RE: [asa] (entropy???) Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)

I would be quite surprised if any prominent physicist would claim the second
law (entropy) as a stumbling block to Darwinian evolution. Low entropy
(high order) states can be found in rock formations, for instance. As long
as the entropy of the universe goes up, physicists are likely satisfied.

Another common example that may help is a refrigerator. It violates the 2nd
law if you ignore the heat that comes out the back of the refrigerator. It
is easily shown that more heat goes out the back than was removed from
within the refrigerator. If a biological organism could benefit from a
trait that generates negative entropy within a given area (but net positive
entropy overall), then Darwin is supported, not diminished.

I don't think even Lord Kelvin (founder of the 2nd law, IIRC) gave Darwin
any grief on this point, "odious spectre" (per Darwin) that he was. [Lord
Kelvin's age of the Earth estimations were a major setback for Darwin's
theory.]

Coope

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:25 AM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] (entropy???) Darwin only biological evolution? (can
anything exist without evolution?)

Dr. Campbell wrote:
" I don't think it's explicit much in current YEC, but historically

there was some tendency to think Platonically about creation-God

created the ideal forms, and the things we see on earth are

approximations thereof. Evolving into something different might then

be perceived as suggesting there was something wrong with the original

ideal form, which might suggest that the creator messed up."

Sounds exactly like the YEC/OEC idea of humans- made perfect by fiat- then
deformed after the fall (DNA somehow got stirred-up and cursed, but it had a
perfect state when God originally made Adam).

David O. later wrote:
"I don't understand these statements in that article:

"Physicists have generally rejected Darwinian evolution because it is at
odds with their second law of thermodynamics, and no adequate mechanism for
life's overcoming that law has been forthcoming."

Is there any basis at all for this generalization about physicists?"

If YEC's think evolution is impossible because it violates entropy because a
sub-system goes from simple to complex; then to be consistent, they must
think it is against entropy for a cell to divide by two (over and over
again, creating complex organs in the after-math), or on a larger scale, a
child growing into an adult (which introduces new things as we witness when
a child passes through puberty). Think about that entropy-wise. starting
from one cell, ending up in a complex human- so complex, we can't even
understand yet (just started reading the DNA code). Do YEC's think that God
violates entropy when they see a baby growing in the womb??? Isn't this
obviously inconsistent?

.Bernie

-----Original Message-----

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Campbell

Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:07 PM

To: ASA

Subject: Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist
without evolution?)

I don't think it's explicit much in current YEC, but historically

there was some tendency to think Platonically about creation-God

created the ideal forms, and the things we see on earth are

approximations thereof. Evolving into something different might then

be perceived as suggesting there was something wrong with the original

ideal form, which might suggest that the creator messed up.

Of course, that reasoning overlooks the fact that flexibility and

adaptability are often wise design features.

Bringing out the fact that non-cyclic change over time is commonplace

might help address the antipathy for the term "evolution". However,

this does nothing to show that natural selection and other aspects of

biological evolution are correct.

Spencer's ideas on social mores were largely in place before the

Origin of Species, so there is actually a lot that was as independent

as might be expected of two people from similar cultural backgrounds,

though of course Spencer quickly took up aspects of Darwin and, not as

quick and extensively, vice versa.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.