Arguments Creationists Should Avoid: 2nd Law

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
stcordova
Apprentice
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:57 am

Arguments Creationists Should Avoid: 2nd Law

Post #1

Post by stcordova »

Even though I'm a creationist, I will occasionally disagree with creationist claims that I think are incorrect. I disagree with the notion that "the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution."

In my experience creationists are unable to do this because the 2nd law does not preclude evolution. Why? Consider the following:

A. for a system to become more biologically complex, it often has to INCREASE its entropy not decrease it. Example: which object has more thermodynamic entropy, a dead cell or a living adult human. Answer: adult human by a factor of about 100 trillion. Why? Use principles of calculating standard molar entropy as a chemistry student will use, and one will see a living adult human has more entropy for the simple reason a human has more atoms than a dead cell.

B. which has more entropy, a frozen dead rat near absolute zero or a living human being lying on the beach sun bathing. Answer the living human being because it has more atoms than the rat and because it is at a higher temperature. The rat being near absolute zero has entropy approaching zero.

C. which has more entropy a flying 747 or a small pile of junked aluminum cans?Answer: 747. A 747 has 6.94 x 10^7 J/K entropy compared to a pile of junked aluminum cans that would have on the order of a 10^2 J/K entropy. These calculations should be doable by a college chemistry, physics, or mechanical engineering student.

Given these considerations, why should creationists say that reducing entropy is important? In view of these calculations, it seems that increasing entropy is also valid! Unless creationists can demonstrate reducing entropy is important to creating living organisms (which they can't do), then it is rather irrelevant to discuss open or closed systems, the universal increase of entropy etc.

CONCLUSION:
Creationists should avoid using the 2nd law as an argument against biological evolution. At the very least, if creationists are determined to use those arguments, they could first attempt to affirm or falsify the three examples of entropy I just provided.


PS
the Clausius definition of the 2nd law
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.
the Kelvin Plank definition of the 2nd law


It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects.
an alternative form of the 2nd law

In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.

Jashwell
Guru
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:05 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Arguments Creationists Should Avoid: 2nd Law

Post #2

Post by Jashwell »

[Replying to post 1 by stcordova]

Here's a more meta counterargument:

Their explanation (God) requires the second law to be broken anyway.
But it also requires a God.

Why not simply believe that the 2nd law was broken once, than that it was broken once and could be again and that there is a conscious entity that can do this?

(Same for any "impossible" based objection)

Not that there's any reason to think it was broken, of course.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #3

Post by Divine Insight »

The second law of thermodynamics or entropy is actually the very thing that makes evolution thermodynamically possible in this universe. Any suggestion that entropy would prevent evolution from occurring is nothing more than a confession that the person making the suggestion does not even begin to understand entropy at all.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Arguments Creationists Should Avoid: 2nd Law

Post #4

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 1 by stcordova]

I can't help but agree with your assessment. Are you an Old Earth Creationist or Young earth by chance?
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

stcordova
Apprentice
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:57 am

Post #5

Post by stcordova »

Are you an Old Earth Creationist or Young earth by chance?
I'm a Young Earth Creationist, formerly Old Earth Creationist, formerly Old Earth Evolutionist.

I might start a thread on the topic since you seem interested in the question. :-)
I can't help but agree with your assessment.
Thank you. 8-)

User avatar
Peter
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:46 pm
Location: Cape Canaveral
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Arguments Creationists Should Avoid: 2nd Law

Post #6

Post by Peter »

[Replying to post 1 by stcordova]

Agreed, this planet isn't a closed system so "order" can (and obviously does) increase as the sun pumps energy into the biosphere.
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Re: Arguments Creationists Should Avoid: 2nd Law

Post #7

Post by H.sapiens »

[Replying to post 1 by stcordova]

Here is, I believe, the end of the 2nd Law discussion: Statistical Physics of Self-Replication

Post Reply