On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:59:41 -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."...
>SJ> As pointed out by Del Ratzsch...evolutionists routinely
>>misunderstand what creationists mean by "evolution violates the
>>second law of thermodyamics' "...what creationists usually mean by
>>"evolution" is "evolution in the overall cosmic, `evolution model'
>>sense:
GB>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.
Some of it might be "naive", but IMHO a lot of it is a wilful desire to
construe creationism in its worst possible light.
GB>...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.)
I don't think it is "reckless", I think they saw more deeply into
the issues. Julian Huxley was the grandson of Darwin's "bulldog" Thomas
Henry Huxley, and apart from being the founding Director of UNESCO, he
]was also a leading biologist and co-founder of the Neo-Darwinian
Modern Synthesis.
Here is another similar quote of Teilhard de Chardin, endorsed by
Dobzhansky (another one of the co-founders of the Modern Synthesis):
"The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according
to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted from
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, `[Evolution] is a general postulate to
which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must hence forward
bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true.
Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all
lines of thought must follow-this is what evolution is.' " (de Chardin
P.T., "The Phenomenon of Man", 1955, p241, cited by Ayala F.J.,
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution":
Theodosius Dobzhansky", Journal of Heredity, Vol. 68 (January-
February 1977, pp3, 9, in Bird W.R., "The Origin of Species
Revisited", 1991, Vol. II, p247)
This is no mere bit of recklessness. It is the mature reflection of two of
the giants of Neo-Darwinism. They saw deeper than most, realising
that evolution, if it was to be true, just *had* to be the most
fundamental aspect of reality. After all, if matter is to evolve itself
from hydrogen gas to Homo sapiens, in the teeth of the Second Law,
then evolution (in this cosmic sense) just *has* to be the fundamental
principle of reality. The universe is winding down and if matter is all
there is, then matter *must* have wound itself up at the beginning. Ergo,
evolution (in the cosmic sense) must be the more fundamental principle of
reality, according to materialists.
>>"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
GB>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?
For a start Clark was writing in 1943 at a non-technical level in a
theological journal for theologians. He was being paraphrased in 1955 by
Ramm, a science-trained theologian, in popular science language in
a book for laymen. What they were writing in their day was no doubt
fully up-to-date. If they were writing today, no doubt they could have
had the advantage of another 40-50 years of advancing scientific precision,
although they would still have to express it in non-technical language for
their non-scientfic audience. But in any event, at the molecular level,
entropy *is* the gradual equalization of molecular velocities through random
collisions, as my daughter's university physics textbook gives an example of
entropy as the levelling out of the average kinetic energy of molecules:
"The concept of entropy, as we have discussed it so far, may seem
rather abstract. To get a feel for the concept of entropy, we can relate
it to the concepts of order and disorder. In fact, the entropy of a
system can be considered a measure of the disorder of the system.
Then the second law of thermodynamics can be stated simply as:
Natural processes tend to move toward a state of greater disorder.
Exactly what we mean by disorder may not always be clear; so we
now consider a few examples. Some of these will show us how this
very general statement of the second law actually applies beyond
what we usually consider as thermodynamics...When a hot object is
put in contact with a cold object, heat flows from the high
temperature to the low until the two objects reach the same inter
mediate temperature. At the beginning of the process we can
distinguish two classes of molecules: those with a high average
kinetic energy and those with a low average kinetic energy. After the
process, all the molecules are in one class with the same average
kinetic energy, and we no longer have the more orderly arrangement
of molecules in two classes. Order has gone to disorder. Furthermore,
note that the separate hot and cold objects could serve as that hot-
and cold-temperature regions of a heat engine and thus could be used
to obtain useful work. But once the two objects are put in contact
and reach the same temperature, no work can be obtained. Disorder
has increased, since a system that has the ability to perform work
must surely be considered to have a higher order than a system no
longer able to do work." (Giancoli D.C, "Physics: Principles with
Applications", 1991, pp402-403)
Similarly, my son's university physics textbook specifically states
that entropy is related to the " average molecular speeds" in a
body:
"The second law of thermodynamics...can be stated as a quantitative
relation using the concept of entropy, the subject of this section. We
have talked about several processes that proceed naturally in the
direction of increasing disorder. Irreversible heat flow increases
disorder because the molecules are initially sorted into hotter and
cooler regions; this sorting is lost when the system comes to thermal
equilibrium. Adding heat to a body increases its disorder because it
increases average molecular speeds and therefore the randomness of
molecular motion. Free expansion of a gas increases its disorder
because the molecules have greater randomness of position after the
expansion than before." (Young H.D., "University Physics", 1992,
p520)
GB>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.
