Monday, April 12, 2010
An intelligent design argument is that the laws of nature tend to destroy rather than construct, and that this tendency toward entropy is too powerful say that evolution could be sustained long enough to be called macroevolution. Coyne says, "we easily accept that the Grand Canyon resulted from millions of years of slow, imperceptible carving by the Colorado River, even though we can't see the canyon getting deeper over our lifetime. But for some people this ability to extrapolate time for geological forces doesn't apply to evolution" (125). A logical (perhaps not infallably logical) reason for this would be the above. In fact, as stated on the cover of the AP Physics B textbook last year, delta-S-sub-universe>0, meaning the universe is always becoming more chaotic rather than more organized. How can one refute this in the case of evolution? Is there perhaps a solution related to thermodynamics? Any explanations as to how we can be at least fairly certain that the nature of nature is not so destructive as to prevent evolution would be welcome.