By bringing up entropy, I will assume that you are simply referring to the second law of thermodynamics.

The usual anti-evolution argument that abuses the second law usually says something like "Everything tends toward increasing entropy (randomness and disorder). Evolution of life involves the development of great complexity and order. Therefore, evolution is impossible by the second law of thermodynamics." While it sounds simple, there are major flaws in this argument that render it worthless.

It is only in isolated systems that entropy must increase. Systems that can exchange energy with their surroundings have no such restriction. For example, water can freeze into ice (becoming more ordered and decreasing its entropy) by giving up heat to its surroundings (this increases the entropy of the surroundings, of course). In the case of the Earth, the Sun is a major source of energy, and the Earth also radiates energy into space. One consequence of thermodynamics is that, when energy comes from a "hot" source (like the Sun) and is output to a "cold" reservoir (like space), it can be used to do work, which means that "complexity" or "order" can be produced. The main point is that, for a non-isolated system, an increase in "complexity" (to the extent one can connect that concept with the thermodynamic entropy, which is far from straightforward for living creatures) does not necessarily indicate a violation of the 2nd law. A good example is the development of a human fetus into an adult; this is the production of a more thermodynamically complex system but involves no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.


That is from an expert of molecular thermodynamic's website , because he could put it into much easier words than I can (he also knows a whole lot more than I) He also happens to be a devout christian.


To touch more on Evolution as a theory. A common argument by proponents on creationism and intelligent design is that Evolution is JUST a theory - and this is true. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence.

I just had to weigh in on this on.

Evolution:
I don't think evolution is anti-religous. I think religion is just being anti-scientific. I'm a Christian, and in my opinion its hypocritical to pick and choose your science. Should we also exclude the theory of gravity from our schools. Christian's enjoy, use and benefit from the millions of developments and inventions from the scientific process. A good example would be the communication and info we exchange on this internet. Why should we celebrate the things science awards us, but deny the things we don't agree with.


The creationism theory (if you would call it a theory) should be taught in church. I don't disagree with it. Evolution is science and belongs in schools. Its there to be studied, critized and dissected. I'm not quoting verse, but a big concept in the new testament is to seek out truth. We shouldn't reject evolution because it doesn't fit your strict literal interpretation of the bible.

Now my opinion on STA wrestling. They are definitively the best team in Kansas this year and deserving of the state championship. Do they recruit? I have to say no, at least until I see some real tangible written evidence that they do recruit. Nobody has produced this evidence, so people should watch what they say about them.

Do they need to recruit? Probably not. Success builds success, and success is a good and legal recruiter.
And being a private school, they have a natural advantage over public shools. You're in denial if you don't believe that.
A lot of parents will send there kid to go there just to have a chance to be a part of a state champion and to get good coaching.

I'll put it this way. If I had a top notch eighth grader and let's say I lived in a Johnson county school district were most of it's high schools were extremely weak at wrestling. I won't mention names but the districts initials are S.M.. I'm not catholic, believe in evolution (see above), and would have an extremely difficult time coming up with tuition to STA. I still would seriously consider sending my kid to STA.

Just curious, I know they teach creationsism at Aquinas, but do they teach anything about evolution besides that they don't believe in it?

Im not against evolution I just dont believe that it should be the only theory taught in schools. My generation has evolved in height compared to my grandparents generation. There are more 6 foot idividuals walking around the earth by ratio than ever before. They say we evolved from monkeys into humans, where is that middle link? There is not one. So how can they be for sure that we evolved from them? They can't! They cannot prove the big bang theory. How did all this matter just happen to gather and form this perfect atmosphere for life. And where did the first life come from. You can not tell me the mitocondria just happened by some freak accident to take form. Why cant they put a sentense in text books that says some theorist believe that some happenings are to complex to just happen and took a superior being to create. If kids do not believe in it they will just dismiss it. I just think teaching one theory and not the other is wrong when there are other theories out there to explain them.

No it is evolving to fit our enviroment.

No but the nutrition in our enviroment is better, which makes us evolve/addapt to our enviroment.

I never said anything about genetics. Humans today are alot larger than they were a century ago. That is adapting or evolving to what the enviroment gives you.

Ok then I just flat out do not believe in evolution. I believe people adapt and change to their enviroment. Didn't they call it evolving when monkeys learned how to use sticks to get termites out of holes? That is not a change in genetics.