We agree that creationists are partially if not totally responsible for
the 'misconception'. Even now there are plenty of websites and
'creationists' who
keep making the same mistaken claim through an inclusive use of the word
evolution to imply that there is a problem for Darwinian evolution.
Morris is not innocent of such confusing behavior himself for instance in
"Scientific creationism" he is talking about solar energy reaching the
earth to support evolution (p 44) and 'we are warranted then in concluding
that the evolutionary process (the hypothetical principle of naturalistic
inovation and intergration) is completely precluded by the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. But such vagueness is but a minor distraction from Morris'
far worse flaws.
But I am glad that we have resolved the issue of thermodynamics in that it
is not violated by evolution in the Darwinian sense.
PB>Creationists often do use poor arguments in this area, but I think
>I agree more with Steve Jones on this. As far as I can tell,
>thermodynamics does present a problem for chemical evolution.
SJ: Thanks for your support. Agreed that "thermodynamics does present a
problem for chemical evolution". Indeed it "presents a problem" for
any "evolution" before there are living systems which have the energy
conversion systems and coded programs that can convert raw energy
into organised complexity.
Wrong again. Check your local sky around noon and observe the source of
the energy. Chemical evolution benifits strongly from its presence in our
sky.
SJ: At this highest universal level, the very opposite to "evolution" is
represented by the second law of thermodynamics in which the true
"one-way process in time, unitary; continuous; irreversible" is
*self-destructing*, not "self-transforming".
True but this does not preclude local movements in the opposite direction.
A common misunderstanding in creationism. And since natural laws as we
know them came into existance after the big bang and we do not have
knowledge about time before it is inappropiate to apply these laws to the
origin of the cosmos.
SJ: Evolutionists must claim evolution operates at this highest level if
evolution is to function for them as a substitute for God. But the
Evolution and god can coexist peacefully, each in its own realm. So your
assertion what evolutionists must claim is erroneous and founded in an
incorrect definition of evolution rather than in a real problem.
SJ: second law denies them evolution as an explanatory principle at this
highest level. That's why evolutionists must shift the argument down
to lower levels.
On the contrary, evolution is well defined and only creationists seem to
obfuscate the issue by defining it to mean something it isn't. You have
claimed yourself that creationists are (partially) guilty of the
'misunderstanding' of their statements since they use evolution in a wide
sense not the correct scientific sense.
> Additionally, the organizational state is one of
>reduced entropy. Living systems require both the input of energy and
>the simultaneous reduction of entropy. Thus, considering our earlier
>statement concerning spontaneous chemical reactions, the questions
>arise: how can living systems accomplish this task, and how might
>they spontaneously originate?
SJ: This is "thermodynamics" problem for origin of life is analysed
brilliantly in Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen's "The Mystery of Life's
Origin":
Actually it is hardly a problem for the origin of life and neither is it a
problem for the snowflake. But the latter one is at a thermodynamical
equilibrium, far from such equilibrium complexity and order can increase
spontaneously as shown by Prigogine.
SJ: "There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success in
synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize
protein and DNA. We believe the reason is the large difference in the
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So this problem could be
merely temporal. Hardly a brilliant analysis.
SJ: magnitude of the configurational entropy work required. Amino acids
So perhaps there are more intermediate steps ?
Regards
Pim