A(nother) dialogue with Tom Beasley:

Beasley:

The great Wallace says:  The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process:  (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world.  (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.) The great Dr. Stephen Hawking says:  It is a matter of common experience, that things get more disordered and chaotic with time.  This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics.  This says that the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always increases with time.  However, the Law refers only to the total amount of disorder.  The order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount.  This is what happens in a living being. One can define Life to be an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder, and can reproduce itself.  That is, it can make similar, but independent, ordered systems.  To do these things, the system must convert energy in some ordered form, like food, sunlight, or electric power, into disordered energy, in the form of heat.  In this way, the system can satisfy the requirement that the total amount of disorder increases, while, at the same time, increasing the order in itself and its offspring.

Wallace:

Please note that while “the great Dr. Stephen Hawking” (whom you so eagerly quote) concedes the fact that “the system must convert energy in some ordered form ... into disordered energy...”, Dr. Hawking conspicuously neglects to make any kind of actual case for evolution in the cited passage by stating either 1) exactly how this characteristic of living organisms by definition has anything to do with Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution, or 2) exactly how such complex, integrated energy conversion and storage processes (which are the essential means by which every known living organism thrives) might realistically be surmised to have come into being where no process of any similar kind existed before. To observe that life thrives within the context of the laws of entropy (which is exactly what Dr. Hawking has done) is by no means the same thing as justifying Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution in the face of the same laws.  “Life” doesn’t ipso facto constitute evolution any more or less than “life” ipso facto constitutes creation. It is common for evolutionists to mistake a statement like your Hawking quote as an authoritative pronouncement concerning evolution and the second law, when in fact all Hawking has commented on was how living organisms have inherent, complex, integrated systems that work continuously to decrease entropy through energy storage and conversion processes.  What remains lacking is a viable, empirically sound evolutionary explanation for the emergence of life—with even the most “rudimentary” of all those complex, integrated systems and their energy storage and conversion processes from...nothing! Add to this the problem faced by Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution in logical/informational entropy—i.e., that no viable, empirically sound evolutionary mechanism has been postulated, to which can be attributed the generation of unequivocally and measurably new, meaningful, genetic information—and entropy poses a double hardship on the true scientific credibility of the belief system which you seem determined to embrace and advocate. To the good of its own reputation, there are only a handful of characters within the evolutionary camp who, in light of the above, nevertheless hasten to say things like...

Beasley:

...It's easy you fool, you don't have a clue when compared to Hawking, nor does any other creationist idiot have a clue.

Wallace:

Most evolutionists prove willing to respect and observe the standards asked of TrueOrigin feedback contributors (http://www.trueorigin.org/feedbacklink.php).  This is now the second time you have exhibited yourself as so self-important, topically uninformed, and short on memory as would be necessary for you to submit such abusive and sophomoric “feedback”.  TrueOrigin readers didn’t exactly flood the mail server with praise for your "argument" the first time, and it is doubtful that they will find it any more compelling this second time.

 

A dialogue with Jayne Streeter:

Streeter:

Have you given any consideration to the way you will be perceived by your more cynical observers, of whom I am one?

Wallace:

Yes, as a matter of fact I have—though it is seldom necessary, since many of them aren’t bashful about expressing their perceptions (which often have nothing to do with science or truth, but mainly their ... perceptions).

Streeter:

It is noticeable that you are fond of the noun “poseur”, often coupled with the adjective “extraordinaire”.

Wallace:

“Fond”?  “Often”?  I wonder how it is, exactly, that you are able to conclude that I am “fond of” a noun, based on its appearance a total of no more than five times in my writing—and exactly why you would use the English adverb “often” to describe the singular instance in which I’ve used “poseur” in combination with the adjective “extraordinaire”.  Could you possibly be presuming to have powers of discernment or mathematical skills that you do not in fact possess?  Would that not render you a first class poseur in your own right?

Streeter:

May I point out that both these words are French?

Wallace:

You certainly may, though it is not necessary.  They both appear in many (if not most) English dictionaries, much like “ambiance“ and “pièce de résistance”, clearly indicated as being French in origin.  But thank you for your thoughtfulness.

Streeter:

May I also point out that in English there are two words which express precisely the same sentiments?  These are “poser” and “extraordinary”.

Wallace:

Again, you may certainly point out the obvious—as my more cynical observers are accustomed to do.  And again, it is hardly necessary.

Streeter:

May I further suggest that your repeated and unnecessary insertion of segments from another language might well suggest to many that you yourself are a poser of considerable magnitude?

Wallace:

You are certainly free to make such a claim, but conspicuously absent is your logical basis for concluding that using “borrowed” words from another language renders one a poser.  Could it be that, having no legitimate argument to frame on the basis of empirical science, you are reduced to subjective whining about the “unnecessary” use of French words that appear in the English dictionary? Until the language nazis take over (and quite possibly afterwards), I fully intend to employ whatever linguistic devices are at my disposal to convey with creativity and accuracy what I wish to convey to my readers, the petty pet peeves of self-described “cynical observers” notwithstanding.

 

A dialogue with “N5atheist”:

N5atheist:

“Exposing the myth” of evolution has nothing to do with science.

