Creationism vs. Science

I am only guessing now, but a creationist argument might by that - as the rule says - "entropy" (that is "disorder" or "Chaos") always only develops in one direction: it increases. Ergo the existence of life ought to be impossible - because life obviously is a very ordered and structured phenomenon. Order and structure developing from chaos. So, I would assume they say, their must be a creative FORCE. But physical laws always have Randbedingungen (forgot what the technical term is in English - it means that they apply under certain conditions - in a certain framework). The formulation of the 2nd law of TD is that entropy only can increase in any given thermally closed system. The price for ORDER is ENERGY INPUT. The Earth, for example, is not a closed system - it gets a lot of Energy from the outside - but also from its still hot and ever cooling core. If we jump to the creation of the Universe: here we can safely say that since its formation the total entropy did indeed increase. That does by no means exclude structure formation and local ordered anomalies. There is another factor to add: Thermodynamics was developed before we knew anything about quantum physics or synergetics/chaos theory. Another little remark: many of our dating methods for archeological artifacts rely indirectly on the second law of thermodynamics. I dare to say here that if the physical datings all are totally wrong, the second law of thermodynamics would be challenged as well, which would kill the argument as well. Science - especially Physics - is such an interwoven structure of interdependent theories that the entire building would shake if only one key concept would be proven totally false. In most cases it turned out however that challenged laws were not false but merely a special case in a broader and incomplete picture. If we think of Newton's laws: they are not an accurate description of reality, yet they are perfectly accurate for every mechanical process we observe in our daily life. From the perfectionist point of view they could be called wrong, yet you need not calculate relativistic effects for a car accident - there Newton is perfectly fine. I think if someone uses the 2nd law of TD to disprove the accuracy of science re. evolution, this person probably neither understood evolution nor thermodynamics. I made one experience with Creationists and other religious extremists: Their approach to any given subject is scholasticism. They do not attempt to understand it, they do not try to learn, because they already see themselves as in possession of absolute truth. The scholastic (or is it scholasticist in English?) approach was developed by the Roman Catholic Church during the time of the Inquisition. The idea: Since we already know the absolute truth, we can focus on building a perfect rhetoric framework that buries the arguments of the opponent. For me personally: I see no purpose in discussing with creationists. People may believe whatever they want. One of my mottoes is "Almost anything can be tolerated - except intolerance". But the second part is important as well, for the freedom of the one ends with the freedom of the other. History shows that extreme religious views eventually lead to disaster. This is why in my world view knowledge that can be tested plays an important part - in addition to the world of spirituality. My belief is that each of them becomes hollow and dangerous without the other. Our brain is well equipped for constant inquiry, so inquire we should. Even far beyond our dreams, nothing is sure, or what it seems...