mikema63 wrote:the chaos of the entire system increases, not local chaos. The energy from the sun powers biological order and the energy the sun produces comes from its entropy which far outweighs the increase in order.
I don't speak for Carson, but I'm sure the rebuttal would include something like suns forming in the first place from a big bang. If chaos is increasing for the entire system from the point of the singularity, how would local order happen in the first place? It would seem that a sun would not form. In the case of our sun, and life on Earth, minor changes in solar irradiance, distance from Earth to sun, Earth's axis etc. would completely wipeout life on Earth. That humans are introspective enough to realize that is interesting.
Rich wrote:We need to put the boot into Monotheism (metaphorically), not try to create scientific dogmas and scientific priesthoods. The bible is nonsense.
It's fine to have religious differences with people. Science, however, couldn't care less whether you believe in it or not. It's not a religion to begin with. People who use science to trash religion often fail to realize that some of the world's greatest scientists were theists. Einstein, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and on and on were theists, not atheists. They were also all monotheists.
Rich wrote:Science is not dogma, so it can't be defended as dogma.
Well it's getting used in exactly that way. Otherwise, there would be no point in trashing Carson in view of science. There was life before the Big Bang theory, which was laughed at when it was suggested. A lot of people liked the Big Bang theory, because of the biblical Book of Genesis. Today, if you question the Big Bang, you get trashed. The people who do the trashing are using science as dogma. They are every bit as religiously oriented as the people they chastise. They're just using a different dogma.
Rich wrote:All we can do is go on the attack relentlessly and mercilessly at every opportunity pointing out the contractions, implausibilities and absurdities of the Monotheist religions.
Literary device isn't meant to be submitted to a logic test. 99% of movies are rubbish by that standard. So we should join the Taliban and kill all actors and movie moguls if we're to take that seriously. We should burn all literature, kill all poets, etc. We should champion ISIS destroying the Roman Arch in Palmyra if we're to believe such things.
Rich wrote:The same also goes for Libertarianism.
Libertarianism is really not a threat, because humans are social animals not individualists.
Rich wrote:Much of the attacks on the scientific mainstream are motivated by Libertarianism.
By that, I suppose you mean attacks on global warming orthodoxy? That is a classic case of politics posing as science. Al Gore being rich has nothing to do with Al Gore having talent. He's a mediocre person by most estimates. However, the political system rewards those who set up fleecing systems and Al Gore has been rewarded for his efforts. He's so fearful of his own predictions of sea level rise that he bought a place in the St. Regis Hotel in San Francisco, whose lobby will be under water if Gore's predictions come true.
See, I come out of computer science. Most of the data handling from HadCRU is deeply flawed as any hardcore techie can tell you. That means the rest of it is flawed too. What's also flawed are the feedback models that create wild temperature ranges that are physical impossibilities. If you add CO2 to the atmosphere, you will get some warming up to a saturation point. The runaway greenhouse effect from CO2 is a fraud in my estimation.
Potemkin wrote:Indeed. The Libertarians seem to be repelled by the 'collectivist' nature of scientific knowledge and scientific endeavour.
An airplane doesn't fly because you believe it flies. Your beliefs are entirely irrelevant to science. People are not concerned about a collection of scientific theories. They are concerned about people who want to base trillion dollar economic decisions designed to line their pockets at tax payers expense on political theories purporting to be science. The "Normative Scenarios" of the TAR would suffice as an excellent example of something that is not positive analysis of the data, but rather "wishful" or normative scenarios of those doing the scaremongering. I've been arguing that point for since around 2000, and every single year the predictions from the UN panel have been proven wrong. That does not dissuade these people from attacking non-believers in their propaganda. That is interesting precisely as I've suggested, because science does not need you to believe in it. People trying to influence you to acquiesce to their policy proposals do need you to believe them. So we are not talking about science. We are talking about politics.
Case in point. Carson is both a medical doctor and a politician. Why trash Carson on science? The obvious answer is politics.