Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
to quote one of my favorite movie lines: "Hippy, you think everything's a conspiracy!"extreme bullshit alert!
the kind of creationist pseudoscience that YWC is pontificating about did not even exist until the 1960's..
Creation science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.[2][3] It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.[4] It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide.[5] The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo" (Latin: out of nothing); the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 6,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.[6] As a result, creation science also challenges the commonly accepted geologic and astrophysical theories for the age and origins of the Earth and Universe, which creation scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis.[4] Creation science proponents often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" or as "Darwinian evolution".
Sounds kinda like a conspiracy.
your belief is not relevant..I will concede that earth may be an open system even though some say it is essentially a closed system.
Great.
Are you willing to admit that it is very rare for a system to reduce entropy?
You still don't get it. Looking at the universe as a whole, entropy increases.
You can look at a plant or an animal and by using outside energy, they can decrease entropy in themselves, without changing the fact that entropy, universe-wide, is still increasing.
The fact that an oak tree is more complex than an acorn can be explained by the sunlight energy it used to make itself more complex.
So claiming that because, universe-wide, entropy is increasing, therefore life cannot evolve into more complex forms, is just plain wrong.
Do you get it yet?
Listen, I don't believe the current theory of evolution is even possible let alone ever happened. I believe small changes happened but only because the genetic data for these small changes already existed in our genome.
I believe there are limits to adapting to the environment and that is why the extinction list is so long.
is it just me or is ywc backpedaling?You, and the others who misunderstand the 2nd Law, said order can never increase.
Said that things can't get more complex.
I just showed the simplest of examples proving your claim was wrong.
Will you continue in error, or admit you were wrong?
We are looking at an increase in complexity in a different way. You're going from an egg to a human a totally natural cycle. It did not need an increase in new genetic information for this cycle. Y our argument is because as a child you learn math and as you get older you can do more complicated math. That is a natural cycle not evolution and an increase in complexity.
I am looking at an increase in new genetic information to go from an ape to a human. We are looking at complexity much differently.
Does anyone understand that the modern day theory of evolution calls for a complexity increase ?
Does anyone understand that the modern day theory of evolution calls for a complexity increase ?
You really do make yourself the village ID'iot with this nonsensical tripe.
I want to know more about and what are these system possessing the ability decrease dissorder. We have a universe experiencing decay and everything in it.
Living organisms are experiencing genetic decay that is threatening the survival of animal, human populations,and plant populations. What is the cause of this genetic decay ? No Natural selection cant prevent this genetic decay because the majority of mutations are recessive and can find their way in to a population through hidden carriers, rarely showing up as the double recessive that can be attacked by natural selection.This is a problem for what your theory calls for but this is reality.
You clearly don't know what I believe or know. Neither are you able tk distinguish between reality and what you read. Apparently, you will believe anything you read...or rather, pick and choose to believe one thing you've read over some otherthing you've read, depending on what you want to believe.
If you're speaking of genetic decay,it's a fact. Would you like to compare numbers concerning beneficial mutations vs harmful mutations ?
Hollie throwing rocks at glass houses. lol
You clearly don't know what I believe or know. Neither are you able tk distinguish between reality and what you read. Apparently, you will believe anything you read...or rather, pick and choose to believe one thing you've read over some otherthing you've read, depending on what you want to believe.
If you're speaking of genetic decay,it's a fact. Would you like to compare numbers concerning beneficial mutations vs harmful mutations ?
I've never spoken of genetic decay.
I'm refering to your use of the phrase "you people", a clear indicator of ingroup/outgroup thinking. *I'm refering to your saying "your theory calls for but this is reality."
I'm refering to your insistence on using "entropy"="disorder", which I clearly showed is not the correct scientific definition which you continue to disseminate. *
I am refering to your insistence on perscribing to me a concept of life decreasing entropy/dissorder, an idea that I have never put forth. *It is clear that there are no natural constraints on what an open or closed system may do within it's boundaries, that is all dependent upon the nature of the system and it's surroundings.
