Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: More on Creationism Message-ID: <1636@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Feb-84 13:41:23 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.1636 Posted: Fri Feb 3 13:41:23 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 07:49:41 EST References: <564@ihuxq.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 150 In response to John Hobson's following comments: More on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I just looked up Morris' definition of the second law, and it is as follows: The second law of thermodynamics is the law of increasing entropy, stating that all real processes tend to go towards a state of higher probability, which means greater disorder. This applies to all known systems, both physical and biological, a fact which is universally accepted by scientists in every field. --Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, p. 98. In this quotations, the words "closed system" are not mentioned. Morris goes on to say that the rejoinder that the earth is not a closed system is "an extremely naive argument" (p. 123). He says that: Obviously growth cannot occur in a closed system; the Second Law is in fact *defined* in terms of a closed system. However, this criterion is really redundant, because in the real world closed systems do not even exist! It is obvious that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to open systems as well, since they have only been tested and proved on open systems! --ibid, p. 125. (Italics in original.) How fortunate we are to have Dr. Morris to set us straight. The concept of thermodynamically closed system, like that of a frictionless plane or a rigid body, is an idealization. The laws of thermodynamics, like the ideal gas laws, can be tested and confirmed (*not* proved) by investigating systems that are only approximately closed. What we cannot do is to apply these laws to systems in which the energy flow across the boundries is significant with respect to the energy transactions within these boundries. That would be like using rigid body mechanics to examine the motion of blobs of Jell-o. Saying that "Open, closed, what's the difference?" displays a hopeless misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics and a remarkable ignorance of the uses of idealization in physics. A second answer of Morris, which lies at the heart of Miller's response, is what I shall call the "evolving junkyard" argument: It should be self-evident that the mere existence of an open system of some kind, with access to the sun's energy, does not of itself generate growth. The sun's energy may bathe the site of an automobile junk yard for a million years, but it will never cause the rusted, broken parts to grow together into a functioning automobile. A beaker containing a fluid mixture of hydrochloric, water, salt, or any other combination of chemicals, may lie exposed to the sun for endless years, but the chemicals will never combine into a living bacterium or any other self-replicating organism. More likely, it would destroy any organism which might accidently have been caught in it. Availability of energy (by the First Law of Thermodynamics) has in itself no mechanism for thwarting the basic decay principle enunciated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. *Quantity* of energy is not the question, but *quality*. --ibid., p. 123. (Italics in original.) This might look like a clever objection, but the issue has been shifted. Evolutionary theory was originally challenged to reconcile its claims of increasing organization and complexity with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The challenge is met by saying that the Second Law does not apply in this case since the earth is not a good approximation to a closed system. The creationists now ask why some open systems show decreasing entropy and others (cars in junkyards) do not. The simple answer is that this is an "apples and oranges" comparison. A more detailed answer would be to explain just how both living things and automobiles change. No one alleges that having an open system is sufficient for decreased entropy. Evolutionary theory says that decreased entropy is possible in an open system, not that it is necessary in any open system. This is an interesting example since, if you look at it, Morris begins by misstating the Second Law. Then, he considers a response that does not correct the formulation. This makes it look like the evolutionists have fallen back on closed systems as a desperate ploy. He continues by distorting the role of idealization in science, and ends by changing the question. My first objection to this argument is technical and maybe nit-picky. John presents these arguments as if they were a result of his own research when in fact the above is lifted nearly verbatim (including the quotations of Morris) from Philip Kitcher's book "Abusing Science" (see pp. 89-95). I have no objection to Kitcher's arguments being presented, but I think that John should give credit where credit is due. Doing this does not support his claim to having read creationist books extensively. I believe that he has read some, because of a personal conversation that I had with him. But here I am tempted to believe that his view of creationism is largley a product of anti-creationist writing and not of an objective reading of both creationist and anti-creationist. Moving away from that, I found that Kitcher, in his haggling over the proper definition of the laws of thermodynamics, does not really solve the problem of why entropy law does not present a problem for evolution. In particular Kitcher never once deals with Morris' objections to Stanley Miller's experiments with abiogenesis (his famous amino acid soup). Kitcher is right in pointing out that the evolving junk yard analogy is not a good one. But all he says is that DNA is different material than a junkyard. (pp. 94-95). In the previous section, "The Randomness Ploy", Kitcher involves the reader in a semantic argument, maintaining that creationists insist evolution depends on *irreducible randomness* (like a tornado in a junkyard) when it does not. I find it interesting that, in all his research, Kitcher never bothers with Coppedge's book "Evolution: Possible or Impossible", especially since Morris cites Coppedge's work in "Scientific Creationism". Also Kitcher confuses the issue by applying the creationist "randomness" argument exclusively to genetic mutation, and not abiogenesis, to which it mainly applies. For evolutionists to settle this issue I would like to see a sound refutation to the article "The Probability of Life from Non-Life", by Terry Brown, which I posted a week ago. Also, I would like to take issue with some of the examples of entropy decrease cited by evolutioists. The first one is the formation of snowflakes. They are definitely of a more complex structure than the water vapor of which they are formed. But how does this example support evolution? The molecular structure has not changed (it's still H2O), only the arrangement of molecules. Also the energy vector is in the wrong direction. Supposed evolutionary processes depend on energy being added to the system not subtracted from it. A second example was cited by an evolutionist in a recent local debate with Duane Gish. That is the "burning" of hydrogen atoms in a star or atom bomb produces heavier, more complex elements. Yet this also does not seem to lend much support for abiogenesis. Elements (atoms) are not molecules. One must wonder how stable these products of an atomic reaction are, and I don't think any biologist would suggest that the first life forms came about as the byproduct of such a reaction. It seems to me that if you generate enough heat to break an atom apart it's no wonder that the parts will soon combine again into a stable atom of some element. The same cannot be said of organic molecules. I think the "apples and oranges" objection can definitely be applied here. In closing this note I would like to say that I found many more serious problems with Kitcher's attack on creationism. Time doesn't permit me to go into any more of them. This whole origins debate is getting very boring in light of the fact that I have a new, 1 1/2 day old daughter to take care of. Loving this little darling is bound to take up a lot of my time in the near future. ... and I'm going to love every minute of it. Regards, Paul Dubuc