Nowhere did I say (or even think) that entropy is "evil". Ross points
out that without the laws of thermodymamics, life would be impossible:
"Considering how creatures convert chemical energy into kinetic
energy, we can say that carnivorous activity results from the laws of
thermodynamics, not from sin. Large, active, agile land animals either
must spend virtually all their waking hours grazing, drinking, or
digesting or they must consume meat. And I don't think we should
hastily label the thermodynamic laws as evil. Without them, life in this
universe would be impossible." (Ross H., "Creation and Time", 1994, p63)
>SJ> 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
GB>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.
No. I and my sources are not "confused" at all. On our first point, we
agree with you that "entropy raises big question marks about the sort of
cosmic evolution proposed by Tipler, for instance".
>SJ> 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,
GB>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?
The products of radioactive decay are more "simple" than the initial
elements in the sense that they are less "complex".
>SJ>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)
GB>Imagine that.
Maybe you miss the irony in Betts use of the word "evolution" to indicate
the complete opposite from what evolution is normally thought to be?
In any event, this might be almost a truism now but it wasn't necessarily
so well established in 1944 when Betts wrote it, and in 1955 when Ramm was
quoting him. It wasn't all that long ago that Hoyle and others were still
proposing a steady-state universe which claimed that there was a continuous
increase in matter, which balanced the breakdown of matter.
>SJ> 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
GB>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.
I think you are over-literalising the word "Darwin". Callois is
using "Clausius" and "Darwin" as figures of speech.
And the people with "an ideological axe" to grind are not confined to
the creationist side. Evolutionists (who after all are in the dominant
position in our society) are constantly trying to link "cosmic
evolution" with "biological evolution". Here is Dobzhansky and
Stebbins, et al, (Stebbins being yet another co-founder of Neo-
Darwinism), claiming "the concept of evolution has been applied not
only to the living world but to the nonbiological as well...the entire
universe":
"What is the relationship between organic and other kinds of
evolution? During the century and more since Darwinism came into
being, the concept of evolution has been applied not only to the living
world but to the nonbiological as well. Thus, we speak of the
evolution of the entire universe, the solar system, and the physical
earth, apart from the organisms that inhabit it." (Dobzhansky T.,
Ayala F.J., Stebbins G.L. & Valentine J.W. "Evolution", 1977, p9)
And here from Julian Huxley again, claiming that "the general process
of evolution operates in three quite different ways...cosmological;
...biological; and ...psycho-social":
"The overall process of evolution in this comprehensive sense
comprises three main phases. Although there is continuity between
them, they are very distinct in their main features, and represent three
sectors of reality, in which the general process of evolution operates
in three quite different ways. 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",
1963, p12).
Or here is Harvard's dean of living evolutionary biologists, Ernst Mayr,
linking "Cosmic evolution and biological evolution" together, by "the idea
of...change over long periods of time":
"The most consequential change in man's view of the world, of living
nature and of himself came with the introduction, over a period of
some 100 years beginning only in the 18th century, of the idea of
change itself, of change over long periods of time: in a word, of
evolution. Man's world view today is dominated by the knowledge
that the universe, the stars the earth and all living things have evolved
through a long history that was not foreordained or programmed, a
history of continual, gradual change shaped by more or less
directional natural processes consistent with the laws of physics.
