Two problems with that. 1) thermodynamics does NOT pose a problem for the
spontaneous origin of life, I thought that such anti-scientific arguments
had died out 2) the idea that only intelligent design can solve this is
also faulty. Why would intelligence be able to violate a law of nature ?
Unless
of course one assumes that the intelligence acts outside the laws of
nature reducing it to an argument that cannot be tested in science.
Either way the statement that the Second Law of thermodynamics poses a
problem for the spontaneous origin of life in absence of an explanation
remains an argument by assertion. Given the fact that from a scientific
point of view there is no such problem this is not surprising.
>PB>I would like to argue that thermodynamics does not present a
>barrier in some absolute sense. We're here. There are ways to
>accomplish the necessary work. Mechanical work, for example, is
>accomplished through the use of machines (such as the piston
>arrangement). A constraining apparatus, such as a machine, is a
>third necessary factor. What we are really talking about is a way to
>convert one form of energy into another taking advantage of an open
>system.
SJ: Agreed. Once there is an intelligently designed "machine", then
the "thermodynamics...barrier" can be overcome.
THat is one way of overcoming such a problem but there not the only one.
The assumption that a macjine is necessary as a third factor implies a
'designer' were there need not be one.
SJ: Agreed. The only "naturalistic assumption" that can account for
"specific machines" and "work" that "must be specified" is
intelligence. And since on "naturalistic assumptions", intelligence
itself was the *end result* of a long process of evolution:
Faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions. No intelligence is required
for such processes. Since this appears to be the underlying foundation of
your
argument, the rest of your argument becomes subject to a sudden collapse.
SJ: They have been trying to tell us "how" for 44 years - since the
Miller-Urey experiment in 1953, and indeed long before tbat. The
long delay indicates that they will *never* now come up with a
plausible naturalistic explanation. As Cairns-Smith admits "we
would know by now if there was some much easier way":
Much has happened since the Miller-Urey experiments. I refer for example
to the research by Fox, Prigogine etc. Your assumption that the delay
indicates a 'never' merely ignores the significant advances made by science
in addressing the how. As such science has made more progress than the
needless assumption that an intelligent designer is required.
SJ: Yes. The only problem for naturalistic evolution is that "machinery"
must assemble itself, when the Second Law says that matter, in the
absence of "machinery", tends towards dis-assemble itself:
Again this is based upon a simplistic and erroneous understanding of the
second law of thermodynamics. After all we do know that increase in order
and complexity is possible. Of course the 'machinery' in that case is for
instance the energy from the sun.
SJ: "The laws of physics-the laws of thermodynamics- also contradict
evolutionary theory. For according to the experimental results on
which these laws are based, matter alone tends toward chaos or
increased entropy. It does not tend toward autoorganization, even if
Of course the matter alone is the reason why this argument fails to
address the
issue. Evolutionary theory 1) does not address origin 2) is in no manner
contradicted by the laws of thermodynamics.
SJ: one irradiates it with photon energy. Only with the aid of
Again wrong.
SJ: teleonomic energy consuming machines, the construction of which
require energy and planning, can entropy be reduced in matter and
order and organization increased. But order and organization are the
Again wrong. Prigogine has shown that no 'planning' is required for order
and organization to increase. I wonder why such anti-scientific arguments
are still being used. The abuse of the second law of thermodynamics to
support
one's arguments either against evolution or in favour of creation indicate
a lack of real arguments. Is the intent of the 'abusers' to encourage
total abandonment of their ideas by abuse of science ?
SJ : Today energy and know-how (information,
concept, logos) are always added. Since this step has been taken
Know-how is not required for the miller-urey experiment to represent a
possible
first step in the origin of life. Know-how is only required in
reconstructing
this event and analyzing its results. The idea that science adds know-how
to
a process is misleading.
SJ: (i.e., know-how has been added), scientists have become successful in
their attempts to create artificial life. Why should it have been
Well, at least it is admitted that artificial life has been 'created', the
question is now could this have happened without the intervention of the
experimentor. i.e. is there evidence that similar processes existed with a
naturalistic origin and the answer is yes.
SJ: different at biogenesis if the laws governing the autoorganization of
matter today have remained constant since the origin of matter? Why
should matter plus energy plus chance have been vital at biogenesis,
whereas today matter and energy plus know-how are required under the
same laws?...Where in the history of experimental science does one
No know how is required for biogenesis to happen today, just similar
circumstances to those existing billion of years ago.
SJ: Neodarwinism postulates the
development through chance and autoorganization of the most refined
coding system for a machine (the cell) ever seen. This cell machine
is far more complex than any machine ever invented by man. What
THe argument that DNA is far more complex that any machine invented by
man is 1) based on subjective arguments 2) does not mean that an
intelligence
far more complex than man is required for it to exist.
SJ: information engineer would attribute the development of code and
code- content to chance? Such a postulate would be refuted
Not even the evolutionist would attribute this to chance only so the
question is merely rethorical and does not address the real issue here that
there is a guiding mechanism in evolution (natural selection).
