> How do you mean "re-consideration of the 2nd law"? If you are
> concerned with there continuing to be order in spite of an infinity
> of elapsed time, then let me share with you how I see it! Think
> about assigning an increasing number, R, to the amount of randomness
> in the universe at any one time, T! Give it the value R = 1 at the
> present time; T = 0! When T =1, R =2! When T =2, R = 4! When T =
> 3, R = 8! For any given T, R = 2^T; that is, 2 raised to the power
> T! At any time in the future R, increases as T increases! For any
> time in the past, it is clear that as T increases "negatively", R
> decreases! So, for example, if T = -5, then R = 1/32! Clearly,
> there is some randomness at any time in the past, as well as in the
> future, only the randomness in the past is always less as we go
> backwards in time! Maybe this exercise clarifies your concern!
>
> Charles

I have pored over my thermodynamics texts and can't find any of the
above mentioned equations with regard to Entropy or the 2nd Law. For
that matter, I couldn't find a version of the 2nd Law that stated that
"randomness" was increasing with time: it's mostly about tendencies
toward thermal equilibrium and expanding chemical states.

That aside, I think the "Design" people have, at best, a poor
understanding of randomness, insofar as they often contrast it with
order. Anyone whose watched a lottery drawing can tell you that order
is as much a part of randomness as disorder, to the point that getting
a completely disordered result from a drawing - no consecutive numbers;
no groupings - is less likely than getting a result with some order.
By definition, for a process to be random, it must be able to produce
order at some finite probability. If the universe is truly random, it
must be able to produce order - preventing order from arising out of
randomness requires as much "Design" as the ID folks place on order.