Granville Sewell has a video up on YouTube:
Mark Chu-Carroll has a take-down of the argument here, but I’d be interested to know what the ID proponents who post here make of it. It seems to me so self-evidently wrong, that I’d expect ID proponents to be rather keen to point out the errors, but it gets a shout-out at UD.
The reason it seems to me so evidently wrong is nothing to do with intelligent systems versus non-intelligent systems, but that quite simply, biological organisms do not violate the second law of thermodynamics, which states, as Flanders and Swann ineradicably taught me: you can’t pass heat from a cooler to a hotter:
In order for biological organisms to develop, reproduce, populate an environment, and evolve, they must utilise energy. And they do. Plants store sunlight energy as sugar, and then use that to grow and reproduce. Animals eat plants – or other animals, in order to gain energy, and grow and reproduce. As a result, the heat is dissipated, the universe as a whole gets slightly cooler (though there might be temporary local rises, as when I tried to climb a little mountain in Anglesey yesterday), and will continue to do so, as far as we know, until the whole universe is a uniform temperature and no heat can pass from one region to another.
So the apparent argument that biological organisms violate the second law of thermodynamics, therefore intelligent design, is based on a completely false premise. They don’t. There may be be perfectly good arguments for an ID but biological organisms violating the 2LoT isn’t one of them. Do any of our ID-supporting members disagree with this? If so, can you say why?