I think you're misunderstanding Jack's point, Roy.
He's pointing out that we draw conclusions from
complete evidence. So we must look at the context as a whole. By saying, "the bible is wrong, we need the facts to prove it," one is falling into unscientific thinking. Just as, "the bible is right, we need the facts to prove it." It approaches the entire problem with an incorrect mindset, and instead of being open to opposing evidence, one would ignore it.
A scientific mindset would be, "I think the bible is right, what does the evdience suggest?" and, "I think the bible is wrong, what does the evidence suggest?" Of course, this is lumping the bible into one thing, which would be fallacious thinking. Instead, the
proper scientific mindset would be, "Is the bible a credible source of information?"
We must then decide on what a credible source of information would be. If the bible does not qualify, then it is not a credible source of information.
---
According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, evolution doesn't fit with what we know of the universe.
On the onset, it does seem to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Evolution, by its very nature, is increasing complexity and organization over time, where the 2nd law of thermodynamics says things must degrade over time.
They're both right, of course, but the misinterpretation lies in a part of the 2nd law left out by many people.
In a closed system, entropy will always increase. The Earth is not a closed system; it receives additional energy from the sun, making it an open system, and thus the 2nd law is not applicable.
There was never any violation of the 2nd law at all.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 10 2011, 9:15 pm by Sacrieur.
None.