Reflectorites
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:16:03 -0500, David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu wrote:
DB>Regarding Stephen Jones' request:
>SJ>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?
DB>Ok. How about this one? On 11 AUG 97 you posted the message:
>
> Subject: Re: Origin of life, thermodynamics 2/2 #2A
> Creator: sejones@ibm.net
> Message Id: 199708112211.WAA44370(a)out2.ibm.net
> Create Date: 08/11/97 17:52:43 (EST)
> Received Date: 08/11/97 18:10:36 (EST)
> FROM: sejones@ibm.net
> TO: evolution@calvin.edu
>
>In this message you quoted from: Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of
>Beginnings", 1996, pp91-92 (and made many other quotes by many other
>authors as well).
>
>(Unfortunately this post was made then the Calvin archiver was broken
>and it never got properly archived, although its sequel: "Re: Origin of
>life, thermodynamics 2/2 #2B" *did* get archived at the colostate.edu
>archive.)
Thanks to David for this. But *1996* and *1997* (below) hardly qualifies
for me "repeatedly bringing the quote up"!
But what David does not say is that I had unsubscribed from the Reflector
to go on a 3 months overseas trip and I had resubscribed just to send
the above and some other posts, and I then immediately unsubscribed
again:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
To: "evolution@calvin.edu" <evolution@calvin.edu>
Cc: "David Bowman" <dbowman@gtc.georgetown.ky.us>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 97 05:52:43 +0800
[...]
Subject: Re: Origin of life, thermodynamics 2/2 #2A
David
I have resubscribed to the Reflector just to sent this last packet of messages.
But I am unsubscribing immediately again for 3-4 months, to prepare for
my overseas trip. However I will still try to answer private email
up to the 15 September. --- Steve
[...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So although I received David's response cc'ed to me privately, I never had
a chance to reply to it, and probably didn't even read it since I was busy
planning for my overseas trip.
And reading David's 1997 post now, it does not say that the "*both* the cosmic
*and* the Earth-based arguments are completely bogus".
DB>In my reply of 14 AUG 97 to this post:
>
> Subject: Re: Origin of life, thermodynamics 2/2 #2A
> Creator: dbowman@tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us
> Message Id:
199708141418.KAA29970(a)tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us
> Create Date: 08/14/97 10:18:46 (EST)
> Received Date: 08/14/97 10:46:12 (EST)
> FROM: dbowman@tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us
> TO: evolution@calvin.edu
>
>archived at:
><http://tallship.chm.colostate.edu/archive/evolution/199708/0020.html>
>
>I answered the part about the Ratzsch quote with the following excerpt:
>> ...
>>
>>Steve then quotes from Ratzsch's, "The Battle of Beginnings", which claims
>>that some major creationist writers are misunderstood as to which meaning
>>of the term 'evolution' they mean when they say that the SLOT precludes
>>evolution. They sometimes mean it in a cosmic sense rather than as a
>>particular biological theory. If Ratzsch is accurately assessing the
>>interpretive situation for writings of major creationists like Morris (and
>>I certainly have no reason to doubt him), then that assessment does not
>>help the case for their claims any. They are still wrong. Even if the
>>universe as a whole is taken as a closed system the SLOT *still* does not
>>preclude various *subsystems* of the universe from increasing in
>>macroscopic complexity and order *and* from even locally decreasing in
>>thermodynamic entropy itself. The only requirement is that the overall
>>total entropy increases. For example, stars and planetary systems
>>organize themselves out of the gravitational collapse of clouds of gas and
>>dust. The entropy of the collapsed state of a fully formed stellar system
>>is lower than that of the gas cloud from which it formed. The reason that
>>this is allowed is that as the cloud collapses under its own gravitation it
>>(adiabatically) heats up and radiates EM radiation into (the lower
>>temperature environment of) space. The EM energy radiated away cools the
>>system and carrys away entropy with it as the system cools. This cooling
>>reduces the entropy of the remaining gas and also allows it to continue to
>>collapse. The entropy carried away by the radiation more than compensates
>>the entropy decrease of the collapsing gas cloud. ...
First, this does not say that "the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments"
being "completely bogus". Nor did anything in David's whole post.
Second, David still misses Ratzsch (and my) point. *No one*, not Henry
Morris, not me, not anyone, is claiming that "the SLOT...does... preclude
various *subsystems* of the universe from increasing in macroscopic
complexity and order *and* from even locally decreasing in thermodynamic
entropy itself."
DB>Regarding Stephen Jones' other comments:
>SJ>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".
DB>The fact is that creationists have made *both* kinds of arguments. Just
>because someone brings up one of these two wrong arguments to criticize
>does not necessarily mean that that that person misconstrues the other
>argument for the one brought up.