I am refering to your insistence on ignoring what I actually say, from the beginning.
From the outset, I made it clear that entropy is defined as
S=k*ln(Ω(E)) where Ω(E) is a count of the states that the ultimate particles can arrange themselves into. *Ω(E) does not have a definition of "order" and "disorder".
Attempting to extend thermodynamics to the details of cells, is precarious, at best. It requires being able to detail every single possible arrangement of atoms and molecules, along with the probability of each, without including any that cannot exist. *It's a fools errand.
Any definition that uses "order" and "dissorder" is a useful analogy, at best, sloppy at its worse. Attempting to tie entropy to dissorder to genetic mutations is simply meaningless. *This is what you would like to do, in a feable attempt to "prove" that therefor, by some undemonstrated default, god must exist.
The problem is, you've never seen god. *And I can assure you that you never will. It isn't in your nature.
So, we have the Creationists thread AND this one? Is there really a need for two threads about the exact same debate and with the usual suspects?
You keep pointing to natural cycles as your evidence. I don't have a problem acknowledging natural cycles. what I have a problem with are the extrapolations of these natural cycles and promoting a theory that you have no support for.
You, and the others who misunderstand the 2nd Law, said order can never increase.
Said that things can't get more complex.
I just showed the simplest of examples proving your claim was wrong.
Will you continue in error, or admit you were wrong?
We are looking at an increase in complexity in a different way. You're going from an egg to a human a totally natural cycle. It did not need an increase in new genetic information for this cycle. Your argument is as natural as a child as he or she ages can do more complicated math. That is a natural cycle not evolution and an increase in complexity.
I am looking at an increase in new genetic information to go from an ape to a human now that is an increase in complexity. We are looking at complexity much differently.
So, we have the Creationists thread AND this one? Is there really a need for two threads about the exact same debate and with the usual suspects?
You're correct although there are some new characters. You can't argue philosophies with out this debate. It always ends up going down this road.
I really wanted to know why naturalism is considered more scientific over creationism.
You, and the others who misunderstand the 2nd Law, said order can never increase.
Said that things can't get more complex.
I just showed the simplest of examples proving your claim was wrong.
Will you continue in error, or admit you were wrong?
We are looking at an increase in complexity in a different way. You're going from an egg to a human a totally natural cycle. It did not need an increase in new genetic information for this cycle. Your argument is as natural as a child as he or she ages can do more complicated math. That is a natural cycle not evolution and an increase in complexity.
I am looking at an increase in new genetic information to go from an ape to a human now that is an increase in complexity. We are looking at complexity much differently.
I am looking at an increase in new genetic information to go from an ape to a human now that is an increase in complexity.
I know how you're looking at it. Things cannot get more complex, 2nd Law.
That's why I continue to mock your scientific ignorance. Do I need to continue?
We are looking at an increase in complexity in a different way. You're going from an egg to a human a totally natural cycle. It did not need an increase in new genetic information for this cycle. Your argument is as natural as a child as he or she ages can do more complicated math. That is a natural cycle not evolution and an increase in complexity.
I am looking at an increase in new genetic information to go from an ape to a human now that is an increase in complexity. We are looking at complexity much differently.
I am looking at an increase in new genetic information to go from an ape to a human now that is an increase in complexity.
I know how you're looking at it. Things cannot get more complex, 2nd Law.
That's why I continue to mock your scientific ignorance. Do I need to continue?
The ignorance is not mine.
Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism
(including a rebuttal of Frank Steigers Thermodynamics FAQs in the Talk.Origins Archive)
© 2005-2007 T. Wallace. All Rights Reserved.
Scientific Responses!
