>At 4:52 PM -0800 1/22/98, Greg Billock wrote:
>>Another example: at certain latitudes (the norther U.S., for instance), ponds
>>freeze over every winter. The same ponds thaw every spring. There is an
>>entropy change from frozen-pond to thawed-pond. For the purposes of this
>>example, it doesn't matter which way is which. The reality is, though, that
>>the pond freezes, thaws, freezes, thaws, meaning it first increases its
>>entropy,
>>then decreases it, and so forth. How can this be? Well, there is this big
>>glowing thing in the sky which we call the sun... :-) Energy from the sun
>>hits the pond, and means that the pond isn't a closed system, so the second
>>law doesn't apply to it. The second law only applies to the pond *AND* the
>>sun (which is increasing its entropy so fast it hurts to look at it :-)).
>>The same is true for any system on earth--its interaction with that big
>>glowing
>>thing in the sky can't be overlooked in trying to apply the second law to it.
>
>As you may be aware, one creationist retort to this one is, "How long does
>the sun have to shine on a pile of lumber to turn it into a house?" While
>I agree with your example, it is the kind of example that is lost on many
>creationists because something is missing. What's missing from the
>discussion is that the material elements have characteristic behaviors,
>described by the laws fo chemistry and physics, that allow them to do
>things like freeze, thaw, crystalize, dissolve, etc. The position that
>abiogenesis occurred, followed by evolution -- stripped of any atheistic
>baggage -- is simply a statement that the properties of matter are such
>that when energy is supplied, life can come about. The claim some people
>make, that _therefore_ there is no God, does not logically follow, and is
>not a scientific claim. One might ask why it is that matter has such
>properties. After all, I have a difficult time accepting that mere chance,
>operating over any period of time could produce, say, a painting by Georgia
>O'Keefe. But that's not a scientific question.
>
Thanks for these comments Bill, I think they are very helpful.
It seems very difficult to discuss the issue of the second
law because of "prepared statements" like the one above.
The answer has a certain common sense about it but yet
there is a subtle (or not so subtle) switch wherein it
suddenly seems that the evolutionist has made this really
extraordinary claim (that the sun shining on piles of lumber
will turn it into a house) when actually no such claim was
made. Instead, it is the creationist who has made an
extraordinary claim, that evolution violates the second
law. Pointing out that the earth is an open system merely
casts considerable doubt on the creationist's claim.
It is now their turn to actually present some evidence
that doesn't involve word games.
Brian Harper
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University
214 Boyd Lab
155 W. Woodruff Ave
Columbus, OH 43210
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
-- E. H. Hiebert,