On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 18:02:18 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>SJ>...Creationists nearly unanimously claim that this Second Law
>poses a nasty problem for evolution...Creationists are at least
>partly at fault for that confusion...most popular creationists use
>the term evolution ambiguously...when claiming that the Second Law
>flatly precludes evolution, major creationists almost invariably have
>in mind evolution in the overall cosmic, "evolution model"
>sense...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."
>(Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings", 1996, pp91-92)
PM>We agree that creationists are partially if not totally
>responsible for the 'misconception'.
No. We "agree that creationists are partially" (*not* "totally")
responsible for the 'misconception'". The other part of the
responsibility is with anti-creationists, who are only too ready to
see creationists in as worse a light as possible.
PM>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.
That is entirely possible. But one would have to examine what they
said on a case-by-case basis.
PM>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.
Again, this is the tail end of a long section concerning "the Second
Law of Thermodynamics" and "the evolution model", which starts
with:
"It seems obvious that the Second Law of Thermodynamics
constitutes a serious problem to the evolution model. Creationists are
puzzled as to why evolutionists give so little attention to this
problem. Most books promoting evolution never mention it at all, and
many competent evolutionary scientists have been inclined to dismiss
it as of no importance to the problem. When pressed, however, for
means of reconciling the entropy principle with evolution one of the
following answers is usually given:...." (Morris H.M., "Scientific
Creationism", 1985, p40)
There follows five points over five pages, which Morris then concludes
with your quote:
"Now the question again is, not whether there is enough energy
reaching the earth from the sun to support evolution, but rather how
this energy is converted into evolution? The evolutionary process,
if it exists, is by far the greatest growth process of all. If a
directing code and specific conversion mechanism are essential for
all lesser growth processes, then surely an infinitely more complex
code and more specific energy converter are required for the
evolutionary process" (Morris H.M., "Scientific Creationism", 1985,
pp44-45)
The whole section is about the overall "evolution model" of which
biological evolution is but a part.
PM>But such vagueness is but a minor distraction from Morris' far
>worse flaws.
Possibly. We may not always see eye-to-eye on what constitures a
"flaw". But whether "Morris" has "far worse flaws" is irrelevant to
the question of what he means when he says that "evolution violates
the second law of thermodynamics".
PM>But I am glad that we have resolved the issue of thermodynamics in
>that it is not violated by evolution in the Darwinian sense.
I did not say that either. If "evolution in the" cosmic evolution
model sense violates "thermodynamics" then it is inevitably a problem
for "evolution in the Darwinian sense". If there is no cosmic
evolutionary principle of order from disorder, and there is a cosmic
physical principle of disorder from order (ie. the second law of
thermodynamics), then how did "evolution in the Darwinian sense" get
started?
>PB>Creationists often do use poor arguments in this area, but...
>thermodynamics does present a problem for chemical evolution.
>SJ>...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.
PM>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.
The question is not whether there is "energy" but whether there are
"energy conversion systems and coded programs that can convert raw
energy into organised complexity". At present, the photosynthetic
reaction centre, a fantastically complicated system that converts
photons into electrons and then into sugar, is the only mechanism
that can do this. I saw a recent news clip on TV where an
electronics engineer had duplicated that with a solar cell and
electronic circuitry. Of course his best effort was probably a
million times bigger than nature's masterpiece. The fact is that no
one has ever published an account of how the photosynthetic reaction
center developed:
"In fact, none of the papers published in JME over the entire course
of its life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which
a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual,
step-by-step Darwinian fashion. Although many scientists ask how
sequences can change or how chemicals necessary for life might be
produced in the absence of cells, no one has ever asked in the pages
of JME such questions as the following: How did the photosynthetic
reaction center develop?...The very fact that none of these problems
is even addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that
Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of
complex biochemical systems." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box",
1996, p176)
>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".
PM>True but this does not preclude local movements in the opposite
>direction. A common misunderstanding in creationism.
No. Creationists understand perfectly well that there can be "local
movements in the opposite direction" of the second law of
thermodynamics:
"When discussion turns to evolution in the more restricted sense-
biological evolution on the earth-then obviously it is highly
relevant to point out that the earth is not a closed system and that
thus the Second Law by itself does not directly preclude evolution.
But Morris, Gish, Wysong and others admit that, and have for decades,
although not always in a terribly clear manner." (Ratzsch D.L., "The
Battle of Beginnings, 1996, p92)
PM>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.
Sorry, but if there is no God, then the "natural laws" must have
existed in some form *before* "the big bang":
"In fact, the laws of physics don't exist in space and time at all.
They describe the world, they are not "in" it. However, this does
not mean that the laws of physics came into existence with the
Universe. If they did-if the entire package of physical Universe
plus laws just popped into being from nothing-then we cannot appeal
to the laws to explain the origin of the Universe. So to have any
chance of understanding scientifically how the Universe came into
existence, we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal
character." (Davies P., "The Day Time Began", New Scientist, Vol.
150, No. 2027, 27 April 1996, p34)
>SJ>Evolutionists must claim evolution operates at this highest level
>if evolution is to function for them as a substitute for God.
PM>Evolution and god can coexist peacefully, each in its own realm.
The fact that you must de-capitalise "God" argues against your
own claim. And since God's "realm" is the entire cosmos, "Evolution"
*is* part of God's "own realm".