See how evolutionist scientists responded to this article through exchanges with the author:
John Gunn, Ph.D. - Part 1
John Gunn, Ph.D. - Part 2
Tom Schneider, Ph.D. - Part 1
Tom Schneider, Ph.D. - Part 2
The debate between proponents of evolutionism and creation scientists concerning thermodynamics seems likely to continue without end. This is not because the laws of thermodynamics (and their ramifications) are subject to debate or relativistic interpretation, but because a handful of dogmatic evolutionists continue to vocally and energetically deny the truth concerning a simple matter of scientific knowledge:
The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)
While many highly qualified scientists who number themselves in the camp of evolutionism are candid enough to acknowledge this problem, the propagandists of evolution prefer to claim the only problem is that creationists misunderstand real thermodynamics.
This strategy is exemplified in Frank Steigers Thermodynamics FAQs in the Talk.Origins Archive, one title of which (Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics) may be said to better describe the how-to nature of his text than his case against the creationist writers he wishes to discredit.
Steiger accuses creationists of having created voodoo thermodynamics based solely on metaphors, and provides Talk.Origins readers with a detailed, albeit error-ridden, treatise on the subject. But while he may appear to have a handle on the mathematics and applied science of thermodynamics, Steiger himself steps out of the realm of scientific knowledge to defend the standard dogma of the evolutionist faith, using his own metaphors and semantic smoke and mirrors to make evolutionism appear immune to the best established scientific law known to man.
The purpose of this document is twofold:
To adequately familiarize the reader with the true scientific nature and ramifications of thermodynamics, as documented by leading non-creationist scientists.
To document and dispel for the reader such common pseudo-scientific evolutionist errors as those perpetuated in Steigers essays, and elsewhere.
To accomplish this aim, the subject matter shall be presented in the following consecutive sections within one document:
Understanding Thermodynamics
The Evolutionists Spin
Both Cannot Be Correct
Every effort has been made to explain the matters addressed in this document as simply and understandably as possible. While matters of science can sometimes seem beyond comprehension, the aim here has been clarity, yet without oversimplifying where the details truly matter.
Understanding Thermodynamics
Back To Top
The essence of Classical Thermodynamics concerns itself with the relationship between:
heat
mechanical energy (or work-ready energy)
and
the conversion of either of these into the other
All matters of physics, chemistry, and biological processes known to man, are universally subjectwithout exceptionto the first and second laws of thermodynamics hereafter, simply the first law and the second law.
While the properties of heat and useable energy may not seem particularly significant in a debate concerning origins, the first and second laws (which govern those properties and their transformations) speak profoundly to the nature of matter, energy, and therefore the universe itself. Within the realm of science, these are among the most immovable, universal laws of science, as the following scientific authorities testify:
[A law] is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of it basic concepts will never be overthrown.
[Albert Einstein, quoted in M.J. Klein, Thermodynamics in Einsteins Universe, in Science, 157 (1967), p. 509 and in Isaac Asimovs Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 76.]
No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles.
[Harold Blum, Times Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 119.]
If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for [your theory] but to collapse in the deepest humiliation.
[Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.]
The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigations without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy.
[G.N. Lewis and M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961), p. 87.]
There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances.
[A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (1966), p. 100.]
Although it is true that the amount of matter in the universe is perpetually changing, the change appears to be mainly in one directiontoward dissolution . The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying embers, and everywhere the cosmos heart is turning to cold; matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being dissipated into empty space.
The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate heat death or, as it is technically defined, a condition of maximum entropy . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves only one way.
[Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.]
...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics....
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist, Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
Having had a glimpse at the significance and respect afforded the laws of thermodynamics within the scientific community, lets now examine what these laws say, and to what they apply.
The First Law
Since the controversy between evolutionists and thermodynamics involves mainly the second law, we will only briefly look at the first law, sometimes referred to as the law of conservation, which tells us essentially that
Nothing is now coming into existence or going out of existence; matter and energy may be converted into one another, but there is no net increase in the combined total of what exists.
Regarding this first law, Isaac Asimov offers this noteworthy comment:
This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. No one knows why energy is conserved... All that anyone can say is that in over a century and a quarter of careful measurement scientists have never been able to point to a definite violation of energy conservation, either in the familiar everyday surroundings about us, or in the heavens above or in the atoms within.
