>As a creationist, would be interested in your input on how this is resolved
>with macroevolution.
>
This tends to be a difficult question to discuss for a
number of reasons. First, the question is not very precise.
What specifically about evolution is supposed to violate
the 2nd Law? We have certain "facts" from the fossil
record showing a pattern of change over time. This
change is certainly macroscopic in character. Does whatever
mechanism that is responsible for these observations
violate the 2nd Law? Well, I suppose the idea is that
some sort of progressive creation would be allowed to
violate the 2nd Law. I suppose it would violate other
principles as well, like the 1st Law of Thermo, conservation
of momentum etc.
OK, so I guess the idea here is that the physical mechanisms
proposed to account for what we find in the fossil record
are supposed to violate the second Law. If so, which
one(s)? Of course, the actual historical events in the
fossil record cannot be reproduced and studied, but
some of the proposed mechanisms can. Do any of these
violate the 2nd Law? If you could show this then I'm
quite sure you would win a Nobel prize :).
Another problem is the subject of thermodynamics itself.
This is a very difficult subject which requires many
years of study to master. I've taken a few thermo
courses myself but would in nowise consider myself
an expert.
Popular level books attempting to explain this difficult
subject to laymen (usually without using any math!!)
generally have to resort to using analogies and examples
of thermodynamics instead of the real thing. The most
common example of this is the order/disorder analogy.
One problem here is that words often have different
meanings in technical fields than in everyday use.
Quite often one sees debates carried out simply in
terms of words like order, disorder, information etc.
These soon become word games wherein the everyday meanings
of words are substituted for their technical meanings.
To illustrate, consider your following comment to Greg:
Ron:==
> 2LoT, being all-inclusive, indicates everything proceeds from order to
> disorder naturally over time. Macroevolution, on the other hand, indicates
> that disorder becomes order at one point in time, then replicates itself
> naturally to increasing complexity and order. As the old colloquialism
> states, 'that dog won't hunt.'
According to their technical definitions, order and complexity
have opposite meanings. Something cannot increase in complexity
and order.
I took a quick look through some of my Creationist books and
found the following curious statement by Gish:
"The most vitally important questions, however, they have
failed to answer--how the universe, an isolated system,
could transform itself from chaos and simplicity into
order and complexity, when the second law tells us this
is impossible; ..." Gish <Creation Scientists Answer
Their Critics> p. 205
ahem, ;-)
In any event, a detailed argument as to whether
the 2nd Law is violated in some complicated situation
simply cannot be carried out at the level of discussions
about order and disorder. You gotta do the math and
you better check your sums ;-).
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"... we have learned from much experience that all
philosophical intuitions about what nature is going
to do fail." -- Richard Feynman