[photon]

Newton's second law is F=ma.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy in a closed system must never decrease. Entropy is not the same as disorder. Also the second law permits part of a system to decrease in entropy as long as another part increases in entropy. The Sun is feeding the planet with energy and the entropy increase from the sun's fusion offsets the planet's decrease. The universe is a closed system and its entropy is always increasing, but local decreases are allowed.

You can't argue that the co-dependancy of DNA and RNA proves intelligent design; it only means that the system came from a less complex system.

Irreducible Complexity is fine but doesn't really apply; when people use that they assume that the previous "iteration" of the system was identical except missing a component so of course it wouldn't work. Evolutionary theory though has research that existing systems can become used in new ways in other systems, that complex patterns can arise from simple systems, and that often what was once thought an irreducible system (bacterial flagellum or blood clotting mechanism for example) actually has simpler precursors (there exist simpler flagellae than on a bacteria) or was preexisting (blood clotting seems to involve protiens that were originally used in digestion) so it isn't really irreducible at all.

That said, I don't call what the person wrote "double talk", it's simply a lack of understanding. People try to find meaning in their lives and when there's a schism between their beliefs and others' they try to find something to explain or bridge it.

Assuming there is a Creator.. Either the Creator wants us to be explicitly aware of their existance in which case it would be written in the sky, on the earth, a picture would be encrypted in the decimal places of PI, etc etc.. Or the Creator wants us to find them through faith, in which case they would have created the universe in such a way that there was no physical proof.

Or I guess a 3rd option is they wanted to attain the second option but made a mistake, but then we'd have to be at a level of technology near enough to be able to do the second option ourselves before being able to find flaws in it.

At any rate, knowing the science of our universe does not preclude the ability to believe in a Creator, or even the belief that it was created in 6 days 6000 years ago. If a Creator has the ability to generate the universe they have the ability to make it look like it's 14 billion years old (just like I can draw a picture of a old person).

So the people who don't want to have faith can relax because believing in a Creator doesn't mean their science is out the window. And the people who want to have faith can relax because pursuing science to describe the universe doesn't preclude there being a Creator.

Unless science proves there IS a creator, then all bets are off.