[Smithsonian Institution Journal, 1970, p.6]
The Second Law
On the other hand, the second law tells us what can and cannot take place in terms of the relationships and transformations between matter, energy, and work, and their respective properties, as well as those of information and complexity, saying
Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.
...or...
The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.
(Entropy is a measure of (1) the amount of energy unavailable for work within a system or process, and/or (2) the probability of distribution or randomness [disorder] within a system.)
To help ensure an adequate understanding of what the second law means, consider the following, also from Isaac Asimov:
Another way of stating the second law then is: The universe is constantly getting more disorderly! Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.
[Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]
This is the essence of Classical Thermodynamics. Similarly, the generalized 2nd law applies to probability of distribution matters in Information Theory in such a way that, left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropyin this case informational entropy)and likewise, applied to matters Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropyin this case statistical entropy).
The Evolutionists Spin
Back To Top
Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).
Beginning with the Big Bang and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationshipdown to every atom, molecule, and beyondis the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.
This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the evolutionists speculations concerning biological life and its origin. The story goes thatagain, in violation of the second lawwithin the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule.
Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular community members which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell.
Not only did this alleged remarkable random act of self-transformation take place in defiance of the second law, but the environment in which it happened, while itself presumably cooperating with the second laws demand for increased disorder and break-down, managed (by some further unknown random mechanism) to leave untouched the entire biological self-assembly process and the self-gathered material resources from which the first living organism built itself.
Evolutionism takes its greatest pride in applying this same brand of speculation to the classic Darwinian hypothesis in which all known biological life is said to have descended (by means of virtually infiniteyet randomadditional increases in organized complexity) from that first hypothesized single-celled organism. This process, it is claimed, is directly responsible for the existence of (among other things) the human being.
Details, Details...
Perhaps the reader should be reminded (or informed) at this point that not one shred of unequivocal evidence exists to support the above described self-creation myth. Yet very ironically, its the only origins account treated in the popular and science media, nicely blurring in the public mind the distinction between bona fide science and popular beliefs.
To be sure, many corollary hypotheses have been produced to show how one or another biological or geological phenomenonor an empirical fact gathered in any scientific disciplinemight be explained in evolutionary terms (often not without the use of highly convoluted, incredible, and unprovable stories). But as Karl Popper observed, a theory that seems to explain everything really explains nothing. Popper insisted that a theorys true explanatory power comes from making narrowly defined, risky predictionssuccess in prediction being meaningful only to the extent that failure is a real possibility in the first place. Evolutionists find ways to explain and/or produce after-the-fact predictions for any and every empirical fact or phenomenon presented to themfrequently ignoring established standards for logic and scientific method.
In the same manner, many evolutionists are so convinced of evolution as a fact that they are compelled to either ignore or dismiss the applicability of the second law to biological processes. The presupposition of evolution as fact leaves no alternative but that it must be possible in spite of the second law. But no one can explain satisfactorily how a presumed process of nature (evolution) has moved steadily towards higher arrangements of ordered complexity, when the foremost law of nature demands that (in Asimovs words) all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.
Open vs. Closed Systems
The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.
The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.
Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenonfact, not theory.
The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an exception because we live in an open system: The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.
But simply adding energy to a system doesnt automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or build-up rather than break-down). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropyin fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your cars paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
So, what is it that makes life possible within the earths biosphere, appearing to violate the second law of thermodynamics?
The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Each living organisms DNA contains all the code (the program or information) needed to direct the process of building (or organizing) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organisms physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.
Living systems also have the second essential componenttheir own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the suns energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
So we see that living things seem to violate the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures in spite of the second laws effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).
While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earths open-system biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described abovenor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.
In short, the open system argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with careand within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.
Steigers Brand of Thermodynamics
Frank Steiger has published two essays in the Talk.Origin archive, in which he does a respectable job of iterating the common evolutionist answer to this problem. But while the answer he presents may be adequate to convince many willing believers in evolutionism, careful examination proves it to be nothing less than the same inadequate work-around commonly served up as an answer to second law objections.
