nikolai wrote:Also, what's the go with all these people talking about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics? What are they implying?
They're parroting something they heard said by somebody else who they thought sounded smarter than themselves.
Something that they have little or no actual understanding of, applied to an inappropriate situation, supposedly to prove a point that they will believe regardless of evidence.
The second law of thermo states that the entropy of a closed system always increases. That is, closed systems tend to a state of disorder (ie become more simple) unless you apply energy and force it otherwise.
Basically, that means that if you put two same-temperature blocks together (in a sealed insulated box, FWIW) and leave them sit, you won't spontaneously end up with a hot block and a cold one, because that's a more ordered (less entropic) state than both being the same temperature.
The creationists rewrite the law to back up their claim that you can't spontaneously generate a more complex lifeform (say, mammals) from a simple lifeform (say, a bacterium).
This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. At a ridiculously simplistic level, we just need to notice that there is solar energy entering their "closed system", so Thermo2 doesn't apply (because energy can be used to do work... such as making one block hot and another cold... or making a tree grow from simple chemicals... or writing data to a disc... or... or... or...).
I'd hazard a guess that none of these creationist numpties who think that evolution violates Thermo2 would actually be able to state what the law is, and an application that demonstrates it.
It should also be pointed out that the laws of thermodynamics... hell, thermodynamics as a whole... is "just a theory". Just like the theory of gravitational attraction, the atomic model, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of evolution. So, of course, none of them should be taught in schools without giving equal emphasis to opposing theories.