###### Evolution

# Are You Looking for the Simplest and Clearest Argument for Intelligent Design?

When I was allowed to answer critics of my 2000 *Mathematical Intelligencer* piece in another article in the Fall of 2001, which I entitled “Can ANYTHING Happen in an Open System?,” I wrote:

Mathematicians are trained to value simplicity. When we have a simple, clear proof of a theorem, and a long, complicated, counter-argument, full of hotly debated and unverifiable points, we accept the simple proof, even before we find the errors in the complicated argument. That is why I prefer not to extend here the long-standing debate over the first point [irreducible complexity], but to dwell further on the much simpler and clearer second point of my article, which is that the increase in order observed on Earth (and here alone, as far as we know) violates the laws of probability and the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular fashion.

Evolutionists have always dismissed this argument by saying that the second law of thermodynamics only dictates that order cannot increase in an isolated (closed) system, and the Earth is not a closed system — in particular, it receives energy from the Sun. The second law allows order to increase locally, provided the local increase is offset by an equal or greater decrease in the rest of the universe. This always seems to be the end of the argument: order can increase (entropy can decrease) in an open system, therefore, ANYTHING can happen in an open system, even the rearrangement of atoms into computers, without violating the second law.

I continued to present the argument and have since done so in a 2005 John Wiley mathematics text, in a 2010 Discovery Institute Press book, and in my withdrawn 2011 *Applied Mathematics Letters* article, which is discussed in the second part of this video.

I still consider this argument to be the simplest and clearest argument for intelligent design that it is possible to make, and I consider this video to be the simplest and clearest presentation of this argument I have ever made (made with the help of my brother, Kirk Sewell). Unfortunately, it seems to be too simple for many scientists, and generally only appreciated by non-scientists…and mathematicians.