Cosmic evolution and biological evolution have that much in
common." (Mayr E., "Evolution", Scientific American, Vol. 239, No.
3, September 1978, p39)
>SJ> 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).
GB>(The latter is correct, in case you're ever asked at an interview.)
See above. Thhen at leaves fully naturalistic evolutionists with the
task of explaining how the "temporary uphill exceptions" managed to
bootstrap themselves in a "universe" which "is ultimately downhill".
>SJ> 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
GB><astonishment> So what the devil is what's-his-face doing ranting about
>Darwin and Clausius?
He doesn't. That quote was by "Thaxton et. al., "The Mystery of Life's
Origin", 1992, pp116-117". And they don't rant either.
SJ>[codes and conversion mechanisms]
GB>What are those?
So that there be no misunderstanding, I must preface my quotes from
YEC literature, illustrating their argument from the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, by once again pointing out that though I am a
creationist, and agree with many things that Gish, Morris, etc, say, I
am not (and never have been) a YEC.
Gish outlines that the "codes" are "a control system capable of
regulating the activities of the system", and the "conversion
mechanisms" are "a control system capable of
regulating the activities of the system":
"In order for low entropy complex organized systems to be produced,
at least four conditions must be satisfied: 1. The system must be an
open system; 2. All adequate outside supply of energy must be
available; 3. An energy conversion system must exist to convert the
raw, uncontrolled energy coming in from the outside to a controlled
form that can be utilized in a constructive way by the system
undergoing change; 4. There must be a control system capable of
regulating the activities of the system undergoing change, such that
the changes are progressive and integrative rather than meaningless
and destructive." (Gish D.T., "Creation Scientists Answer Their
Critics", 1993, p177)
Morris says the "codes" are "a program to direct the growth" (eg. the
"genetic program" in "the DNA molecule"), and the conversion
mechanisms" are (or is) "a power converter to energize the growth"
(eg. "photosynthesis"):
"In all systems, the Second Law describes a tendency to go from
order to disorder; in most systems, time produces an actual change
from order to disorder. There do exist a few types of systems in the
world where one sees an apparent increase in order, superficially
offsetting the decay tendency specified by the Second Law. Examples
are the growth of a seed into a tree, the growth of a fetus into an
adult animal, and the growth of a pile of bricks and girders into a
building. Now, if one examines closely all such systems to see what it
is that enables them to supersede the Second Law locally and
temporarily (in each case, of course, the phenomenon is only
ephemeral, since the organism eventually dies and the building
eventually collapses), he will find in every case, at least two essential
criteria that must be satisfied:
(a) There must be a program to direct the growth. A growth process
which proceeds by random accumulations will not lead to an ordered
structure but merely a heterogeneous blob. Some kind of pattern,
blueprint or code must be there to begin with, or no ordered growth
can take place. In the case of the organism this is the intricately
complex genetic program, structured as an information system into
the DNA molecule for the particular organism. In the case of the
building, it is the set of plans prepared by the architects and
engineers.
(b) There must be a power converter to energize the growth. The
available environmental energy is of no avail unless it can be
converted into the specific forms needed to organize and bond the
components into the complex and ordered structure of the completed
system. Unless such a mechanism is available, the environmental
energy more likely will break down any structure already present. In
the case of a seed, one of the required energy conversion mechanisms
is the marvelous process called photosynthesis, which by some
incompletely under- stood complex of reactions converts sunlight into
the building of the plant's structure. In the animal numerous complex
mechanisms-digestion, blood circulation, respiration, etc.-combine to
transform food into body structure. In the case of the building, fossil
fuels and human labor operate numerous complex electrical and
mechanical devices to erect the structure. And so on."
(Morris H.M., "Scientific Creationism", 1985, pp43-45)
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------