Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Now more than ever.  PART I
Message-ID: <1556@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-May-85 18:07:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.1556
Posted: Wed May 22 18:07:21 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 22-May-85 20:13:22 EDT
References: <297@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA> <mhuxt.879>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 29
Summary: 


I haven't seen this newsgroup in more than a month, an the first time I
look, I see a new idea!

>     All right then, please provide a rigorous definition of entropy 
>along with your source, which allows the concept to be applied quantitatively
>to things like evolution (or any other non-thermodynamic process).
>Jeff Sonntag

How come evolution is not a thermodynamic process?  Doesn't it conform
to the laws of nature, then?  Perhaps you mean non-equilibrium process,
or non-isolated, but surely everything physical obeys the laws of
thermodynamics insofar as they are correct descriptions of nature,
just as everything obeys all the other laws of nature (except for
those supernatural events so well known in this newsgroup).
Maybe we have here the clue to the inconclusive nature of the creation-evolution
argument: The creationists assure us that creationism is science, but
to agree demands a great amount of faith; now an evolutionist argues
that evolution is not science, but to agree demands a great suspension
of faith.  So -- let's have a coordinated creavolationist philosophy,
in which you let the laws of nature run when you want them to, and
suspend them when convenient.  It would be so much easier to do research
in this paradigm!
Come to think of it, that's just creationism, isn't it.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt