A DarwinisT argument about thermodynamics
We have examined the arguments Darwinists use to pretend that their idea is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics. For more than fifty years Darwinists have said that sunlight decreases entropy on the Earth, but a simple, straightforward calculation shows mathematically that sunlight increases the Earth’s entropy. The idea that crystallization violates the second law is simply false. We cannot be the first to notice this. The persistence of the false argument shows that Darwinists are perpetuating their purportedly “scientific” ideas through mere propaganda. Propagandists endlessly repeat falsities until people believe them without any proof at all.
Many people, even many physicists, find thermodynamics to be a difficult subject. Difficult subjects unfortunately lend themselves to obscurantism and obfuscation. Darwinists use their pretended understanding of thermodynamics to advance false notions. They deceive others who don’t understand the calculations well enough to prove them wrong. Especially, they take unfair advantage of the innocence of children and teenagers.
The American Physical Society allowed a science historian to print two false arguments in one of their newspapers. Science historians may not understand all the calculations in their chosen subject. Perhaps only a few biologists understand thermodynamics well. When I first heard the argument I was a teenager and had not yet studied thermodynamics. I could not then prove, as I have just now proved, that the arguments are false. But there is no excuse for the editors of the American Physical Society.
If a Darwinist argument violates a well-established law of physics, what are members of the American Physical Society doing supporting the Darwinists? Some people say that physicists should support Darwinism if they are for “science” and against “ignorance” and “obscurantism.” In supporting Darwinism, Brush and the American Physical Society editors abandoned proven science, propagated ignorance, and participated in obscurantism.
Many people, even many physicists, find thermodynamics to be a difficult subject. Difficult subjects unfortunately lend themselves to obscurantism and obfuscation. Darwinists use their pretended understanding of thermodynamics to advance false notions. They deceive others who don’t understand the calculations well enough to prove them wrong. Especially, they take unfair advantage of the innocence of children and teenagers.
The American Physical Society allowed a science historian to print two false arguments in one of their newspapers. Science historians may not understand all the calculations in their chosen subject. Perhaps only a few biologists understand thermodynamics well. When I first heard the argument I was a teenager and had not yet studied thermodynamics. I could not then prove, as I have just now proved, that the arguments are false. But there is no excuse for the editors of the American Physical Society.
If a Darwinist argument violates a well-established law of physics, what are members of the American Physical Society doing supporting the Darwinists? Some people say that physicists should support Darwinism if they are for “science” and against “ignorance” and “obscurantism.” In supporting Darwinism, Brush and the American Physical Society editors abandoned proven science, propagated ignorance, and participated in obscurantism.
