How do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the law of thermo-dynamics

[cana333]

I am a christian who does not believe in evolution but I am interested to know what your response is to this Law. I will say from the start I in no way have a scientific mind, so I will probably not enter into this debate, but will just hang around to read your responses, if that's alright.

 

[Assyrian]

Hi Cana.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics simply isn't an issue. Every single chemical, physical and biogical process in life and in evolution obeys the 2nd law. In fact life would not be possible without the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It described how we can use energy from food, and ultimately from the Sun through photosynthesis, to do all that life entails.

I know Creationist writers have latched on to the idea of disorder always increasing and think that disproves evolution, but that is not how the second law works. Overall you will have an increase in entropy, in disorder, but that does not mean you can't have local increases in order as part of an overall increase in disorder.

To take a couple of examples,

If you boil a pan of salty water dry, if you look at the bottom of the pan you will see perfectly formed cubic salt crystals. The salt has increased in order but overall order has decreased and your kitchen will be full of water molecules scattered around, 'steam', from what used to be an orderly pan of water. Entropy has increased, there is more disorder in the universe, but your salt crystals are highly organised.

You eat a big breakfast and tidy the house. The order in the house increases, but you have used up fuel, a high energy source, and turned it into water vapour and carbon dioxide spread throughout the house, and will have a slightly warmer house from all the work you have done. Overall disorder has increased, but you house is more ordered.

Life uses processes like that. It take energy from the Sun, and in the process of spreading it around in a disorderly manner as the 2nd law likes to do, it increases order in the small areas it needs to get on with life.

 

[notto]

In order to say that evolution violates the second law, you would need to be able to name a specific physical mechanism or chemical reaction that evolution describes that violates the law.

The second law is not a philosophy or some vague idea. It is a law of physics that should be able to be described with math and applied to a named physical interaction (just like all the rest of the laws of physics).

Whoever told you that evolution violates the 2nd law lied to you in order to manipulate your beliefs and does not understand physics. Every physical mechanism used to describe evolution has been directly observed.

You should go back to the source of this claim and see if they ever actually discuss a physical mechanims in the discussion of the 2nd law. If they don't, they aren't talking about the 2nd law in any meaningful way. They are providing you with poor scientific information and you should question any other scientific information you receive from them.

 

[Smidlee]

I am a christian who does not believe in evolution but I am interested to know what your response is to this Law. I will say from the start I in no way have a scientific mind, so I will probably not enter into this debate, but will just hang around to read your responses, if that's alright.

This is exactly what evolutionists are trying to do. They are trying to find some kind of engine which works by the laws of thermodynamics which can explain molecules to man. Then you got the "which came frist chicken or the egg?" paradox (also "proteins or DNA/RNA paradox) that has to be solved. Most scientist admit they haven't find their engine yet but they have faith that one day their science saviour will rise up and finally destroy all creationists. They believe human logic will finally explain it all.
Like Dawkins they do see design in nature but believes it's an illusion. Creationists don't share this belief for we believe something look designed because they are designed.

 

[seebs]

Net entropy increases; local entropy often decreases.

We are on a planet with a huge number of external energy differential inputs. But all that complexity and energy we're "making" here is really just coming from the gradual conversion of the Sun's hydrogen to helium.

In a couple billion years, that'll stop working.

 

[notto]

This is exactly what evolutionists are trying to do. They are trying to find some kind of engine which works by the laws of thermodynamics which can explain molecules to man. Then you got the "which came frist chicken or the egg?" paradox (also "proteins or DNA/RNA paradox) that has to be solved. Most scientist admit they haven't find their engine yet but they have faith that one day their science saviour will rise up and finally destroy all creationists. They believe human logic will finally explain it all.
Like Dawkins they do see design in nature but believes it's an illusion. Creationists don't share this belief for we believe something look designed because they are designed.

Can you name a physical mechanism that the theory of evolution uses in its explaination that has not been observed or that violates the laws of thermodynamics?