Wallace:

On the contrary, it has much to do with science (but you’re half right:  evolution itself does not).  In whatever ways science fails to corroborate the evolution myth (which happen to be many), persons more interested in truth than narrow-minded, personal dogma deserve to know about them.  More genuine science is involved in debunking evolutionary myths than is used to concoct them in the first place.

N5atheist:

Unless you offer a falsifiable, testable, and demonstrable theory to take its place, “God” and “Creationism” remain conjectures.

Wallace:

You should have offered a “falsifiable, testable, and demonstrable theory” in the first place, or your own belief system wouldn’t have so easily been demonstrated to be predominantly conjecture by those of us who possess reasonable measures of objectivity and critical thinking skills. On what sound logical or empirical basis can you truly build a foundation for your otherwise vacuous claim that a Creator-God is merely “conjecture”? (The above is a challenge to you.  Answer it soundly, or retract your haughty claim.  It’s your choice.) [Note: “N5atheist” neither substantiated her claim nor retracted it, as requested above, demonstrating her contempt for personal responsibility in communication.] Furthermore, if by “falsifiable, testable, and demonstrable theory” you mean something that satisfies the demands of your naturalistic philosophy (read: religion) and its presuppositions, then you’re practicing nothing short of bigotry by attempting to force your religious underpinnings (philosophical naturalism) on the rest of us.  There’s nothing scientific about that—and it’s nothing to be proud of! Finally, in spite of your impulsive reaction to the information presented at the TrueOrigin site (did you actually read any of it?), and your apparent willful ignorance of most of that content, as well as the site’s clearly articulated feedback policies, I suggest you have a careful look at: http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.php

N5atheist:

...you need something better than the most ambiguous and subjective word in the language (“god”) to take [evolution’s] place.

Wallace:

It certainly appears that you haven’t read any of the content of the TrueOrigin site.  Having done so, only the most irrational (and/or infantile) person would make such a statement as yours—for there is no document in the TrueOrigin website that attempts to merely substitute the word “god” as a replacement for evolution.  It appears, then, that you are not at all interested in the facts or science of this matter, but merely the shoving of your narrow-minded, ignorance-based bigotry under the noses of the rest of us. Not content with that, you further presume to attribute the contents of the TrueOrigin site (much of which was written by PhDs) to the level of an “eighteen-year-old”? (And you call us "laughable"?) I suppose you think it is a mark of maturity that you cloak yourself in anonymity and blatantly disregard the feedback policies of the TrueOrigin site in order to parrot your fact-free, inflammatory bigotry.

 

A dialogue with “Arkannis”:

Arkannis:

I hate to tell you this, but... I do have evidence of non-harmful mutation.  I’ve lived with it my entire life.  I have these weird lookin toes.  The second and third toe, on both feet are grown together up to the knuckle.  BOTH feet are like this, and I have never suffered any ill effects as a result of this mutation.

Wallace:

The following are a couple of points I would make in response to your comments: I’m not convinced that the feature you describe is positive evidence of mutation.  That’s not to say it positively is not, but its mere presence doesn’t unequivocally indicate that mutation (and not normal genetic variation) was its cause.  (You’re not the first person I recall encountering with the feature you describe.) If the feature you describe is the result of a mutation, what makes you certain that the total effect of that mutation has not been in some way negative (i.e., harmful)?  Surviving and even thriving in spite of a mutation doesn’t ipso facto render the effect of that mutation neutral or positive.  At the very least, one immutable effect of every mutation is genetic degradation.  The physiological effect may be apparently negligible (as apparently in your case), but the fundamental effect is damage (no matter how small) to a specific part of a specific body of information. Thanks for taking the time to write.

 

A dialogue with Nicolas Belley:

Belley:

My question is, why you lie?

Wallace:

Well, that's a fine inflammatory way to get things started...

Belley:

You say: “The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process:  (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world.  (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)” Why do you say that the origin of the universe is related to evolution?  Why are you trying to confuse your readers?  When reading this, someone thinks that accepting evolution is rejecting god, wich is false.  And why do you lie by saying the the theory of evolution stipulates a spontaneous rise and diversification of biological life?

Wallace:

...You haven’t exactly substantiated any of your accusations (i.e., that I lie, and that I’m trying to confuse my readers), for the passage you quote is not a lie at all, nor is it confusing to a careful reader:  It may not accurately describe your personal belief system (apparently believing that evolutionary beliefs are perfectly compatible with some form of theistic beliefs), but it is by no means a lie.  Please note that I made a point of specifying that the passage you quote is describing “evolutionary theory in general”—not Neo-Darwinian evolution in particular, or Nicolas Belley’s belief system in particular. If you truly believe that evolutionary theory in general, as articulated and promulgated by today’s academic and “scientific” communities, is inaccurately described in the passage you quoted, perhaps you would like to demonstrate how your belief is correct:  You could do this by documenting how what I have described is in fact the exception, rather than the general rule, when it comes to the general portrayal of evolutionary origins by today’s academic and “scientific” communities.  Otherwise you are guilty of false accusation (i.e., lying) by accusing me of lying and trying to confuse my readers. [Note: Mr. Belley neither substantiated, nor retracted, his false accusations—though he was not averse to projecting multiple additional false and inflammatory accusations—further demonstrating his contempt for personal responsibility in communication.]