I agree that what Ron had been referring to in this thread is some
kind of cosmic notion of evolution. I'd suggest that this misunderstanding
by evolutionists is a naive expectation that what creationists mean
by 'evolution' is what they mean by 'evolution,' namely, the process
of biological change over time, and the historical particulars of
that process, and not some sort of over-arching cosmic thing.
[the cosmic evolution business]
I agree that some people have (IMO recklessly) pushed for
a sort of 'cosmic evolution' model whereby the whole of nature
is in some sort of "development" "towards" some "higher state."
This is in direct opposition to the inevitable truth we learn
from the second law--that everything will eventually end in
low-energy photon soup (BTW, this doesn't give much comfort to
other ideas of creationists, but leave that aside.)
> "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
Entropy as a physical quantity has nothing to do with molecular
velocities, except insofar as they relate to possible quantum occupation
states. Has this Clark fellow ever studied the subject? What 'entropy'
represents is not some sort of teleological "evil" process of destruction
and decay, but the fact that systems maximize the number of quantum
occupancy states available to them (and more than that, they do it according
to specific statistics). As far as I know, this is just one of the
facts about the universe to which we have to get used. :-) I'm not
aware of any more 'fundamental' laws which govern that.
> 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
That's why any evolution is a temporary phenomenon, in the life span
of the universe. I agree that entropy raises big question marks about
the sort of cosmic evolution proposed by Tipler, for instance. I
think you and your sources here have gotten a bit confused about that
sort of evolution and the mundane biological variety we started out
with.
> 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,
How has the determination been made that the products of radioactive
decay are "simpler" than the initial elements? Is the definition of
'simple' here coherent?
> 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)
Imagine that.
> 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
Bingo. Darwin didn't propose any sort of cosmic evolutionary idea.
The conversion of the 'philosophically correct' cosmic evolution
to biological evolution is complete, illustrating once again why
this pernicious misunderstanding is so hard to get rid of--people
using it as an ideological axe just can't keep themselves in the
left-hand lane.
> 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).
(The latter is correct, in case you're ever asked at an interview.)
> 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
<astonishment> So what the devil is what's-his-face doing ranting about
Darwin and Clausius?
[codes and conversion mechanisms]
What are those?
-Greg