See above. David needs to clear his mind of his preconceptions and look what
Ratzsch and I are *really* saying.
>SJ>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".
DB>Apparently you forgot. BTW, why did you stipulate "anyone on this
>Reflector"? Has this been possibly pointed out to you in some other
>venue, too?
First, I did not forget. I am well aware that I have discussed the second law
before and that I have posted the Ratzsch quote before. What I was
referring to was the "completely bogus" part of David's claim.
Second, the "anyone on this Reflector" means just what it says: no one on
this Reflector, AFAIK, "has ever pointed out to me that `*both* the cosmic
*and* the Earth-based arguments are completely bogus".
>SJ>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'!
DB>So you have been repeatedly bringing this up in the hopes that I would
>repeat my refutation of it for the benefit of any newcomers? How was I
>to know that you wanted the refutation repeated everytime you brought up
>the Ratzsch quote?
See above. First, on David's own evidence I have only posted this *twice*
back in 1996 and 1997. This hardly qualifies as " repeatedly bringing this
up". I probably have posted it more than that, but it would still be a
miniscule percentage of my posts in the 5 years I have been on this
Reflector.
Second, David has not even made a "refutation" of it. All David has done is
repeat what Ratzsch in his chapter "Creationist Theory: Popular
Evolutionist Misunderstandings" calls "Perhaps the most prevalent of the
misconstruals of creationism" (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings,"
1996, p.91)
>SJ>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".
DB>Which "simplistic, unqualified assertions" asserting the incompatibility
>of the 2nd law and evolution don't you agree with, the earth-based ones
>or the cosmic ones?
I mean just what I said: "simplistic, unqualified assertions that `evolution
violates the second law of thermodynamics'".
>SJ>By definition *nothing* can "violate" a law of nature,
>>otherwise it would not be a *law* of nature.
DB>This is an interesting statement. It seems that you believe in either
>the impossibility of miracles or in the absense of laws of nature.
As I have pointed out before, miracles *don't* "`violate' a law of nature":
"It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the
laws of Nature. It doesn't. If I knock out my pipe I alter the position of a
great many atoms: in the long run, and to an infinitesimal degree, of all the
atoms there are. Nature digests or assimilates this event with perfect ease
and harmonises it in a twinkling with all other events. It is one more bit of
raw material for the laws to apply to and they apply. I have simply thrown
one event into the general cataract of events and it finds itself at home
there and conforms to all other events. If God annihilates or creates or
deflects a unit of matter He has created a new situation at that point.
Immediately all Nature domiciles this new situation, makes it at home in
her realm, adapts all other events to it. It finds itself conforming to all the
laws. If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it
does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature
is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine
months later a child is born. We see every day that physical nature is not in
the least incommoded by the daily inrush of events from biological nature
or from psychological nature. If events ever come from beyond Nature
altogether, she will be no more incommoded by them. Be sure she will rush
to the point where she is invaded, as the defensive forces rush to a cut in
our finger, and there hasten to accommodate the newcomer. The moment it
enters her realm it obeys all her laws. Miraculous wine will intoxicate,
miraculous conception will lead to pregnancy, inspired books will suffer all
the ordinary processes of textual corruption, miraculous bread win be
digested. The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern to
which events conform but of feeding new events into that pattern. It does
not violate the law's proviso, "If A, then B ": it says, " But this time instead
of A, A2," and Nature, speaking through all her laws, replies, "Then B2"
and naturalises the immigrant, as she well knows how. She is an
accomplished hostess." (Lewis C.S., "Miracles: A Preliminary Study,"
1963, pp.63-64)
>SJ>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).
DB>As I had mentioned back in AUG 97 it isn't a good idea to rely on
>Giancoli (or other elementary level books) in trying to make proper sense
>of scientific issues as understood by scientists themselves.
I rejected David's argument then and I reject it now. Giancoli is a qualified
physicist like David (if not more qualified) and his textbook is taught at
university level. His book that I quoted from was its third edition and it
mentions 40 other physicists who had helped check it for errors. If
David thinks Giancoli is wrong about the SLOT he should take it up with
Giancoli.
>SJ>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).
DB>This view is unfortunately much too misleading and simplistic for a
>reasoned discussion of the issues.
Again, I reject David's claim above. When discussing the relationship
between *evolution* and the second law of thermodynamics, that level of
"Order to Disorder" definition is adequate. Here are some quotes from
university level Biology textbooks which discuss the second law of
thermodynamics in relation to evolution and use the terms "order" and/or
"disorder":
"Biological systems are highly organised and ordered structures that are
formed and maintained as a result of highly organised energy input. Since
an input of energy is required to maintain an ORDERED state, the
continual loss of energy as heat in every energy conversion results in
increasing DISORDER or entropy. This is the basis of the second law of
thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of the universe is
increasing." (Knox B., Ladiges P. & Evans B., eds., "Biology," 1995, p.27.
