Which explanation is better? Intelligent Design or Natural Processes

Mathematical theorems are proved based on a set of starting assumptions. All the proofs of the Pythagorean formula depend on accepting Euclidean geometry (in particular, the parallel postulate). It does not work in a non-Euclidean system. Sometimes a similar approach would be possible in science, but it is relatively rare that an adequately limited set of assumptions can be justified as useful in science.

1 Like

Is it that easy? How many mutations do you need to get the added function? I think this is the critical question. A lot of the adaptations we see in the lab are the programmed intelligent design. Once beyond this region, I would argue that all the number of mutations is too great to get added function in a reasonable time. This is the seal of death for naturalism. This all boils down to the second law of thermodynamics if you look at it closely.

Yes once you see the gradual changes in each system. It actually answers a lot of questions that anti-evolution folks bring up.

You might try to argue that, but you would be wrong. And what is “reasonable” given the extremely long time period involved.

I think Mark Twain had a saying about this.

Second law doesn’t apply, but that doesn’t seem to stop people from trying to use it. If you don’t know why it doesn’t apply I would suggest you educate yourself to find out why.


It is on you naturalists to show that it is in the realm of the possible. Again, the burden of proof is on you and hand waving doesn’t count! You need to show how the probability plays out. We are waiting!

Why does the second law not apply? It applies to ALL processes.

I think you offer a perspective that is very closed to alternative thinking. I am a agnostic when it comes to YEC, OEC, ID, or TE. Let each investigate their realm and see what they come up with SCIENTIFICALLY. And that doesn’t mean it is some naturalist propaganda or any other propaganda. I am talking real science which is often in conflict with what is called “real science”.

Don’t get me wrong, for I do hold to an opinion on the subject, but I am perfectly willing to let each side examine the science from their perspective. What I disdain most is the arrogance displayed against some viewpoints when all the perspectives have supporting evidence!

And why do you say Bill_II is a naturalist? Thinking you can dictate what other people believe is far far more preposterous than anything he has said. Sounds like the redneck who calls everyone a communist if they disagree with any of his intolerant nonsense.

The burden of proof is on anyone who expects others to agree. Science provides it with procedures anyone can follow to get the same results.

And the burden of proof is certainly on anyone who claims that a scientific principle applies to a particular situation. Otherwise it is no different than the technobabble of a Star Trek episode.

I am a physicist, and Bill_II is correct. It does not apply to far from equilibrium conditions like the earth, surrounded by an overwhelming increase in entropy so that a small local decrease entropy does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Only an overall increase is required by thermodynamics not a uniform increase in entropy everywhere. Besides you haven’t even shown any decrease in entropy in what you are applying this to, and I wonder if you even know what it actually means.

Wrong. It is open to many alternatives. But it is certainly closed to alternatives which disagree with the demonstrable evidence. It is closed to many other alternatives as well. You think it is a bad thing to know what you believe and why? How extraordinary!

By agnostic, do you mean you simply do not know, or do you mean this in the classical sense that it is unknowable. It is quite reasonable to be agnostic with regards to something where there is no demonstrable evidence like the existence of God. But this is not one of those cases. It is therefore reasonable to conclude your agnosticism is a matter of being uninformed.

It seems the first stratagem of propaganda is to call everything you don’t want people to believe “propaganda” no matter the demonstrable evidence which shows it to be so. I believe the second stratagem right from the communist playbook is to simply to shout loudest repeating your lies over and over again. But many have faith that the truth will reveal the lies eventually, because Jesus admonishes us to open our ears, eyes, and mind and so your children will take a look at what the evidence shows. What a tragedy if you have built their Christian faith on the foundation of lies.

Do you disdain “the arrogance” which holds that racism, rape, and child molestation is wrong – just because those who do these things can concoct reasons and “evidence” that these are good things? Just curious.

There is a big difference between demonstrable evidence and the excuses people come up with for their beliefs.


I am not a naturalist and haven’t said anything that could possible make you think that.

Again with the proof. Theories are not proven. They are supported by evidence and the evidence for evolution is over whelming.

Hopefully you will believe a physicist who explains why. I am no physicist just a lowly engineer and I learned in my basic engineering thermodynamics class that the second law only applies to closed systems near equilibrium. With a massive source of energy coming from the sun the earth doesn’t fit those criteria. The fact that one of the perspectives you are examining propagates this lie should tell you a lot about that perspective. This isn’t a case of supporting or not supporting evidence but of a group deliberately misrepresenting science to support their cause.

