From: Craig Rickel
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
Okay.. Yeah, it does. However, according to the laws of probability, it had to happen sooner or later. And when dealing with long spans of time, eventually, anything and everything will happen.
"The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."
Please explain to me this, then. Take our entire universe as a closed system. Assume that our universe is in an open cycle, i.e. it will not contract back in on itself for another big bang. If that is so, then our universe will spread out and eventually run into a scenario called "heat death." If you're not familiar with the term, essentially all the suns burn out and cool off.
Now, when this happens, temperatures will decrease. As they do, matter will crystallize into solid forms. Is that not a decrease in the entropy of the system?
Now, take the statement as true. We would assume that naturally, seeing as it is one of our most basic laws in classical physics. As the entropy of a system increases, it becomes more random and chaotic. Life (from the evolutionist postulations) is the result of the random actions of molecules colliding. Thus, as the entropy increases, the rate at which
these collisions occur increases, thus making it more likely that life should occur.
Response from Timothy Wallace:
Thank you for taking the time to send me your feedback response. I am pleased to offer
the following responses to your interesting points.
First, a small point concerning nomenclature: You may want to consider that the issue you addressed in the title of your e-mail should properly be called either "Evolution vs. Creation" or "Evolutionism vs. Creationism." The two types of nouns should no more be mixed than if one were to write "Conservation vs. Liberalism." (One is a concept, the other an ideology or body of thought.)
>>"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
>>Okay.. Yeah, it does. However, according to the laws of probability, it
>>had to happen sooner or later. And when dealing with long spans of time,
>>eventually, anything and everything will happen.
Using this line of reasoning, one should be able to say that in spite of the Law
of Gravity, things of ever-increasing weight are "sooner or later" bound to start
spontaneously rising up off the surface of the earth.
Neither is a true postulate, and both are based on conjecture rather than true scientific
process. More time doesn't add anything to either equation than ... more time.
To so declare that "eventually, anything and everything will happen," is to insist that there is no absolute knowledge--that the laws and properties known to man through the scientific process are not constant, but always subject to change. This view does not concur with the empirical findings of science. The laws of thermodynamics are among the most firmly established, unchanging, universal principles known to man. A belief in the possibility of any natural event that violates them--in the past, present, or future--is a leap of faith, not a scientific conclusion.
>>"The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."
>>Please explain to me this, then. Take our entire universe as a closed
>>system. Assume that our universe is in an open cycle, i.e. it will not
>>contract back in on itself for another big bang. If that is so, then our
>>universe will spread out and eventually run into a scenario called "heat
>>death." If you're not familiar with the term, essentially all the suns
>>burn out and cool off.
>>Now, when this happens, temperatures will decrease. As they do, matter
>>will crystallize into solid forms. Is that not a decrease in the entropy
>>of the system?
>>Now, take the statement as true. We would assume that naturally, seeing
>>as it is one of our most basic laws in classical physics. As the entropy
>>of a system increases, it becomes more random and chaotic. Life (from
>>the evolutionist postulations) is the result of the random actions of
>>molecules colliding. Thus, as the entropy increases, the rate at which
>>these collisions occur increases, thus making it more likely that life
>>should occur.
A very good question -- and one that is often raised. On the surface (figuratively speaking), the formation of crystals and similar structures in nature may appear to
involve a reduction in entropy (i.e., an increase in organized complexity or available
energy). What is being overlooked, however, is the difference between simple order (as
found in a crystal), and organized complexity (as found in every life form) -- and their
relationships with energy.
Crystals (simple ordered molecular arrangements) are formed in certain materials when
surrounding entropy in the system is slowed (though not necessarily decreased), so that
the molecules' atomic attractions may draw them into an ordered state of rest -- which
again returns to disorder with the re-introduction of entropic energy. The order is not
based on any information, but is directly related to the presence -- or near absence -- of
entropic energy.
On the other hand, organized complexity (as found in even the simplest known life
form), is based on information -- and lots of it. It is not brought about through varying
entropic energy levels (like a kitchen freezer or a "heat death"), but is a functionally
arranged combination of multiple, cooperative, interdependent systems, based on the
information that dictates the building, operation, and cooperative function of those
systems.
Consider (again) what Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen wrote on this subject:
"As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy
change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is
greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by
analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers my polymerize into complex
molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however...
The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when
the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering
the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement"
[C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing
Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120. (emphasis added)]
Further, Nobel Prize winning Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine wrote:
"The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions.
"Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The
probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is
assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions
characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small."
[Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis and Agnes Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23
(1972) (emphasis added)]
In case the above authors' statements didn't clearly enough explain the fallacy of your
conclusion ("Life ... is the result of the random actions of molecules colliding. Thus, as
the entropy increases, the rate at which these collisions occur increases, thus making it
more likely that life should occur"), I would only add the following:
Random molecular collisions are neither accepted nor proposed by serious scientists as a basis for life, though proponents of evolution may continue to suggest the notion. By their very natures, entropy and/or random processes exclude themselves from playing a role in the creation or increase of organized complexity or information (both of which are inherent in life).
I hope this reply has been of some interest and information to you, and again I thank you
for your feedback.
TW
