Evolution > Creationism

In Round 1, I opened with a forward for a constructive debate complemented with a mutual learning experience. What I've learned is Pro's “ID” (Intelligent Design) conspiracy philosophy lacking discussion about his instigation over the “theory of evolution.” A debate in philosophy is a function of one's skilled in a dialectic, as for science, a debate is over interpretation of the empirical achieving congruence within the scientific community. I (Con) brought to the debating floor the constructal law, an evolutionary step in the laws of thermodynamics claimed by Bejan. Pro was unable to argue or debate the empirical relative to the “theory of evolution” over the constructal law. Pro elected to take the ID route, where I (Con) was looking to learn from one who may have expertise in the “theory of evolution” to launch a convincing debate over the constructal law. Pro's decision to go with a philosophical argument on the bases of ID only gives me cause to continue to search for one who understands the “theory of evolution” over constructal law in an effective debate. Perhaps, this debate will challenge Pro to investigate this constructal law and one day we may meet again on Debate.org. Pro did bring up a good point about one of my references (http://www.westernfreepress.com...) where Pro said, “Not to mention that even the title of that article is wrong, as science does not concern itself with proof; mathematics is the discipline which deals with proof because the answers which are arrived at in mathematics are axiomatic in nature; not so the case with science.”It is true about “proof” is a function of an “axiomatic” premise. So my curiosity went to purchase said book mentioned in the article. The mapping or the symmetry of the constructal law to Thomas Jefferson's claim about "unalienable Rights" has both empirical (science) and “axiomatic” manifestations pertaining to Jefferson's “self-evident” claim. The functional binary parameters of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (aka positive feedback)” are (life or death), (freedom or tyranny) and (pursuit or no-pursuit). Given “pursuit” requires energy one may formulate a logical AND axiom: flow = life && freedom && energy. The complement is a logical OR axiom; no_flow = death || tyranny || no_energy. The book presented both the empirical (science) and those logical axioms; hence, the “Scientific Proof” claims the author. I must admit, a poor play on words, but eye catching. In science we can't overlook the human factor in the chemistry between scholarly elites and the conservative inertia imbedded in established knowledge or one's favorite set of journals with simple “citation” counts. It took Einstein nearly forty years to get the scientific community to evolve from classical Newtonian. It's not that Newtonian was wrong, Einstein just added an evolutionary step in the fidelity of understanding. Perhaps, it may take Bejan that long adding an evolutionary step to Darwinian in the fidelity of understanding this awesome machinery of nature. In closing, I thank Pro for the time spend in this debate and in this New Year setting, I wish Pro a long and healthy “Life,” with ample “Liberty,” in the “pursuit of Happiness” within Pro's comfort zone, life's “unalienable Rights” the animate interpretation of the physical constructal law.