Steiger also wrongly attributes false and misleading claims to his creationist counterparts, which, if taken at face value, would lend to Steiger much more relative credibility than he otherwise deserves. Add this to his failure to meet the second laws challenge to evolutionism, and Steigers work is reduced in simple terms to the same old song and dance with a few pot shots thrown in for effect.
Not far into the more lengthy of his two Talk.Origins essays (The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability), Steiger attributes to creationists a:
wide-spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder.
...which he then attempts to dispute by means of a grossly erroneous generalization:
In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks.
The order found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy (i.e., reduced entropy). The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibriuma lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no function. These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even though they may certainly reflect order in the form of simple patterns.
Steiger fails to recognize the profound difference between these examples of low-energy molecular crystals and the high-energy growth process of living organisms (seeds sprouting into flowering plants and eggs developing into chicks). His equating these two very different phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics (as well as molecular biology) on his part, and he perpetuates this error in the balance of both his essays, as we shall see.
On the other hand, Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) has no problem recognizing the difference, having described it this way:
Organized systems are to be carefully distinguished from ordered systems. Neither kind of system is random, but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external wiring diagram with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic order.
[Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]
Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference:
The point is that in a non-isolated [open] 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.
[I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]
Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:
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 may 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 Lifes Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]
Steigers blurring of the distinction between these two phenomena can logically be attributed only to either indefensible ignorance or a willful misrepresentation of the facts.
Later, Steiger declares that:
...a system can go from a more probable state to a less probable state, providing S for the system is negative. In cases where the system interacts with its surroundings, S can be negative providing the over-all entropy of the system and its interacting surroundings is positive; the over-all change can be positive if the entropy increase of the surroundings is numerically greater than the entropy decrease of the system.
Dont be alarmed. By way of explanation, S simply refers to change in entropy. A positive change (increase) in entropy is the general, universal tendency as described above (=less order, complexity, available energy, a more random, disorderly, and probable state). A negative change (decrease) in entropy is invariably an isolated and temporary event (=more order, complexity, available energy, a less random, disorderly, and probable state).
This profound statement on Steigers part, then, is simply stating the obviousrestating the second law in terms of a systems more or less probable state as a direct consequence of the respective increase or decrease in entropy. He correctly acknowledges that a less probable state may be reached by a system, only as long as it is an open system (i.e., able to interact with its surroundings) and there is an external increase in entropy exceeding the measure of systems internal decrease in entropy.
It is significant that Steiger does not take the time here to consider whether such a phenomenon tends to happen spontaneously, routinely, or with any constancywithout a directing program (e.g., DNA) and a means of energy storage and conversion (e.g., photosynthesis, metabolism) in any living organism (as described earlier). A declaration that a theoretical decrease in entropy is possible serves little in explaining biological processes and their relationships to energy and organized complexity. Steiger seems to avoid altogether any discussion of how biological processes achieve and sustain the very decrease in entropy which he goes to great lengths to demonstrate as mathematically possible.
In fairness, it must be said here that the thermodynamicist need not concern himself with the how (i.e., the process) of a matter in order to generate the mathematical calculations of entropy change from the beginning to the end of any theorized event. However, we must remember that the ability to calculate this change on paper by no means renders the event likely, or even possible.
Classical Thermodynamics may thus be employed to postulate the alleged entropy change of an event (e.g., spontaneous generation, or a macro-evolutionary event), apart from defining or identifying a mechanism or means by which the event could conceivably take place. Yet the barrier of the generalized 2nd law remains firmly in place and applicable to probability of distribution matters in Information Theory (e.g., the increase and preservation of information contained in genetic code), as well as that of statistic entropy and its applicability to systems (e.g., highly complex and integrated biological systems found in all living organisms).
In any case, Steiger goes on to observe that:
...when living things decay after death, the process of decay takes place with an increase in entropy ... a spontaneous change in a system can be reversed, providing the system interacts with its surroundings in such a manner that the entropy increase in the surroundings is more than enough to reverse the systems original entropy increase.