Can you apply the correct math to show this violation (don't forget proper units)?

If you can't, your not talking about thermodynamics. From the looks of it, you aren't really talking about the scientific theory of evolution either.

 

[Smidlee]

Can you name a physical mechanism that the theory of evolution uses in its explaination that has not been observed or that violates the laws of thermodynamics?

I totally agree that natural selection and mutations ( as well the other known mechanism) doesn't violate these laws. But these mechanisms come far short of expalin a lot of stuff we find in nature. That's the whole debate; Neo-Darwinism just fall short.

 

[notto]

I totally agree that natural selection and mutations ( as well the other known mechanism) doesn't violate these laws. But these mechanisms come far short of expalin a lot of stuff we find in nature. That's the whole debate; Neo-Darwinism just fall short.

The majority of scientists who work in the field disagree. The theory of evolution use sonly observed physical mechanisms and observed outcomes (speciation) in its explaination of biodiversity on the planet. What has fallen short?

 

[Smidlee]

The majority of scientists who work in the field disagree. The theory of evolution use sonly observed physical mechanisms and observed outcomes (speciation) in its explaination of biodiversity on the planet. What has fallen short?

Those scientists in molecular biology better agree with Neo-Darwinism is they will be marked as a heretic / creationist. I don't blame any molecular biologist not speaking out against Dawinism since it not worth losing their job over.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Those scientists in molecular biology better agree with Neo-Darwinism is they will be marked as a heretic / creationist. I don't blame any molecular biologist not speaking out against Dawinism since it not worth losing their job over.

There are several well known very good examples of scientists fighting the establishment. Prions and ulcers as infection are the two examples i find most interesting. The fact is that scientists do take on the establishment, at rather regular intervals, they do get branded as odd, not heretics for that is a religious label and science is not religion. Sometimes they are right, however more often they are wrong and are eventually persuaded to rejoin the consensus. Your argument is fundamentally a conspiracy nut one and has the all the persuasiveness of those class of arguments. Is there truth in what you say? I don't know, nor do i really care because of the form of the argument, conspiracy and economics rules over all over ideologies and root causes. (fundamentally a marxist idea)

People have lots of motivations, some ethically good, others not. But science as a system has curiousity as it's primary motivational force and i suppose if you really knew high end scientists you would know that. does getting that next grant enter into the picture, does going to work and continue to eat enter into your personal life? of course it does. i am one of the very few people i've ever met that prefer studying to eating, that don't work because it cuts into my reading time. However i'll bet that you work, does that make you less curious because you'll sacrifice time for money?

But in the final analysis, this argument claims that scientists are all liars for their paychecks, something i hope every scientists and academic replies to here as a personal attack on their integrity and a nasty comment on bitting the hand that feeds you. For technology and science has driven western society for 500 years and all the nice things we have are a result of these money grubbing, lying for their next paycheck people who have nothing better to do than invent religions from their work.

 

[stumpjumper]

I am a christian who does not believe in evolution but I am interested to know what your response is to this Law. I will say from the start I in no way have a scientific mind, so I will probably not enter into this debate, but will just hang around to read your responses, if that's alright.

Short answers...

The earth is not a closed system and evolution (mutation and selection over time) no more violates the 2nd Law then life does... (which is to mean that it doesn't)...

 

[XTE]

Guys, Smidlee has laid out only exagerated claims and emotional appeals(to the Creationists) so far. Why don't we wait until he does something constructive for his side first, then we can talk about it point by point like a true debate.

Swimming in muddy waters is only helping him stay where he is.

 

[Graham4C]

the earth and the entire universe is a closed system by definition

 

[Melethiel]

the earth and the entire universe is a closed system by definition

The entire universe, perhaps. The earth itself, no.

 

[Smidlee]

But in the final analysis, this argument claims that scientists are all liars for their paychecks,...