My emphasis)
"As you may recall from Chapter 3, the amount of DISORDER in a system
is known as entropy. Since, as we know from the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, the amount of free (useful) energy in the universe is
always decreasing, entropy is always increasing." (Keeton W.T., Gould J.L.
& Gould C.G.. "Biological Science," 1986, p.89. My emphasis)
"The second energy law implies that only those processes that decrease the
amount of useful energy will occur naturally or spontaneously. The word
spontaneous does not mean that it has to happen all at once, it simply
means that it will happen naturally over time. For example, your room
tends to become messy, not neat; water tends to flow downhill, not up; and
after death, organisms decay and eventually disintegrate. In other words,
the amount of DISORDER (i.e., entropy) is always increasing in the
universe. If this is the case, how do we account for an orderly room or the
presence of highly organized structures, such as living cells and organisms?
Obviously, these systems must have a continual input of energy and this
continual input of energy will eventually increase the entropy of the
universe." (Mader S.S., "Biology," 1990, p.95. My emphasis)
"The second law of thermodynamics can be stated many ways. Let's begin
with the following interpretation: Every energy transfer or transformation
makes the universe more disordered. Scientists use a quantity called
entropy as a measure of DISORDER, or randomness. The more random a
collection of matter is, the greater its entropy. We can now restate the
second law as follows: Every energy transfer or transformation increases
the entropy of the universe. There is an unstoppable trend toward
randomization. In many cases, increased entropy is evident in the physical
disintegration of a system's organized structure. For example, you can
observe this increasing entropy in the gradual decay of an unmaintained
building. Much of the increasing entropy of the universe is less apparent,
however, because it takes the form of an increasing amount of heat, which
is the energy of random molecular motion." (Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. &
Mitchell L.G., "Biology," 1999, p.85. My emphasis)
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be stated briefly as "the
entropy of the universe increases." Entropy may be defined as a
randomized state of energy that is unavailable to do work. The second law
may be phrased that "physical and chemical processes proceed in such a
way that the entropy of the system becomes maximal." Entropy, then, is a
measure of randomness or DISORDER. In almost all energy
transformations there is a loss of some heat to the surroundings, and since
heat involves the random motion of molecules, such heat losses increase
the entropy of the surroundings. Living organisms and their component
cells are highly organized and thus have little entropy. They preserve this
low entropy state by increasing the entropy of their surroundings. You
increase the entropy of your surroundings when you eat a candy bar and
convert its glucose to carbon dioxide and water and return them to the
surroundings." (Villee C.A., "Biology," 1972, p.82. My emphasis)
"Second law of thermodynamics. This states: all natural processes tend to
proceed in a direction which increases the randomness or DISORDER of a
system. The degree of randomness is called entropy. A highly ORDERED
system has low entropy whereas a disordered one, with its high degree of
randomness, has high entropy. We saw in Chapter I that entropy and free
energy are inversely related. Systems with high entropy have little free
energy, those with low entropy have more free energy. We also saw in
Chapter I that the ability of living systems to maintain low entropy is what
distinguishes them from non-living systems. The fact that living systems
can decrease their entropy does not mean that they fail to obey the second
law of thermodynamics. The reason that they are able to reduce their
entropy is that they take in useful energy from their surroundings and
release it in a less useful form. While the organism's entropy decreases, that
of its surroundings increases to an even greater extent. The organism and
its environment represent one system, the total entropy of which increases.
The second law of thermodynamics is therefore not violated." (Toole G. &
Toole S., "Understanding Biology for Advanced Level," 1987, p.273. My
emphasis).
If David disagrees, then he should take it up with all these biologist
(as well as Giancoli)!
>SJ>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)
DB>How does pointing out that evolutionary processes are irreversible
>violate or be a "major problem" regarding the 2nd law? The 2nd law
>itself *is* the law of irreversibility.
Huxley's words convey the impression that "All reality" is "generating
variety and novelty", ie. generative.
>SJ>"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)
DB>This is merely Teilhard's overblown hot air. It has no bearing on the
>issue of whether or not the 2nd law is compatible with evolution.
Nevertheless, Teilhard de Chardin was a leading evolutionary thinker, who
was endorsed enthusiastically by two of the co-founders of the neo-
Darwinian Modern Synthesis, namely Dobzhansky and Julian Huxley.
And it has a "bearing on the issue of whether or not the 2nd law is
compatible with evolution" at this "at the highest `cosmic (not
cosmological) evolution' level".
>SJ>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.
