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

YECs seem to forget that the preamble to the second law of
thermodynamics is that entropy increases in a closed system. The
universe is a closed system but our solar system is an open system and
the earth is energized by our sun.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Cooper
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:16 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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.