PM>So your assertion what evolutionists must claim is erroneous and
>founded in an incorrect definition of evolution rather than in a
>real problem.
Granted there are some "evolutionists" (ie. theistic evolutionists)
who do not "claim evolution operates at this highest level" and
therefore "evolution" does not "function for them as a substitute for
God". But otherwise, for non-theistic "Evolutionists", who "claim
evolution operates at this highest level", "for them", "evolution
functions "as a substitute for God".
>SJ>But the 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.
PM>On the contrary, evolution is well defined and only creationists
>seem to obfuscate the issue by defining it to mean something it
>isn't.
I would appreciate then you positng your "well defined" meaning of
"evolution".
PM>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.
The "correct scientific sense" of the word "evolution" includes
"evolution in a wide sense":
"Although this article is concerned with biological evolution, it
should be recognized that the concept of evolution is much
broader.... There is also cosmic or inorganic, evolution, and
evolution of human culture. One of the theories advanced by
cosmologists sets the beginning of cosmic evolution between 5 and 10
billion years ago. The origin of life, which started biological
evolution, took place 3 or 4 billion years ago." ( Dobzhansky T.,
Evolution, in 10 Encyclopedia Americana, 1982, p734)
"The overall process of evolution in this comprehensive sense
comprises three main phases.... We may call these three phases the
inorganic or, if you like, cosmological; the organic or biological;
and the human or psycho-social" (Huxley J., "Evolution in Action",
1964, p10).
"The processes by which new galaxies, stars, and our own planetary
system are formed are sometimes referred to as the "evolution" of the
universe, the stars, and the solar system. ...Evidence that the
evolution of the universe has taken place over at least several
billion years is overwhelming." (Committee on Science & Creation,
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of
Sciences", 1984, pp11-12).
(Bird W. R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", Vol. I, Regency:
Nashville, 1991, pp433-434, 466-467)
PB>..>Living systems require both the input of energy and the
>simultaneous reduction of entropy...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":
PM>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.
Sorry, Pim, but there is no comparison between the kind of order
found in a "snowflake" and that of a living thing:
"To sum up, information theory has given us tools to distinguish
between the two kinds of order we distinguished at the beginning.
Lack of order - randomness - is neither specified nor high in
information. The first kind of order is the kind found in a
snowflake. Using the terms of information theory, a snowflake is
specified but has a low information content. Its order arises from a
single structure repeated over and over. It is like the book filled
with "I love you." The second kind of order, the kind found in the
faces on Mount Rushmore, is both specified and high in information.
Molecules characterized by specified complexity make up living
things. These molecules are, most notably, DNA and protein. By
contrast, nonliving natural things fall into one of two categories.
They are either unspecified and random (lumps of granite and mixtures
of random nucleotides) or specified but simple (snowflakes and
crystals). A crystal fails to qualify as living because it lacks
complexity. A chain of random nucleotides fails to qualify because
it lacks specificity. No nonliving things (except DNA and protein in
living things, human artifacts and written language) have specified
complexity. For a long time biologists overlooked the distinction
between these two kinds of order (simple, periodic order versus
specified complexity). Only recently have they appreciated that the
distinguishing feature of living systems is not order but specified
complexity. The sequence of nucleotides in DNA or of amino acids in
a protein is not a repetitive order like a crystal. Instead it is
like the letters in a written message."
(Bradley W.L. & Thaxton C.B., in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation
Hypothesis", 1994, pp207-208)
>SJ>"There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success
>in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize
>protein and DNA.
PM>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So this problem
>could be merely temporal. Hardly a brilliant analysis.
Sorry Pim, "Absence of evidence" *is* "evidence of absence".
Otherwise, what would be "evidence of absence"? The true statement
is: "Absence of evidence is not" *necessarily* "evidence of
absence".
But in this particular case, the "merely temporal" "problem"
of "Absence of evidence" has existed for at least 44 years (since the
Miller-Urey experiment of 1953), despite determined efforts by
brilliant minds, using the best technology and enormous resources.
Even if science does eventually figure out how life began, it is
unlikely after all this time, to be a simple solution, as
origin-of-life specialist Cairns-Smith points out:
"Perhaps there is some other way of making peptides with more or less
specified amino acid sequences; and perhaps this way does not need
detailed control. Perhaps it could then have operated before there
was life on Earth, before that engineer, natural selection, appeared
on the scene. But it is difficult to see how this could have been
so. I think we would know by now if there was some much easier way."
(Cairns-Smith A.G., "Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of
Life", 1986, p64, in Bird W.R., "The Origin of Species Revisited",
1991, Vol. I, p307)
It will therefore turn out to be better evidence for creation than
evolution! This is yet another version of the atheist's nightmare,
that the agnostic astronomer Jastrow considers possible:
"A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our
Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the
explanation is. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the
moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development,
unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the
word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth...
At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise
the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has
lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad
dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to
conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he
is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
centuries" (Jastrow R., "God and the Astronomers", 1978, pp115-116,
in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis, 1994, pp292-293)
>SJ>We believe the reason is the large difference in the magnitude
of the configurational entropy work required. Amino acids
PM>So perhaps there are more intermediate steps?
How exactly would having "more intermediate steps" solve the
"configurational entropy work" problem?
Regards
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------