What is the purpose of this page?
One goal of this website is to avoid "strawman"
mis-representations
of
opposing
positions. My web-page about Entropy and Evolution implies that young-earth
creationists frequently make one particular claim that is scientifically foolish,
and recently (in June 2007) I discovered that this claim is not as frequent as
I had previously thought, and (as I explain later in this page) "except for the claims by Henry Morris, I have
not been able to find any ‘thermo in astronomy" claims in the websites
of
prominent
young-earth
creation
organizations." Therefore, I wrote this page. It
contains
three
sections: A Silly Idea, Why Things Happen, and The Decline of
a Silly
Idea.
A Silly Idea (claiming that
thermodynamics prevents all evolutionary development)
After a Big Bang, would a natural development
of complex physical structures — stars and galaxies, planets and solar
systems — violate
the Second
Law of Thermodynamics?
Henry Morris claims
(in 1973)
that because "evolution and entropy are opposing
and mutually exclusive concepts,... evolution must be impossible" and
(in 1976)
that "the most devastating and conclusive argument
against evolution is the entropy
principle,... also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics... which describes
a situation of universally deteriorating order." Later, his
son
(John Morris, 1992)
carries on the legacy: "the universal Second Law
of Thermodynamics shows that things become more disordered through time, not
more complex, as evolution insists."
But what do Henry and John mean when they claim that
thermodynamics makes "evolution" impossible?
The views of young-earth creationists
are described by Del Ratzsch, in The Battle of Beginnings (1996, pages
91-92):
"Creationists nearly unanimously
claim that this Second Law [described in the previous paragraph] poses a nasty
problem
for
evolution. Unfortunately,
exactly what creationists have in mind here is widely misunderstood. Creationists
are at least partly at fault for that confusion. One reason is that as
noted earlier (chapter six), most popular creationists use the term evolution ambiguously — sometimes
to refer to the cosmic evolutionary worldview (or model) and sometimes to refer
to the Darwinian biological theory. Although a coherent position can
be extracted from some of the major creationists (such as Morris, Gish, Wysong
and Kofahl), this ambiguity has rendered some parts of their writing monumentally
unclear. One
has to read extremely carefully in order to see which evolution is being
referred to, and some critics of creationism either have simply not noticed
the ambiguity
or perhaps have misjudged which meaning specific creationists have had in mind
in specific passages. And critics are not the only people who have sometimes
been bamboozled. Other creationists who take their cues from those above
have also sometimes missed some of the key distinctions and have advanced exactly
the original misconstrued arguments that critics have wrongly attributed to
major creationists.
In a word or two, we have a four-alarm mess here. But
let's see if we can
clear
up at least some of it.
First, when claiming that the Second Law flatly precludes evolution, major creationists
almost invariably have in mind evolution in the overall cosmic, "evolution
model" sense.* The clues to that
meaning are the almost invariable use (especially in Morris's writings) of phrases
like philosophy of evolution or
cosmic or universal or on a cosmic scale. The universe
as a whole system is taken to be a closed system (classically), and according
to
the creationist definition of evolution
model, that model is unavoidably committed to an internally generated overall
increase
in cosmic order, since on that view reality is supposed to be self-developed
and self-governing. What Morris and others mean to be claiming is that
any such view according to which the entire cosmos is itself in a process of
increasing
overall order is in violation of the Second Law." {* Here,
an endnote cites 42 references in 24 books.}
Henry Morris was explicit about the range of his claims
in 1976 (in the middle of his reign, for several decades, as the most prominent
young-earth
creationist) when he claimed that all types of evolution — as
indicated in the [square brackets] below — are
impossible because evolution "requires
some universal principle which increases order, causing random particles eventually
to organize themselves into complex chemicals, non-living systems to become
living cells [chemical evolution], and populations of worms to evolve into
human societies [biological evolution]" and he asks, "What
is the information code that tells primeval random particles how to organize
themselves into stars and planets [astronomical evolution], and what is
the conversion mechanism that transforms amoebas into men [biological evolution]?" {quoted
from Entropy and Open Systems with bold-emphasis added}
Responding to these claims, my Introduction to Entropy and Evolution: The Second Law of Thermodynamics in Science and in Young-Earth Creationism explains "why things happen" during astronomical evolution:
A wide variety of common reactions
occur when an attractive force pulls particles closer together, which constrains
them (producing a small decrease of entropy) but increases their kinetic energy
and temperature (producing a larger
increase of entropy), so total entropy increases
even though "disorder" seems to decrease. ...
We'll look at five examples — from
among the many reactions that have occurred during the history of astronomical
evolution — involving two particles (electrons, protons) and three forces
(electrical,
gravitational,
nuclear). ...
In
each reaction the particles become more constrained when they are
organized into a form that is more ordered, organized, and complex. The
overall result (in a sequence from A through C) is to convert electrons & protons
into planets in solar systems, due to the simple operation of attractive
forces.
two kinds of intuition: An everyday
intuition (based on the incorrect idea that "entropy
is disorder") will reach wrong conclusions because in each
reaction the apparent disorder decreases, so (based on psychological
intuition about disorder) entropy should decrease, but in reality
the entropy increases. By contrast, thermodynamic
intuition (based on a correct understanding of entropy) leads
to the correct conclusion, that entropy increases in each reaction.
why reactions occur: At
normal temperatures, most reactions are "driven
forward" by the formation of stronger attractive-force interactions
between particles, which is manifested as a temperature increase, not
by a decrease of constraints. ...
why chemical reactions
occur: In the common experiences of everyday life, most reactions
are chemical, not astronomical. These chemical reactions occur
because stronger bonds ("stronger
attractive-force interactions between particles") are
formed due to the reaction.
