More Pastafarianism

Brian Gilbert and I wrote a letter to the News-Resister

Thermodynamics law invalid on Earth system

To the Editor:

We have read with great interest the ongoing discussion of Intelligent Design (ID) and evolution in Readers' Forum over the past several weeks. Last week's forum contained two letters to which we felt compelled to respond.

In the first letter, Daniel Kouns argued that the second law of thermodynamics is inconsistent with evolution, on the basis that "nature always prefers chaos and will always move from order to disorder." While it is impressive that the writer is aware of the laws of thermodynamics, it should be noted that this is a common misconception typically found in introductory science textbooks, and is not what the second law states.

This statement is only true for a closed system, which the earth, with continual energy input from the sun, is not. The second law is only concerned with the dispersal of energy, and is not valid outside of the arena of thermodynamics. If Mr. Kouns would like to learn more about thermodynamics, we would be happy to have him attend our physical chemistry or general chemistry courses at Linfield College.

In another letter, Richard Reed states that "In the learning process, shouldn't the scientist consider all possible answers so as not to overlook the possible correct answer? It is the narrow-minded person who rules out anything that challenges his or her belief system."

We agree with Mr. Reed. The New York Times recently reported in "But Is There Intelligent Spaghetti Out There?" that many scientists agree that ID by a Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM, see www.venganza.org for details) is just as scientifically valid as any other form of ID. These scientists include 100 percent of the physical chemistry department at Linfield College. In fact, we believe that, in an open society, it is necessary that all forms of ID, including FSM-ID should be discussed according to their merits.

Brian Gilbert

Jim Diamond

==============================================
Here is Daniel Koons' letter
-------------------------------------

Design theory explains Earth's disorder and order
To the Editor:
Why not Intelligent Design?

I am a 15-year-old Mac High student and as long as I can remember, I have been taught about the origins of life on Earth through evolution. I personally do not believe that any life on Earth is accidental, and I know many other students who have the same belief.

Since there is no alternative class for one's personal belief, students who don't believe what they are taught will simply tuck away what they've learned as a simple right answer for the next test or final.

Unfortunately, to many of us students, this doesn't teach learning. It teaches memorization of ideas that will be forgotten and dismissed as unimportant and needless when the summer comes.

If both Intelligent Design and evolution were taught in school as possibilities as to how our world came about, it would be a fairer way of educating youth. If Intelligent Design is not considered factual enough to be taught in schools (Readers' Forum, Charles Strong, Aug. 27), one should take into consideration the second law of thermodynamics that, in short, blasts the theory of evolution out of the water.

The second law basically states that nature prefers chaos and will always move from order to disorder. It is scientifically impossible for order to overcome disorder without Intelligent Design, which has allowed humans to establish the current way of life in our world. It is scientifically impossible for life to come from nothing, as it is for intelligence (order) to come from instinct (disorder).

My point is not to prove anybody wrong but to prove Intelligent Design has just as much, if not more, grounding in fact than the theory of evolution. Therefore, students should have the option of what type of science they are to be taught.

Daniel Kouns


Here is Richard Reed's letter

Intelligent Design should join evolution in school

To the Editor:

Ah, science, that wonderful learning process to understand all things unknown.

In the learning process, shouldn't the scientist consider all possible answers so as not to overlook the possible correct answer? It is the narrow-minded person who rules out anything that challenges his or her belief system.

If you want to believe in evolution as a means of explaining who you are, I see a problem. If there is not some form of Intelligent Design, why didn't your mother have a puppy instead of you?

Please don't take my "puppy" statement as a dig at your personage; it's not my intention. If a highly developed, one-celled "critter" got all this started, where did its built-in clock come from to allow NASA to time events to the smallest part of a second to arrive at a faraway destination on time? How do apple trees give only apples? Some may consider me an "oops," but I have characteristics that come directly from my parents and my grandparents. My children and my grandchildren didn't fall too far from the tree, either.

If something was not setting things in order, how do you explain the consistency of nature? I'm not afraid to listen to theories of creation that I do not agree with. I do not need to keep theories I do not agree with out of the schools. I am convinced that reasonable people, confronted with logic rather than theory, will come to an intelligent conclusion.

That may be why some deep thinkers try so hard to limit the field of thought.

Richard H. Reed