faith as long as we believe that evolution was part of God's plan. They weren't happy when I said this. They never directly forbade me to teach John Paul II's teaching, but they indirectly let me know that I should just stay away from the issue. I believe this is going to pose serious problems. What do you all think? I don't want to lose my job. But I want to teach what John Paul II teaches.

Thanks

-- "Bob" (nothanks@yahoo.com), May 16, 2004.

Response to The Law of Entrepy and Evolution

If you desire to teach what JP II teaches, I'm sure there are many more important issues than that of evolution. In fact, JP II's comments regarding evolution did not actually make any conclusive statements about the matter. In fact, I don't think JP II has spoken in detail about evolution in detail. From my understanding, He is just saying that the Catholic Church has not made a stance against it.

As such, to teach evolution and say that the pope supports it is not entirely fair or representative of His position. I think it would be more accurate to say that He is open minded about such matters but not taking a stance on either side of the fence officially.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), May 16, 2004.

Response to The Law of Entrepy and Evolution

It is not an official Church poisition that biological evolution is a fact - and with good reason. It is not the Church's position to take official positions on matters of science unless there are specific moral considerations (such as stem cell research or in vitro fertilization). And even then it is only the moral aspects, not the scientific aspects, on which the Church takes a stance. It IS official Church position however that belief in biological evolution is completely compatible with Catholic doctrinal belief. Still, if your pastor is uncomfortable with the subject (which probably means he knows little about it), then I agree with Oliver, just skip it. It is not a crucial subject for junior high school level catechesis. However, you might ask your pastor what to do if the kids pose specific questions on the subject. "We don't discuss that topic" isn't going to impress them, but will only make them more curious about it; and if they are really interested in the subject they will get answers somewhere. Better that they get their answers from a solid Catholic source then read some fundamentalist tract that "explains" how the Catholic Church goes against the Bible by approving of evolution.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 17, 2004.

Response to The Law of Entrepy and Evolution

I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. I can not say he did it in six 24 hour days NOR through a process of billions of years. I do not know but I BELIEVE He created it.

I am very familiar with evolution as well. I have numerous books on it by creation scientists (mainly the 24 hour belief but some also the billion years belief) who have degrees in anthropology, geology, biology, etc, anotherwords not mere people who have only read books.

There does seem to be many problems with the billion year idea, such as the missing links, fossil creatures ( a MAGORITY of them) not found in the proper timetable of strata, events where "professional top" scientists disagree on weather certain fossils such as Java Man are either man, missing link, or an extinc ape, or even an entirely different ape-like creature, etc, and much much more.

There are also problems with the 24 hour belief as well that have alot to do with space, radioactive dating (although many scientists admit there are many problems with that) etc.

But I do believe there is overwhelming evidence for Noah;s Ark. And that there was no death nor suffering BEFORE Adam's sin. Animals did not die nor suffer sickness, sorrow, or pain along with plants and every living creature. That only came because of SIN. Therefore it is said, the evolving of creatures that God did were done by favorable mutations. Nothing was ever harmed until the curse of sin entered the world by sin.

Dinosaurs are very interesting too. Especialy all the legends China and even Indians have about them existing with man, after all, there was no death.

Is that how you all who believe in evolution or is it the atheistic way (though accepting God).

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), May 29, 2004.

IS IT ACUALLY POSSIBLE THAT ALL THAT IS ABOUT US, CAME TO BE FROM CHAOS, THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF SUBSTANTIATION THAT CAN PROVE THIS PHILOSOPHY THAT ONLY THE NAIVE EMBRACE. THE COMPLEXITY OF THAT WHICH IS AROUND US IS THE PRODUCT OF AN ENTITY (GOD). THE BELIEF THAT THE BIG BOOM, OR WHATEVER ELSE FOOLS BELIEVE, IS THE PRODUCT OF LIFE IS LUDICROUS; THE BELIEF IN THAT WHICH I PROPOSE THAT ONLY FOOLS BELIEVE IS ANOTHER WORDS magic. WHICH IS QUITE CONTRARY TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.

pLEASE REPLY DIRECTLY AT MY EMAIL ADDRESSSE

-- Larry Winston (ninthmaverick@sbcglobal.net), June 13, 2004.