(One cant help but wonder whether this paragraph is meant as an attempt to go beyond the myth of spontaneous generation to suggest the notion of spontaneous resurrection!) In any case, Steiger continues:
The application of energy can reverse a spontaneous, thermodynamically irreversible reaction. Leaves will spontaneously burn (combine with oxygen) to form water and carbon dioxide. The suns energy, through the process of photosynthesis, will produce leaves from water vapor and carbon dioxide, and form oxygen.
Apart from his ostensible intention to portray these two processes as reversals of one another, it seems to have escaped Steigers notice that the process photosynthesis does not function apart from the complex cellular apparatus inherent in leavesit does not produce leaves, but is an inherent function of them. To postulate photosynthesis as a non-biological, independent leave-producing phenomenon is to misrepresent it entirely.
Now we come to some of Steigers best material. Still emphasizing the possibility of reversibility, he tells us:
If we unplug a refrigerator, heat will flow to the interior from the surroundings; the entropy increase inside the refrigerator will be greater than the entropy decrease in the surroundings, and the net entropy change is positive. If we plug it in, this spontaneous irreversible change is reversed. Due to the input of electrical energy to the compressor, the heat transferred to the surroundings from the condenser coils is greater than the heat extracted from the refrigerator, and the entropy increase of the surroundings is greater than the entropy decrease of the interior, in spite of the fact that the surroundings are at a higher temperature. Here again, the net entropy change is positive, as would be expected for any spontaneous process.
While serving as an excellent model of thermodynamics in action, Steigers refrigerator does still more in that it demonstrates the need for an energy conversion mechanism before a deliberate, sustained decrease in entropy is possible. Furthermore, the starting and stopping of the machines compressor can hardly be described as spontaneous eventsthey are the planned, willful, and deliberate actions of intelligent agents, executed with a view to accomplishing specific end results.
As if this splendid refrigerator werent enough, Steiger also shares the following model (popular among evolutionists) with his readers:
If a water wheel is connected by shafts, belts, pulleys, etc. to a pump, the pump can raise water from the downstream side of the water wheel to an elevation even higher than that of the upstream reservoir. Some of the water would spontaneously raise itself to an elevation even higher than original, but the rest of it would end up below the water wheel on the downstream side.
While it is not possible for all of the water to raise itself to an elevation higher than its initial elevation, it is possible for some of the water to spontaneously raise itself to an elevation higher than initial.
Once again we are looking at a carefully designed and implemented mechanism for creating and sustaining an apparent decrease in entropy. One is compelled to wonder why Mr. Steiger must rely only on man-made mechanisms to illustrate his claim that spontaneous entropy decreases can, and do, occur all the timeostensibly requiring neither design, plan nor storage or conversion of energy!
But wait! Theres more! Not only are we invited to pretend along with Mr. Steiger that he has demonstrated spontaneous generation to be thermodynamically possibleeven probable, but we are quickly assured that we need not concern ourselves with the details of how:
The fact that the water wheel and pump are man-built contraptions has no bearing on the case: thermodynamics does not concern itself with the detailed description of a system...
Here Steiger blithely excuses himself from facing a most profound fact: Spontaneous, sustained decreases in entropy do not occur in nature apart from the presence of a design or plan and a means of storing and/or converting energy. To declare that this has no bearing on the case is to betray (or feign) an utter ignorance of the roles played in biological processes by energy and the work that produces organized complexitymatters that most certainly involve thermodynamic relationships (particularly involving the generalized 2nd law and informational, as well as statistical entropy, as discussed above).
Complexity Simplified(?)
Now Steiger takes on the task of redefining complexity so that his readers will find the improbable at least believableif not inevitable:
A favorite argument of creationists is that the probability of evolution occurring is about the same as the probability that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could form an airplane...
...A simpler analogy to the airplane/junkyard scenario would be the stacking of three blocks neatly on top of each other. To do this, intelligent design is required, but stacking does not violate the laws of thermodynamics ... all that is required is the energy to pick them up and place them one on top of the other...