The lack of understanding of evolution and thermodynamics is no excuse for
these anti-scientific comments.
>PB>I agree with many that creationists often over-reach with the 2nd
>law argument, wanting to apply this to the entire process of
>evolution (when the machinery is present), the fall, and so on.
SJ: Agreed. This gives Darwinists the opportunity to counter-attack
and thus to evade the main problem - the origin of "the machinery".
'Darwinists' do not care about the origin of the machinery whether it be
creation or naturalist processes. They look at the available evidence of
'evolution' not abiogenesis and explain this in naturalistic terms. However
this does not mean that there is no effort to explain the origin of life
as well in a scientific manner.
PB>Still, to ignore thermodynamics is to ignore a problem. "Morowitz
>has estimated the increase in the chemical bonding energy as one
>forms the bacterium Escherichia coli from simple precursors to be
>0.0095 erg, or an average of 0.27 ev/atom for the 2 x 10^10 atoms in
>a single bacterial cell. This would be thermodynamically equivalent
>to having water in your bathtub spontaneously heat up to 360 oC,"
>(Thaxton, et al., 1984).
SJ: Yes. They point out that this is "happily a most unlikely event"!
:-) But this is a good way of getting these obscure numbers across to
laymen to show the extreme implausibility of spontaneous generation
theories.
Of course this is based on the erroneous assumption that spontaneous
generation
lead to a giant leap and generated the Escherichia Coli in one step or DNA
in one step. While such arguments might appear to be scientific to the
laymen, scientists have since long come to understand the logical fallacy
in such arguments. It appears that rethoric rather than science is the
only argument
against evolution or abiogenesis given the simplistic and unrealistic
assertions
made above.
SJ: The problem for the materialist is that the more one gets away from
simple self-assembly scenarios, the more it looks like what Hoyle
calls a "put-up job". IOW, if natural laws are eventually discovered
(a la Prigogine, Kauffman, etc) that predestine non-living matter
towards life - and none have yet been found - then it will be one
further example of fine-tuning of the initial conditions, which is
part of the argument from design.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Much headway is made in
understanding the self-assembly scenarios both in theory as well as in
experiments.
SJ: What the materialist really needs is something fairly ordinary that
flows naturally from the normal laws of physics and chemistry, eg.
Darwin's "warm little pond" with chemicals + energy. Anything that
is too sophisticated sounds like prior planning. Anything that is
While it might sound like prior planning there is no evidence that it need
to point to such. Arguments from incredility are in general considered to
be anti-scientific. Combine this with a subjective term as 'sounding
sophisticated' and one has a recipe from argument from rethoric.
SJ: unsophisticated but requires bringing together of all the components
in the right place at the right time in the right order, sounds like
intelligent intervention.
Again, it might sound like such but need not be.
SJ: I believe the case is closed for Intelligent Design in the origin of
life.
We agree and disagree. The case appears to be closed and the results point
to no
necessity of Intelligent Design. The case for ID is based upon arguments
like:
SJ: If there was something simple and plausible that does not
require intelligent design it would have been discovered by now.
Which of course is not dissimilar from arguments that might have been
heard in centuries ago when people claimed that the earth was the center
of the universe.
Science luckily has advanced us beyond these arguments of incredulity
towards arguments from facts and data.
SJ: "The authors have made an important contribution to the origin of
life field. Many workers in this area believe that an adequate
scientific explanation for the beginning of life on Earth has already
been made. Their point of view has been widely disseminated in texts
Adequate no, but much has been learned in the last few decades about this
topic and much science has been performed to address the origin of life.
SJ: and the media, and to a large extent, has been accepted by the
public. This new work brings together the major scientific arguments
that demonstrate the inadequacy of current theories. Although I do
not share the final philosophical conclusion that the authors reach,
I welcome their contribution. It will help to clarify our
thinking.... I would recommend this book to everyone with a
scientific background and interest In the origin of life...." -
Robert Shapiro, Professor of Chemistry at New York University. Dr.
Shapiro is coauthor of Life Beyond Earlh.
(Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's
Origin, 1992, back cover)
SJ: I would challenge non-theistis like Pim to read it.
With what purpose ? So that I understand that science has a long way to go
towards fully understanding the origin of life on this earth ? No big news
here. On the other hand science has made significant steps towards such
understanding, despite Steve's strawman argument that science should have
understood fully the pathways by now. I do support the book's contribution
towards an understanding that science has not fully explained the origin
of life (yet) and that many of the hypotheses still have problems and
inadequacies. I just hope that the book also addresses that little
progress has been made in the theory of intelligent design and the origin
of life in the time science has advanced it's knowledge and understanding
of these origins. If as I understand from Shapiro's comments the authors
of the book conclude that inadequacies in theory or hypotheses points
towards a total failure of science then I have to agree with Shapiro's
comments about not sharing the final philosophical conclusion reached.
I also do not understand the term 'non-theist' in reference to my beliefs.
Are you suggesting that I cannot believe or do not believe in a deity
because I believe that science can find a scientific explanation for the
origins and evolution of life on this earth ?
Regards
Pim