It appears that we are not getting any closer together on any of the many profound topics of discussion. Since our views represent parallel and opposite worldviews, one of us is wrong on all and the other is correct on all items. One of us is promoting truth and the other is promoting falsehood. I find this very sad regardless of which one of us is in which position! It is particularly sad when we cannot even agree on what the 2nd law of thermodynamics entails and how it relates to the potential for macro evolution. If we can't agree on what I call "classical science", how can we agree on religious issues, which is really what we are debating.

I would like go back to an overview of the differences in our two worldviews and draw a parallel between them and the documents that support them. The Theistic worldview is based upon profound documented positive, non-reactive, information contained in the Bible that describes the physical and spiritual aspects of our world and gives it a purpose. On the contrary, the Humanist Manifestos are based primarily on a reactive, against the Bible, philosophy and not upon a separate, independent, explanation of our world. The Bible actually explains the presence of the opposite philosophy. Consequently, the Bible explains not only the existence of both philosophies, but why they both exist and the fact that humanist philosophy is based upon a rebellion against goodness and truth.

So, the humanist philosophy is not a independent philosophy, does not explain any why questions and has no purpose or hope, only despair. It cannot claim that the Theistic philosophy is a reaction to it!

In a parallel way I have presented many (what I believe to be) truths and you have tried to debunk all of them similar to what humanism does to Theism. You have not presented a case for how the world is with me taking an opposing position. In a similar way you on your website have not taken a strong position against lies, but have emphasized that we should just not be victims of the lies. In addition to not taking a strong stand against lies, you have not taken a strong stand against relativism or abortion of innocent preborn babies. This is all consistent with being reactive to Biblical truths rather than professing your own.

Assuming the Bible is true, the 100% opposition of Theism and humanism is readily explained, but if, as humanists do, assume the Bible is not true, i.e. random rubbish, humanism cannot explain their 100% opposition to random rubbish. So, even without debating one single issue, Theism would appear to be the true philosophy.

You hold the Bible to a complete actual and perceived standard of perfection including writing style etc. However, you accept macro evolution with no supporting scientific evidence. Although all the fossil record completely supports creation and is completely undermines evolution, you chose to ignore this fact. I have given you many evidences and quotes of redefinition of science, presupposition and religious beliefs amongst evolutionists that exclude God on a religious basis. You dismiss all such evidence.

I think further discussion on the entropy issue, is my best shot at getting you to see how you have been blinded  by your humanist worldview. Further discussion on this issue can center on the rock solid truth of classical science.

What you have done is to take what should be a straight forward discussion on entropy and made it complex and confusing to cloud the issue. You have introduced unnecessary information to describe randomness, noise or useless information. You also have brought redundancy into the discussion. None of this is relevant. The discussion relevant to possible evolution or life relates to the information contained in the DNA code not how much information would be required to describe decomposed DNA. I don't know what redundancy has to do with DNA information. What you have done is to turn the inverse relationship between entropy and useful information into a direct relationship which is nonsense.

Like I say, based upon your logic, if we tear up a encyclopedia, we now have more information. Is it clear to you what you are doing? Don't you see that you are creating a smokescreen on this critical issue that can identify which one of us is on the side of truth and which one of us is not?

I believe that Dr. Morris's analysis is completely concise and correct. I would like to hear specifics on where others or you have information that he is wrong on any statement. Your broad brush statements regarding closed and open systems were addressed well by Morris.

You are a very bright scientist and you should be able to go through Morris's explanation and either validate his statements or refute them. I think if you are objective you will validate his statements. I believe if his statements did not have evolutionary implications, no one would question his statements.

Based upon some of your comments I believe you live in the Twin Cities area. We are probably neighbors. I mention this because I wanted to know if you read an editorial article in the Star Tribune on June 16th by Cheri Pierson Yecke on "The Separation (of church and state) Myth". Although, this may not be quite as much of a slam dunk as the entropy issue, when the true facts are revealed it is close. Although Yecke's article was great and convincing, she didn't go far enough. I sent a supplementary article to the paper, which I knew they wouldn't publish, but I wanted to clarify the facts. This article is attached for your review. I am interested in your comments regarding the truth of the facts presented and the profound truth it conveys.


(Separation Myth attachment)