Given the degree of disbelief in the theory of evolution by the wider public, scientists need to develop a collection of clear explanations and metaphors that demonstrate the working of the theory and the flaws in anti-evolutionist arguments. This paper presents tools of this sort for countering the anti-evolutionist claim that evolutionary mechanisms are inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics. Images are provided to replace the traditional misunderstanding of the law, i.e., “everything always gets more disordered over time,” with a more clear sense of the way in which entropy tends to increase allowing a thermally isolated system access to a greater number of microstates. Accessible explanations are also provided for the ways in which individual organisms are able to minimize entropy and the advantages this conveys.

Ludwig Boltzmann’s move in his seminal paper of 1877, introducing a statistical understanding of entropy, was a watershed moment in the history of physics. The work not only introduced quantization and provided a new understanding of entropy, it challenged the understanding of what a law of nature could be. Traditionally, nomological necessity, that is, specifying the way in which a system must develop, was considered an essential element of proposed physical laws. Yet, here was a new understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that no longer possessed this property. While it was a new direction in physics, in other important scientific discourses of that time—specifically Huttonian geology and Darwinian evolution, similar approaches were taken in which a system’s development followed principles, but did so in a way that both provided a direction of time and allowed for non-deterministic, though rule-based, time evolution. Boltzmann referred to both of these theories, especially the work of Darwin, frequently. The possibility that Darwin influenced Boltzmann’s thought in physics can be seen as being supported by Boltzmann’s later writings.

An explication of the notion of sports team involves a structural and a teleological element. The basis of a team is structural – a team is a group that containing a Distributed Internal Decision (DID) structure, that is, a structure in which the parts maintain autonomy while seeking a collective goal. A sports team is a team with a game-focused (or ludic) goal. Sports teams are associated with related, but distinct groups: sports organizations and sports communities. These differ in terms of their structure and the temporal orientation of their goals.

Jon Robson and Aaron Meskin have argued that the insights obtained through the philosophical analysis of video games is not specific to video games, but to a larger class of artistic creations they term Self-Involving Interactive Fictions, or SIIFs. But there is at least one aspect of SIIF video games that is philosophically interesting and does not apply to the class of SIIFs as a whole, the ability to represent non-classical time. If SIIF video games are considered to be an extension of the art form of graphic narrative story-telling, the art form dominated by film, then the ability to represent time in in this fashion represents a revolution akin to that of vanishing point perspective in painting. This makes SIIF video games philosophically interesting for both philosophers of film and philosophers of video games.

Humor can be used as a tool for a wide range of tasks, including fighting for social justice. How to most effectively use it, however, is a matter of contention. Jokes that alienate members of an out-group can be called “Otherizing,” and can cause harm by virtue of the alienation. Woke comics, like Hari Kondabolu, intentionally avoid Otherizing in general, but may engage in a version of it that seeks to defang stereotypical treatments of out-groups by replacing the alienating content with something benign.We term this use of Otherizing, “mOtherizing.” Pride comics, like Russell Peters, take a different approach and try to usurp the power of Otherizing by over-engaging in it. The intention is to use the jokes to cobble together a coalition of out-groups that turns itself into an in-group. We term this use of Otherizing, “brOtherizing.”