What Steiger fails to tell his readers is that the airplane/junkyard scenario stands up to probability analysis, as indicated by his need to substitute a block-stacking illustration, completely side-stepping the thermodynamic improbability of evolution. Having briefly alluded to the problem, he quickly and effectively ignores it by changing the subject!
In concluding his Probability essay, Steiger asserts that:
...The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.
This accusation finds no support in the balance of his essay, so one wonders on what basis Steiger feels qualified to register it. This writer knows of no creationist position concerning thermodynamics other than the classic understanding. That creationists point out the conflict between thermodynamics and evolutionist doctrine is no more a questionable position than if on a similar basis they were to say that boulders are unlikely to spontaneously levitate.
Steigers own distortion of the facts of thermodynamics and biological process seems to indicate that it is in fact his position that challenges reality, for if he were right, such things as turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc., would require no design at all, and would function satisfactorily with no energy storage or conversion devices!
To more accurately restate one of Steigers parting shots in the essay:
evolutionism (in the guise of scientific fact) doesnt have to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.
Attributing (More) False Attributes to Thermodynamics
Although much of what is said in Steigers second essay (Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics) has already been dealt with above, some of his claims deserve special treatment.
Briefly, in the False Attributes essay Steiger repeats the error of blurring the distinction between the high-energy growth process of living organisms (seeds growing into trees, eggs developing into chicks) and low-energy formation molecular crystals (crystalline salts form when a solution evaporates, and crystalline snowflakes form from randomly moving water vapor molecules).
In this essay, however, he goes a step further, claiming falsely that creationists insist that for both of these phenomena there must be a programmed energy conversion mechanism to direct the application of the energy needed to bring about the change. Thus, having confused two very different processes for his readers by describing them as similar, he falsely accuses creationists of a sweeping generalization which they do not makeeffectively setting up for his personal refutation a straw-man postulate.
Next, attempting to relegate changes requiring human thought and effort to a place outside the realm of thermodynamic analysis, Steiger attempts to ridicule the prospect that systems concerned with constructing a building, manufacturing an airplane, making a bed... etc., involve thermodynamics, implying that the changes in entropy inherent in the associated systems and processes are not covered by the science of thermodynamics. (Apparently Steiger does not believe the laws of thermodynamics to be universal.)
Among the claims attributed to creationists, Steiger says the energy conversion mechanism required for biological life (as described above) comes from God. Note that neither Steiger, nor any evolutionist, has produced a plausible naturalistic explanation for the origin of such a complex and essential biological process as an energy conversion mechanism (e.g., photosynthesis in plants, metabolism in animals).
[These (and a host of other no less complex, highly integrated, biological systems and structures) bear every indication of functional, purpose-oriented design. But this completely escapes the notice of the likes of Steiger, whose apparent commitment to defining science as the application of only naturalistic philosophy to the study of the natural world forbids them from seriously considering the logical implication of the evidence.]
Another claim of Steiger is that The ICR chapter [chapter 3 of Scientific Creationism, edited by Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research] states flatly that entropy can never decrease. This is an outright falsehood. Whether deliberate or not, it is an indefensible misrepresentation of the publication cited, the author of the publication, and creationists in general. (Noteworthy is the fact that Steigers essay conveniently neglects to cite the page on which Morris supposedly states flatly that entropy can never decreasemost likely due to there not actually being such a page in Morris book.)
Again refusing to face reality, Steiger claims that:
There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved... Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.
First we are told that no energy conversion mechanism need be accounted for. Then it is inferred (again) that the changes in (and relationships between) heat and work within biological processes are somehow outside the realm of thermodynamics. Next comes a concession that, okay, it is reasonable to assume that such conversion mechanisms actually exist (whew!), yet we are now firmly assured that the changes in (and relationships between) heat and work within biological processes are surely outside the scope of thermodynamicsand to disagree with Steiger here is to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics!
