DNAunion: Part 3 of x.
*********************
Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics
Creationist arguments are often based on assuming that a scientific theory or
law possesses an attribute that it does not, in fact, possess. The
creationist thermodynamics argument is a typical example of how this
technique is used to twist well established scientific principles into
meaningless gibberish. The reader should refer to Chapter III of "Scientific
Creationism," edited by Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research
for specific details. This chapter can be summed up as follows.
Creationist claims:
1. The second law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual
parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. The second law
will not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. To do so would
violate the universal tendency of matter to decay or disintegrate.
2. Creationists recognize that in many cases order does spontaneously arise
from disorder: seeds grow into trees, eggs develop into chicks, crystalline
salts form when a solution evaporates, and crystalline snowflakes form from
randomly moving water vapor molecules. In cases like these, creationists have
assigned an attribute that there must be a programmed energy conversion
mechanism to direct the application of the energy needed to bring about the
change.
3. This energy conversion mechanism is postulated to "overcome" the second
law, thus allowing order to spontaneously arise from disorder.
4. Creationists believe that changes requiring human thought and effort, such
as constructing a building, manufacturing an airplane, making a bed, writing
a book, etc. are covered by the science of thermodynamics. Creationists
believe that a wall will not build itself simply because to do so would
violate the laws of thermodynamics. In building the wall, the stonemason
overcomes the laws of thermodynamics!
5. In the case of organic change, like seeds growing into trees and chicks
developing from eggs, creationists believe that the directed energy
conversion mechanism that overcomes the laws of thermodynamics comes from
God.
Comments on the above five claims:
1. The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called
"entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and
an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never
decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously
decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the
system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder
part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The
ICR chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in direct
conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals
heat flow divided by absolute temperature.
2. There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism.
Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating
to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the
mechanisms involved. The energy conversion mechanism can not be expressed in
terms of mathematical relationships or thermodynamic laws. Although it is
reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually
exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of
thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is
simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.
3. The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the
mathematical treatment of the basic equations of thermodynamics. There is no
provision in thermodynamics for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of
thermodynamics.
4. Thermodynamics does not deal with situations requiring human thought and
effort in order to create order from disorder. Thermodynamics is limited by
the equations and mathematics of thermodynamics. If it can't be expressed
mathematically, it isn't thermodynamics!
Creationism would replace mathematics with metaphors. Metaphors may or may
not serve to illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing
is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the
thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy
change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a
compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors.
Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on
metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real
thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html)
**********************
DNAunion: Of interest here is the following:
"Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy
to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.
3. The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the
mathematical treatment of the basic equations of thermodynamics. There is no
provision in thermodynamics for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of
thermodynamics."
As others have done, the author switches away from talking about
thermodynamics as it applies to biology to focussing on ONLY thermodynamics.
So what? What is wrong with this? Simple, but I will need to use an
analogy.
The law of gravity imposes on heavier-than-air objects a tendency to remain
as close to the center of the Earth's mass as possible: if positioned on the
ground, that is where they tend to remain: if positioned above the ground,
they tend to fall until making physical contact with the ground. Yet a
many-ton hunk of metal can rise above the Earth - airplanes harness energy to
overcome the tendency gravity imposes on the massive hunk of metal, and all
times, obeys every known law of physics. So, metaphorically speaking, IDists
are asking how airplanes can fly: what mechanisms are required to properly
channel available energy in order for an airplane that weighs many tons to
rise from the ground instead of following its natural tendency to remain
grounded. In this question, gravity plays a key role. Yet the counters are
that engines and pilots and fuel combustion are not parts of the theory of
gravity! No duh! We aren’t saying they are. Are we not allowed to
bring gravity into discussions concerning
full-powered flight of a many-ton aircraft?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 24 2000 - 17:12:23 EST