Reflectorites
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:57:06 -0500, David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu wrote:
[...]
>BH>Ah, it's 2d law time again. It comes up about twice a year.
DB>This seems about the frequency.
>
>It also seems that often when this comes up Stephen Jones quotes his
>favorite passage from Del Ratsch about some evolutionists mistaking some
>anti-evolution arguments by some creationists that invoke the 2nd law in
>a cosmic context for anti-evolution arguments that invoke the 2nd law in
>a specific context related to biological evolution on Earth. He keeps
>bringing up the quote even though it has long ago been pointed out to
>him that *both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments are
>completely bogus anyway.
AFAIK it has *never* been pointed out to me, by David or anyone else,
that "*both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments are completely
bogus".
Perhaps David would post an excerpt from his, or anyone else's post, on
this Reflector which pointed this out to me?
If David cannot find such a post, then perhaps he can post why he
thinks that "*both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments are
completely bogus"?
DB>Because neither version is correct, I fail to
>see the point of repeatedly bringing the quote up.
The point of me "repeatedly bringing the quote up" include:
1. Evolutionists from time to time repeat this misconstrual, and fail to at
least distinguishing that there is in fact "*both* the cosmic *and* the
Earth-based arguments".
2. I am unaware that anyone on this Reflector, including David, has ever
pointed out to me that "*both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based
arguments are completely bogus".
3. Even if I had brought it up before, and David had pointed out to me that
"*both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments are completely
bogus", there are continually new people arriving on this Reflector who
would not have heard David's `refutation'!
BTW, I am not a YEC and I do not necessarily agree with some of their
more simplistic, unqualified assertions that "evolution violates the second
law of thermodynamics". By definition *nothing* can "violate" a law of nature,
otherwise it would not be a *law* of nature.
But before we go any further, I have learned through having long and
fruitless discussions on this topic, that it is important to define my terms
since there are many different ways of stating the SLOT:
"We have seen several aspects of the second law of thermodynamics; and the
different statements of it that we have discussed can be shown to be completely
equivalent." (Giancoli D.C., "Physics: Principles with Applications," 1991,
p.400).
What *I* mean by "The second law of thermodynamics", is in its most general
"Order to Disorder" form, as follows:
"15-7 Order to Disorder 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. Second law of
thermodynamics (general statement)" (Giancoli D.C., "Physics: Principles
with Applications," [1991, p.402).
My personal position on the second law of thermodynamics (as defined
above) is that:
1. I regard it as a major problem for evolution at the highest "cosmic (not
cosmological) evolution" level as stated by Julian Huxley and Teilhard de
Chardin":
"From the condensation of nebulae to the development of the infant in the
womb, from the formation of the earth as a planet to the making of a
political decision, they are all processes in time; and they are all interrelated
as partial processes within the single universal process of reality. All reality,
in fact, is evolution, in the perfectly proper sense that it is a one-way
process in time, unitary; continuous; irreversible; self-transforming; and
generating variety and novelty during its transformations."(Huxley J.,
"Evolution in Action," [1963,, p.12)
"Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a
general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must
bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable
and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines
must follow."(Teilhard de Chardin P., "The Phenomenon of Man," 1967,
p.241)
That is, evolutionists cannot appeal to some higher cosmic law of disorder
to order as some of them have tried to do. The higher cosmic law is from
order to disorder.
2. I also regard it as a major problem for the origin of life. Life can only
temporarily `circumvent' the second law of thermodynamics by some
special conditions, including "specifications", i.e. "information on how to
proceed":
"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.
& Beck W.S., "Life: An Introduction to Biology", [1957], 1965, p.467)
Such special conditions are embodied in the photosynthetic reaction centre
of plant chloroplasts, and the ATP synthase proton pump. According to Behe,
there is no detailed explanation in the scientific literature of how the complex
machinery of the photosynthetic reaction centre could be produced solely
by unintelligent natural processes:
"In fact, none of the papers published in JME over the entire course of its
life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex
biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, step-by-step
Darwinian fashion. Although many scientists ask how sequences can
change or how chemicals necessary for life might be produced in the
absence of cells, no one has ever asked in the pages of JME such questions
as the following: How did the photosynthetic reaction center
develop?..."(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," 1996, p.176).
I claim that it is beyond the powers of natural processes to *originate*
"specifications" i.e., "information on how to proceed". It is therefore my
scientific hypothesis, subject to falsification, that such special conditions
which life uses to temporarily `circumvent' the second law of thermodynamics
(including "specifications", i.e., "information on how to proceed"), had
to be originally brought into being supernaturally (possibly through natural
processes and existing materials), by an Intelligent Designer.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to
be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight
must seem rather odd." (Conway Morris, Simon [palaeontologist,
Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution:
Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7,
2000, p.11)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 16:29:59 EST