I can’t remember how I ran across the following argument against evolution, but I thought it was darn funny:
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
I’ve heard this “entropy” argument against evolution before, and the quote strikes me as a particularly eloquent refutation of the basic argument (for those, who, apparently unlike the original poster, “certainly know about” just such “a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy.”)
I haven’t tried to track down the original posting of this comment, so perhaps it was intended as humor. Yet it tracks other statements obviously intended to be taken seriously. For example, Kevin Haag (who found religion more appealing than life as a drug-abusing partier) includes on his “New Testament Christian” web page the document, “Ten Major Flaws of Evolution,” by Randy Alcorn (“with additional editing by Jim Darnall”). Alcorn, the author of books such as Heaven, 50 Days of Heaven, and Heaven for Kids, offers a slightly more sophisticated argument against evolution based on entropy:
This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or “the least energetic state”). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.
Alcorn does not overlook the existence of the Sun; he just flatly denies that the Sun or any other energy source (including chemical and geothermal) could have provided any of the energy that contributed to the evolution of life on earth. Good enough for apologetics, I guess.
Of course, Christianity cannot be judged by the sillier comments of some Christians. No movement can be so judged. (And, anyway, plenty of Christians believe that evolution is true.) To take another example, people who claim to see the image of Jesus in some random mark shouldn’t be taken as representative. (Thanks to Paul Hsieh for the link.)
That said, some comments are both silly and self-refuting, such as the following:
“We regret to announce that due to unforeseen circumstances beyond our control, the publication of The Astrological Magazine will cease with the December 2007 issue.”