On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:52:44 -0800 (PST), Greg Billock wrote:
GB>As has been recently evidenced here, a frequent Creationist argument (although
>of no currency among the experts) is that evolution "violates the second
>law of thermodyamics." The argument is that, in order to "increase order,"
>some kind of intelligent design is necessary.
As pointed out by Del Ratzsch, in his chapter: "Creationist Theory:
Popular Evolutionist Misunderstandings", evolutionists routinely
misunderstand what creationists mean by "evolution violates the
second law of thermodyamics' " (they rarely actually say that, for
example). For starters, what creationists usually mean by
"evolution" is "evolution in the overall cosmic, `evolution model'
sense:
"Perhaps the most prevalent of the misconstruals of creationism
involves the Second Law of Thermodynamics...Creationists nearly
unanimously claim that this Second Law poses a nasty problem for
evolution. Unfortunately, exactly what creationists have in mind here
is widely misunderstood...First, when claiming that the Second Law
flatly precludes evolution, major creationists almost invariably have in
mind evolution in the overall cosmic, "evolution model" sense. The
clues to that meaning are the almost invariable use (especially in
Morris's writings) of phrases like philosophy of evolution or cosmic
or universal or on a cosmic scale. The universe as a whole system is
taken to be a closed system (classically), and according to the
creationist definition of evolution model, that model is unavoidably
committed to an internally generated overall increase in cosmic order,
since on that view reality is supposed to be self-developed and self-
governing. 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).
The "evolution" they have in mind (although they may not always make
this sufficiently clear), is the grand metaphysical theory of
evolution, as enunciated by Julian Huxley Darwin centennial
celebration of 1959 in Chicago:
`Future historians will perhaps take this Centennial Week as
epitomizing an important critical period in the history of this earth
of ours-the period when the process of evolution, in the person of
inquiring man, began to be truly conscious of itself .... This is
one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly faced
that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and
stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values-
indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution..."
(Huxley J., in Tax S. (ed.), "Evolution after Darwin", Vol. 3, 1960, in
Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp152-153).
Ramm points out that "Evolution and entropy are headed in opposite
directions....entropy represents a random and degenerative process,
whereas life represents an ordered and generative process':
"Evolution must reckon with energy and design in Nature. The
second law of thermodynamics cannot be ignored in the construction
of evolutionary theory. (Clark R.E.D., "Evolution and Entropy,"
JTVI 75:49-71, 1943). Evolution and entropy are headed in opposite
directions. Clark's fundamental thesis is that entropy represents a
random and degenerative process, whereas life represents an ordered
and generative process. Entropy is the gradual equalization of
molecular velocities through random collisions, and it is degenerative
in the sense that the physical state of energy levels is decreased. Life
is possible only if miraculously these two features of entropy are
reversed, and certainly entropy is the more basic and universal law
than evolution. Betts agrees with Clark that entropy is a downhill
process, and although while not an outright refutation of evolution, it
poses serious problems to evolution. The fundamental energy process
of Nature is disintegrative, not integrative. In radioactivity the
process is from the complex to the simple. As Betts writes: `Indeed,
modern astronomical evidence is showing that there is unidirectional
"evolution" of matter from the state of high atomic complexity to one
of atomic simplicity and a breakdown of matter farther into radiation.
(Betts E.H., "Evolution and Entropy", JTVI, 76:1-18, 1944)" (Ramm
B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", 1967 reprint,
p193)
Clearly there cannot be two diametrically opposed ultimate grand
metaphysical theories. Ultimately "Clausius and Darwin cannot both
be right." (Caillois R., "Coherences Adventureuses", 1976, in
Thaxton et. al., "The Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992, pp116-117).
Either the universe is ultimately uphill with some temporary downhill
exceptions (Huxley), or the universe is ultimately downhill with some
temporary uphill exceptions (Morris).
Ratzsch goes on to point out that contrary to the usual evolutionist
misunderstandings, creationists accept that "the earth is not a
closed system and that thus the Second Law by itself does not
directly preclude evolution": "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...Morris, for instance, claims in
numerous of his writings that a system being open is not alone enough
to cause a reversal of disorder or a decrease in entropy. There are,
Morris claims, some additional requirements that must be met before
that can happen For instance, the flow of energy coming into the
system must be adequate, and there must be some already-existing
"code" and "conversion mechanism" by which the incoming energy can be
harnessed, turned into some form that is useful and usable in the
system, and then properly directed and productively incorporated into
the system experiencing increasing order. These additional
requirements are not requirements of the Second Law itself but are
requirements that Morris thinks we have good empirical grounds for
accepting. Simply throwing raw energy into a system generally does
not produce increased order but destroys some of the order already
there. So the view is that Special conditions-codes, conversion
mechanisms and the like-are needed before growths in order can occur
even in open systems." (Ratzsch, 1996, p92)
They have good company in this. The co-founder of the Neo-Darwinian
synthesis, George Gaylord Simpson, co-authored a book which pointed
out that for "life's complex organization", "the simple expenditure
of energy is not sufficient" but what is required is "information on
how to proceed", in the form of "specifications" which it can
"follow":
`We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed
for the biologist by the fact of life's complex organization. We
have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and
that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy
needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not
sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop
performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization.
The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications;
it requires information on how to proceed." (Simpson G.G. &
W. S. Beck, "Life: An Introduction to Biology," Harcourt, Brace,
& World: New York, 1965, p466, in Gish D.T., "Creation Scientists
Answer Their Critics", 1993, p177)
The real question is "How do these codes and conversion
mechanisms themselves arise?" (Ratzsch D.L., 1996, p92).
Naturalists (including consistent theistic naturalists), will say that
since "the cosmos is a closed system of material causes and effects
that can never be influenced by anything outside of nature-like God-
for existence" (Johnson P.E., "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of
Darwin", Christianity Today, October 24, 1994, p24), then it follows
apriori that the codes and conversion mechanisms *must* have arisen
naturalistically, because there was nothing else available. A
consistent theistic supernaturalist, while accepting that nature may
(due to the powers granted to it by its Creator) be able to
self-assemble such codes and conversion mechanisms, would not rule
out apriori that nature may not have the power to self- assemble such
complex things and that God may have intervened in nature at
strategic points to bring about their assembly.
As Johnson puts it:
"An essential step in the reasoning that establishes that Darwinian
selection created the wonders of biology, therefore, is that nothing
else was available. Theism is by definition the doctrine that
something else was available." (Johnson P.E., "What is Darwinism?",
Symposium at Hillsdale College, November 1992.
http://www.mrccos.com/arn/johnson/wid.htm)
Regards,
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------