DB>This shows a mistaken view of the 2nd law that is encouraged by sloppy
>definitions like those found in Giancoli. This is what happens when
>sloppy conceptual connections between entropy and disorder are wrongly
>made.
See above. First, I reject David's claim that the generalised statement by
Giancoli of the second law of thermodynamics is "sloppy", *in relation to
biological evolution* . Giancoli is a professor of physics who has written a
leading textbook of physics, so I would presume he knows better than
David on this. This seems to be an interdisciplinary problem for physicists
like David to work out with fellow physicists like Giancoli and the authors
of Biology texts that I cited above.
Second, it is simply a *fact* that in our universe, the universal *general
direction* is "from order to disorder". This observation, at its most general
level, is termed "the second law of thermodynamics". That physicists might
have a more technical defintion of it, does not change that general
observation.
>SJ>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":
DB>"Temporarily circumvent"? What are you saying? The 2nd law is *not*
>circumvented by natural processes. The origin of life is not the same
>thing as evolution. I, too, think that finding a purely naturalistic
>mechanism for OOL is a very hard nut to crack. It seems to me that
>the probability for it happening on its own is much too small. But what
>does this unsolved problem have to do with it being an actual problem for
>the 2nd law though? Just because something happens to have a probability
>which is too small for it to happen on its own is no reason to conclude
>that its happening is necesarily a violation of the 2nd law.
David removed my quotes around `circumvent'. They were there to
indicate that of I agree that life does not *really* circumvent the second
law of thermodynamics but only *appears* to, temporarily.
And I specifically said that I do not agree with the simplistic, unqualified
claim that "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" and that
"By definition *nothing* can "violate" a law of nature...".
The whole problem with this second law of thermodynamics/evolution
debate is that evolutionists like David don't try to understand what the
other side is saying. This is a difficult subject to put into words, and it is
easy to jump on every apparent inexactitude.
>SJ>"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)
DB>This is true. So what does this have to do with the possibility of
>biological processes violating of the 2nd law?
See above. I did not say that "biological processes...violat[e]... the 2nd
law". In fact I said the exact *opposite*.
It is clear that David is doing exactly what Ratzsch pointed out in his
chapter "Creationist Theory: Popular Evolutionist Misunderstandings" was
"Perhaps the most prevalent of the misconstruals of creationism" (Ratzsch,
1996, pp.91-92).
That is, David is still working from within his strawman stereotype and
does not understand (or maybe does not *want* to understand) what
creationists like me are saying on this subject. Then having set up his
strawman and demolished it, David will no doubt proudly announce that he
has made a "refutation" of my "bogus" argument! :-(
>SJ>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).
DB>So just because Behe and others can't seem to find a Darwinian scenario
>for the development of the 'photosynthetic reaction center' you conclude
>that evolution violates the 2nd law? This is a non sequitur.
See above re David's strawman claim that I "conclude that evolution
violates the 2nd law". I actually say the *exact opposite*.
SJ>I claim that it is beyond the powers of natural processes to *originate*
>"specifications" i.e., "information on how to proceed".
DB>You can claim this if you want. Dembski makes similar claims. I'm not
>convinced by such claims. But even granting them though, what does this
>have to do with the 2nd law?
I thank David for graciously permitting me to "claim this if" I "want"! I
assure him that until it is shown that "natural processes" can "originate
`specifications' i.e., `information on how to proceed'" I will continue to
assume that they can't.
And because intelligent causes can "originate `specifications' i.e.,
`information on how to proceed'", I will continue to assume that such
things were the product of an Intelligent Designer.
>SJ>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.
DB>Life does *not* "temporarily `circumvent' the second law of
>thermodynamics". Where did you get the idea that it did? Life processes
>*obey* the 2nd law just as much as nonliving processes do. The issue of
>whether or not some complicated thing might form by purely natural
>processes, or whether it requires a supernatural assembly by an
>Intelligent Designer is not necessarily the same issue as whether or not
>its assembly by natural means would constitute a violation of the 2nd
>law.
See above on `circumvent'. At least David put back the single quotes this
time!
And also see above on "violation of the 2nd law".
DB>Maybe you would find some of my previous posts to this reflector about
>entropy and the 2nd law helpful. Some of these are at:
[...]
Unfortunately I do not have the time any more to do an in-depth study of
David's posts on the second law. I have all David's posts on my computer
and I have AFAIK answered all of them that were addressed to me while I
was subscribed to the Reflector.
But while David continues to misperceive my creationist position as
claiming that "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics", I
consider it as a waste of time trying to discuss it with him.
I suggest David read Ratzsch's book on the subject and try to understand
what creationists are saying on this point.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 27 2000 - 16:55:55 EST