And just so you know, I believe in an Intelligent Designer but not in Intelligent Design. And I have a much better source of truth then the ID folks who uniformly seem to want to avoid talking about the designer behind their ID.


That’s not quite right. The simplest form of the 2nd Law (‘the entropy of the system does not decrease’) only applies to closed systems, but the law can be formulated in a way appropriate to isolated and open systems as well. But your main point is correct. Evolution does not violate the 2nd Law. Evolution is just repeated rounds of imperfect reproduction, and if oak trees growing from acorns doesn’t violate the 2nd Law, neither does the evolution of oak trees.


It’s on you supernaturalists to show where the DI-ID is. Naturalists do not have to show a thing. It’s all on show. No magic ever is. Nature is the default. Your mesoscopic incredulity is a by product of your evolution.


Thanks for the correction. But in my defense it has been 50 years since I took Thermo.


@Dale, @Medicodon, @Russell2 @Bill_II

It is not either God or evolution. It is both God and evolution. God intelligently designed evolution using the Logos, and then used evolution and the Logos to create us and the rest of the biosphere.

We know the history our species, homo sapiens. Several species developed before us, including the Neanderthals, indicating that were not created ex nihilo Humans took final shape after Europe emerged from the Ice Age and the adaptions of the Neanderthals were no longer needed, but some of them were incorporated into us.

God creates through history, the interplay of the changing environment with the biosphere, which is not random. This is how God guides and control our evolution and how God is working today. Except now humans using our God given abilities are polluting the environment and endangering our own existence.

1 Like

I don’t blame you Bill for this is the standard argument that is used. “The second law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply for open systems. The earth is an open system with solar energy so quit bringing up the second law - stupid creationist.” The irony is that the stupid creationists know more than the doctorates espousing this. The second law does apply and you need a thermodynamic auxiliary device to harness the energy. For example, put a bunch of puzzle pieces mixed up in the sun. Will the sun put together the puzzle pieces? Of course not! You would need an ID system to convert the sun to power and a robot to assemble the pieces.

There would be no basis for the statements of the second law if just anything could happen with open systems. The Clausius statement says:

It is impossible for any system to operate in such a way that the sole result would be an energy transfer by heat from a cooler to a hotter body.

If the second law doesn’t prohibit anything then why even have the statements? Naturally, you don’t find refrigerators because there are too many boundary conditions needed that don’t happen naturally. The same problem is found for abiogenesis where you don’t have any natural mechanisms to explain the development of the first cell. The same can be said for evolution where once you get outside of the information of the genome where you need to integrate new systems, you lack a thermodynamic mechanism to constrain the mutations enabling the highly improbable mutations. There are 6.4 billion base pairs in a human genome and considering you would need about 30 specific mutations to get a typical added functionality in biological systems, this is a very small probability. An approximation is (6.4e-9)^30 which is smaller than the universal probability bound. Now certainly, I didn’t consider the population but even with a large population you need the added function to get the selection. Without selection, you still need to explain how all the mutations coalesce into one genome. This should make most people have a lot of skepticism about the evolutionary mechanisms.

So you are saying that those who put forward evolution have no need to back up there theory with evidence? Interesting!

Why do you ask rhetorically if that’s what I say? That’s really interesting and goes to motive. There is nothing but evidence for evolution as the rational have known since Anaximander. Nature was found guilty on Darwin’s counsel for the prosecution two centuries ago.

What does any of this have to do with the theory of God as revealed solely in Christ?


Bill is only stating what PHD’s in Biology (and many others) say. Why are they so dishonest in saying this? I already stated below why we should be skeptical of evolution.

An Oak tree can grow true because you have the biological nanomachines all programmed in the DNA to allow new life from the seed. Once you get outside of the programming found in the genome, it is nearly impossible to integrate in new systems without many mutations. The genome is so large that the ability to enable evolutionary advancement is just too improbable.

This is science fiction! Show me reasonable probabilities and I will believe you. But I don’t see it!

So there are honest non-biology Ph.Ds telling what truth that biology Ph.Ds are all lying about biology?

Star light: you assume the cosmological model is accurate. When you consider the fudge factor needed to get the model to work (over 95% of all Matter and energy is unknown) then one should ask if the model is even accurate.

Retro viruses are found in human and Ape genomes in 99.8% the same locations. Is this due to the similar immunological storage locations in the genome between humans and apes? Similar designs you would expect similar storage locations.

What about starlight?

What has your application of probability got to do with reality? Starting with the reality of Hadean abiogenesis? Reality doesn’t happen backwards.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.