Whats wrong with this picture? Since when do the changes in (and relationships between) heat and work within biological processes (e.g., photosynthesis and metabolism) fall outside the scope of thermodynamics? Under what branch of scientific analysis are these thermodynamic relationships to be understood if not that of thermodynamics? By what natural laws are they governed, if not those of thermodynamics?
It seems that it is not the creationists who distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics. At least they recognize the universal application of thermodynamic principles to all processes involving heat, work, and the relationships between the twoboth on paper (i.e., mathematically defined) and in every real-world process in which they are found.
Tired as it is, Steigers effort to define molecular biological processes as outside the scope of thermodynamics is renewed in his claim that:
The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the mathematical treatment of the basic equations... There is no provision ... for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of thermodynamics... Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics... If it cant be expressed mathematically, it isnt thermodynamics!
It seems fair to say at this point that Frank Steiger hasnt done the math (or his biology homework)and this seems to be his sole basis for these declarations, designed to evade entirely the perennial issue of lifes ability to thrive in apparent contradiction to thermodynamic law.
Finally, Steiger concludes by erroneously claiming that Creationism would replace mathematics with metaphors... Creationists have created a voodoo thermodynamics ... in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.
Let the reader be the judge. If the laws of thermodynamics are universally applicable to all processes and systems (and according to respected science authorities they are), by what right does Frank Steiger selectively label as mere metaphors those highly complex processes and systems which produce and sustain the even more highly complex, integrated machinery of biological life?
Both Cannot be Correct
Back To Top
That someone is practicing voodoo thermodynamics is not at issue here. The question is who? The following statementscomplete with metaphors(!)from respected (evolutionist) scientists dont seem to reflect Steigers perspective, effectively indicating that it is he who has resorted to distorting and perverting the true nature of thermodynamics in order to convince his readers that his naturalistic religious views have scientific validity:
The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that ... biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.
[C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]
We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of lifes complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.
[G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465]
Closely related to the apparent paradox of ongoing uphill processes in nonliving systems is the apparent paradox of spontaneous self-organization in nature. It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays fro which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one.
[J.W. Patterson, Scientists Confront Creationism, L:R: Godfrey, Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 110]
We are faced with a choice between accepting the universal applicability of the laws of thermodynamics as generally understood, or believing that the likes of Frank Steiger are justified in their efforts to drive a wedge of semantic confusion between those laws and the postulates of evolutionism.
We have seen that (contrary to Steigers false accusations) the principles of thermodynamics are neither ignored nor altered by those creationists who describe them as universally applicable, demonstrating their relationships with biological processes.
We have seen how Steiger has repeatedly attempted to blur the distinction between dramatically different processes; has denied the applicability of thermodynamics to heat and work relationships within biological processes; has ignored the applicability of informational entropy and statistical entropy to the biological processes and properties of all living organisms; has falsely attributed obviously erroneous statements to creationist publications; and has generally turned a blind eye to the challenge posed to evolutionism by the realities of thermodynamic principles.
It must be emphasized that Frank Steiger is not alone. The above practices are not uncommon among many hard-core evolutionists. Whether theirs is at all a reasonable, rational faith seems clear in the methodologies they employ in its defence. The plain facts of science will remain neither ignored nor hidden in the long run, however, and many respectable evolutionist authorities resort to neither tactic, preferring to acknowledge such problems as those raised by the science of thermodynamics.
Unfortunately for all evolutionists, such problems show no intention of going away.
- Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism -
Unfortunately for all evolutionists, such problems show no intention of going away.
- Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism -
Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
Unfortunately for all evolutionists, such problems show no intention of going away.
- Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism -
The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing,
that is what you meant, you were attempting and failing to link the idea that creation pseudoscience is the same as the creation myth..that the "so called" first scientists believed.to quote one of my favorite movie lines: "Hippy, you think everything's a conspiracy!"Sounds kinda like a conspiracy.
The earliest scientists believed in creation now is that to where you can understand the point ? some believed in other gods over the creationists God. They were not teaching the theory of creationism because it was not necessary.
I am amazed you are dumb enough to assume that is what I meant