Recently, in June 2007, I've concluded that most current creationists do not claim that thermodynamics makes astronomical evolution impossible. This conclusion — about the apparent decline of one silly idea (although many others remain in young-earth science) — is based on two kinds of evidence:
NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
Except for the claims by Henry Morris, I have
not been able to find any "thermo in astronomy" claims in the websites
of
prominent
young-earth
creation
organizations,
such as the Institute for Creation Research (founded by Henry Morris,
now led
by John Morris) and Answers in Genesis.
Although I've found nothing in ICR or AIG,
the website of trueorigin.org has Thermodynamics
vs Evolutionism (200x) in which Timothy
Wallace says: "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." ... "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 [evolutionary]
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 relationship — down to every atom, molecule, and beyond — is
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." (bold-emphasis added by me) / But
in the rest of his page, Wallace applies his principle — which claims MUCH
more
than the Second Law claims — only
to
chemical
evolution
and
biological
evolution,
not astronomical evolution.
In young-earth websites, vague definitions
of the Second Law (such as the one by Wallace above) do occur, and they
say
what Ratzsch describes: "any such view, according
to which the entire cosmos is itself in a process of increasing overall order,
is
in violation of the Second Law." Most readers, especially
non-scientists,
will think the overall order is increased by the
formation
of
stars
and
galaxies, planets and solar systems, so (according to the Second Law) this will
not naturally occur. If this is true, why are claims
about
"thermo
and
astronomical evolution" so rare?
Here are several possible explanations: 1) Maybe
these claims exist but I just haven't found them. 2) Maybe
creationists are focused on claims for the evolution of life and humans, so
they
aren't
very
interested
in
astronomical
evolution; if they were asked whether a Big Bang will lead to solar systems,
they
would say no, but they don't think much about this question. 3) Maybe
the major
creation scientists, including Wallace, understand why astronomical evolution
would not violate the Second Law, so they make no claims about it; and
perhaps peer review within the young-earth community (by ICR,
AIG,...)
eliminates, or at least minimizes, these foolish claims.
POSITIVE EVIDENCE
In his excellent page about The
Current State of Creationist Astronomy,
Danny Faulkner explicitly denies one manifestation of the silly idea.
"Some creationists believe
that the
formation
of a star violates the second law of thermodynamics [Mulfinger, "A Critique
of Stellar Evolution" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, 1970], but
this is not true. If
one starts with a sphere of gas of larger radius and contracts the sphere to
a
smaller
radius,
then
the simple application of gas equations does seem to suggest a decrease in
entropy. It is also obvious that in the lab gases do not spontaneously
contract, which seems to be a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. At
least two differences exist between the laboratory situation and a contracting
protostar. One is that the protostar possesses considerable internal
energy in the form of gravitational potential energy that the lab gas does
not. The
other difference
is that the protostar sheds considerable energy by radiation. As the
protostar contracts, the gravitational potential energy is liberated. By
the virial theorem, half the released energy heats the gas, while the other
half is radiated. Recall
that the definition of entropy change is dS = dQ/T, where dQ is the
heat flow and T is the temperature. Since the heat loss is negative,
the entropy change of the protostar would be negative, as it is for any radiating
object. / In
fact, Mulfinger's entropy calculation can be generalized to any self-gravitating
spherical gas (cloud, protostar or star) with the result (in molar units), DS = 3/2 R ln(r2/r1),
where R is the ideal gas constant, r1 is the radius of the object at some time
and
r2 is the size at some later
time. Since the cloud or star is contracting,
r2 < r1, so that DS is negative. Mulfinger
applied this sort of equation to demonstrate that since this entropy change is
negative, the second law of
thermodynamics prohibited the contraction of a gas cloud to form a star. What
he ignored was the fact that energy is radiated from the protostar (thus DS
is negative), but that the absorption of that energy elsewhere produces an
even
larger positive increase in entropy, so that the total entropy change
is positive. {bold-emphasis added} This is an application
of the principle
I use to explain why things happen.
In another article (CRSQ-2001, the abstract is
available) Faulkner
asks,
"Does
the Collapse of a Gas Cloud to Form a Star Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?",
and he answers NO. "Thus
it appears that the theoretical contraction of a gas cloud to form a star does
not violate the second law of thermodynamics. It is recommended that
creationists do not use this argument to critique the theory of stellar evolution. However,
there remains a long-standing problem with how the alleged initial contraction
of a gas cloud can commence. This is a valid criticism of star formation." {comment:
As
far as I know, the initial contraction isn't considered a problem in astronomy
theory,
but
I'll
check on it and will write something about it here.}
Unfortunately, I've seen lots of vague generalizations (as in Wallace) and
very few specific clarifications (as by Faulkner), so readers who are less
scientifically sophisticated are likely to misunderstand, and then THEY will
make foolish claims about silly ideas. Responsible young-earth scientists
can help "shift the balance" toward increased scientific responsibility"
in their readers, by clearly explaining why some claims should not be
made. The main "entropy and evolution" page concludes with suggestions
for fixing a four-alarm mess.
This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
an ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it, and a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window, so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were. |
Entropy and Evolution (astronomical, chemical, and biological) Astronomy/Cosmology Overviews (in the homepage for Age-Science) Astronomical Evolution (in a page focused on astronomy & cosmology) |
This page, written by Craig Rusbult, is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/thermo-a.htm
Copyright © 2007 by Craig Rusbult, all rights reserved