I sure didn't imply all scientist are liars nor would I claim all car salemans, lawyer, politican, etc are all liars either. Scientist can be liars just as much as any other group of people. Also cops are not the only group of people who will take up for each other even when they are in the wrong. So I don't see scientist any diffferent than anyone else including preachers. They can be just as dogmatic ovwer their views as any religious group. I was watching a science program in which even the reporter notice this about the scientists he was interviewing.

P.S I want to add that there many scientist who doesn't even deal with evolution. Behe made the case that most papers about molecular biology has very little to evolution (seldom mention). Of those papars that I've read does deal with evolution you will find a lot of words like; presumably, likely, probably, perhaps, might have, could have, possibly, apparently, has (some knid of animal) like features,etc so in many ways the scientist are honest enough to add these words to show their views from the actually facts.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I sure didn't imply all scientist are liars nor would I claim all car salemans, lawyer, politican, etc are all liars either. Scientist can be liars just as much as any other group of people. Also cops are not the only group of people who will take up for each other even when they are in the wrong. So I don't see scientist any diffferent than anyone else including preachers. They can be just as dogmatic ovwer their views as any religious group. I was watching a science program in which even the reporter notice this about the scientists he was interviewing.


What makes science special, what makes scientific epistemology without peer in all the systems of thought mankind has, is the radical intersubjectivity, not just in theory but in practice.

The Russian communist in 1920's thought that their revolution was going to bring about a new type of humanity on earth, and they pushed their science to be a socialist science, but today Moscow university teaches the same science as they teach in Moscow Idaho, the whole experiment with socialist science was a dismal failure. Why?

ICR AIG and assorted fellow travelers have been pushing the idea of a Christianized geology, radiometric dating, a YECist biology. LIke the Russian example they too are a dismal failure, how come?

Because science at the heart of it's epistemology posits a world outside of each of us, a real world that is surprisingly accessible to our tools for investigation. Reference to this real world anchors science to publically accessible knowledge.

Unlike those YECists that come here and demand that we take their opinions and interpretations as truth, because they have had private revelations from the Scriptures and from God that the world is only 6K years old, science is bound to the things of this world in a remarkable way. This world is desacralized, shorn of religious meaning, all the pixies and wood nymphs have been ignored. Explanation must have reference only to naturalist causes. Not because God necessarily doesn't exist but because no 2 people seem to be able to agree on their private knowledge about God. There is simply no intersubjectivity possible if the source of knowledge is not between people so that both can have access to it.

 

[stumpjumper]

The entire universe, perhaps. The earth itself, no.

Indeed. The Sun kind of destroys the argument that the earth is a closed system

 

[steen]

I am a christian who does not believe in evolution but I am interested to know what your response is to this Law. I will say from the start I in no way have a scientific mind, so I will probably not enter into this debate, but will just hang around to read your responses, if that's alright.

The Scientific method is about evidnece, not belief. And the 2LoT is about energy, nothing else.

 

[steen]

This is exactly what evolutionists are trying to do. They are trying to find some kind of engine which works by the laws of thermodynamics which can explain molecules to man.

Why? thermodynamics is not biology.

That aside, you started as molecules and now progressed to "man." So according to your argument, you shouldn't exist.

Then you got the "which came frist chicken or the egg?" paradox (also "proteins or DNA/RNA paradox) that has to be solved. Most scientist admit they haven't find their engine yet but they have faith that one day their science saviour will rise up and finally destroy all creationists. They believe human logic will finally explain it all.
Like Dawkins they do see design in nature but believes it's an illusion. Creationists don't share this belief for we believe something look designed because they are designed.

What does ANY of this have to do with the subject?

 

[steen]

I totally agree that natural selection and mutations ( as well the other known mechanism) doesn't violate these laws.

Thanks for answering the OP, showing that even creationists don't buy the drivel about 2LoT.

But these mechanisms come far short of expalin a lot of stuff we find in nature.

What does this have to do with the OP? These are just your usual, unrelated "just because I say so" postulations with no substance.