Evolution and the Second LawAnyone who has done any research into the creation/evolution debate knows that, inevitably, the second law of thermodynamics gets discussed. Typically, the conversation goes something along these lines: Creationist: "Evolution cannot happen, because it entails things getting more complex, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that would be impossible" Evolutionist: "You clearly do not understand the 2nd law. First of all, there is nothing thermodynamically prohibiting the genetic code from changing, and since we are nothing more and nothing less than what our genetic code says, then change is easy. Secondly, the 2nd law only applies to closed systems, and because the earth is bombarded with cosmic radiation, that constant supply of energy allows for increased complexity. Besides, you started as a single cell in your mother's womb, and now you are here, that's an increase in complexity, isn't it?" Creationist: "The 2nd law applies to everything in life, not just thermodynamics, and it forbids the increase in complexity of anything without certain very strict requirements, even in an open system." Evolutionist: "Does not!" Creationist: "Does to!" From there it's rare to find any intelligent conversation beyond that. Essentially, the debate is based on a difference of opinion on just a handful of questions.
The evolutionist would like to answer question 1 by limiting the 2nd law to systems that involve heat transfer. The more informed in the group recognize that the 2nd law does in fact apply to everything in life, even systems that are not defined by their heat transfer. The creationist would answer question 1 by emphatically affirming that the 2nd law applies to everything from heat transfer to chemical reactions, electrical energy, information, and the level of organization of a child's bedroom. For those who doubt that the 2nd law applies universally, consider some remarks by scientists: The final form of the 2nd law - systems become more disorganized over time - is at the same time perhaps the most abstract and profound statement of the three. A trivial example of Nature's tendency towards disorder can be achieved by the following experiment. Take a jar full of pennies that have carefully been arranged so that all the heads are facing up. Then tip the jar so that all the pennies fall to the ground - theoretically, it is possible that all the pennies will land with heads facing up. Our experience though is that most of the time, the some pennies will have heads up and some will have tails up. This example illustrates clearly, and quite accurately what is meant by order, and why nature prefers disorder. Having 50 pennies in a jar all with heads up is clearly an ordered state. Having 50 pennies on the ground with some, unspecified number heads, and the rest tails is clearly disordered. The reason the pennies never land all heads up is simply that it is too unlikely. There are far more disordered states possible than the one, and only one ordered state. This example also shows that ordered states are by no means impossible to achieve in Nature, they just require work: someone must put a lot of effort into arranging the pennies so that they are all facing the same way. However, in the absence of such external intervention, a disordered state is overwhelmingly more probably, which is in effect the 3rd version of the 2nd Law. theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node81.html Furthermore, The Second Law provides the basic explanation for why solids dissolve in liquids, why liquids boil, why rubber bands are stretchy, how sound waves propagate, and enormously more. It is safe to say that The Second Law is one of the two or three most fundamental and general things we know about the natural universe. www.chem.uci.edu/education/undergrad_pgm/applets/bounce/bounce_explain.htm For this reason, when we shuffle a neatly stacked deck of cards into random order, we can speak of an increase in entropy. And, in general, all spontaneous processes do indeed seem (in line with the second law of thermodynamics) to bring about an increase of disorder. Unless a special effort is made to reverse the order of things (increasing our own entropy), neat rooms will tend to become messed up, shining objects will tend to become dirty, things remembered will tend to become forgotten, and so on. acnet.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/thermodynamics.html When we appeal to the 2nd law when discussing pennies falling, rooms getting messy, and stretching rubber, it seems fair to say that the 2nd law applies to much more than just thermodynamics. The evolutionist would answer question 2 by suggesting that anything and everything has the possibility of increasing in complexity, given enough energy input. The creationist would answer question 2 by claiming that all systems that appear to increase in complexity have some things in common. This was best summarized in the following article: The fact is, contrary to the simplistic claim often parroted by [evolutionists], any increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
www.trueorigins.org/isakrbtl.asp This idea is even alluded to in a quote given above. Here it is again: For this reason, when we shuffle a neatly stacked deck of cards into random order, we can speak of an increase in entropy. And, in general, all spontaneous processes do indeed seem (in line with the second law of thermodynamics) to bring about an increase of disorder. Unless a special effort is made to reverse the order of things (increasing our own entropy), neat rooms will tend to become messed up, shining objects will tend to become dirty, things remembered will tend to become forgotten, and so on. acnet.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/thermodynamics.html (emphasis added) That 'special effort' is nothing more than what was outlined above. To restate what was written, in simple, point form, entropy can decrease (complexity can increase) if and only if all three of the following conditions are met:
That this causes problems for the evolutionist is inevitable because the theory of evolution presupposes that number 3 is absent from the equation, and there is no truly satisfactory example of number 2. So, rather than revise their worldview, evolutionists must insist that this explanation is false. The evolutionist is left with three options:
Dogmatism forbids number three, so they are essentially left with two options. Because the theory of evolution presupposes that the third requirement is absent (after all, a 'program' for evolution would sound too much teleology), they are restricted to the first option. The problem with the first option is that it cannot be done. The only way to falsify the claim that those three requirements are needed for decreased entropy (increased complexity) would be to demonstrate that systems (at least one system) could decrease in entropy minus one or more of the requirements. However, not a single example of a system that decreased in entropy without having all three of the requirements has ever been brought to my attention. This, then, is the challenge for an evolutionist: Here are a few examples of systems that do decrease in entropy, and have all three requirements. Human Growth Organizing Cards Internal Combustion Engine This list will likely grow with time, but for now it demonstrates that a wide range of things that decrease in entropy (increase in complexity) have three common features. To illustrate that all three factors are required, consider removing any one of them from any system. Imagine how long a human would survive if the digestive system failed to function properly. How organized would cards become if, instead of human hand energy, we input the energy of a flame-thrower? If we remove the highly specific program of an internal combustion engine, by removing the crankshaft for example, will the engine keep producing useable power?
| |||