second law of thermodynamics (its an easy one)

[gf]

Hello.

I spoke to a Creationist, whom stated that the second law of thermodynamics, goes against Evolution. As the Universe decays.


Now, it dawned on me, that this is not a rare event, as most Creationist proclaim this, not at least, a certain Mr Kent Hovind. So i thought we could have a discussion about this.


The second law of thermodynamics does not claim that everything is "winding down" / decays / crumbles / or similar. What it does state is that you get entropy, and it seems that this is where we get a problem. Either most people do not know what this means, or they dont want to know what it means.

To claim that entropy equals decay, is to go from Physics to Opinion.


And this is the important part of it.
The second law of thermodynamics only states, that entropy occurs in different stages.


And this is it. If you claim, state or otherwise say in any way that it "decays", or "improves", you go from Physics, to your own opinion.



So it does not go against Evolution, it rather enhances evolution, as Evolution also, does not mean improve, but means change.



Opinion anyone ?

Perhaps you need some background information about this, but this is more or less the main thing that most Creationist seems to be confused about.

[perfessor]

Welcome to the forum, gf.

I don't know if any creationists here actually use the 2nd Law as an argument - although I have heard it used elsewhere. At the Answers in Genesis website, they list it as one of the arguments that creationists should no longer use, presumable because their logic is so easy to refute.

Briefly, the 2nd Law only applies to closed systems, of which the earth is most definitely NOT an example.

[gf]

oh yeah, we have the "closed systems" part to. But i didnt want to go into that, to pointless.


Looks like a nice forum doe, i hope i will enjoy it here

[gf]

oh yeah, we have the "closed systems" part to. But i didnt want to go into that, to pointless.


Looks like a nice forum doe, i hope i will enjoy it here

[nikolayevich]

Kent Hovind has actually been personally encouraged not to use the argument because he misrepresents the 2nd law...

I don't think there is much debate. It isn't an angle one should take for design. Much about this elsewhere. It must have resulted from some "broken telephone".

[Corvus]

Welcome to the forum, gf.

I don't know if any creationists here actually use the 2nd Law as an argument - although I have heard it used elsewhere. At the Answers in Genesis website, they list it as one of the arguments that creationists should no longer use, presumable because their logic is so easy to refute.

Briefly, the 2nd Law only applies to closed systems, of which the earth is most definitely NOT an example.

Surprisingly, it has been some time since the argument has been used. I remember a time when every young, fervent creationist who arrived at the forum would immediately post something about: the 2nd law following, or followed by, how stupid evolution is because everyone knows something doesn't come from nothing, or complexity can't arise from simplicity, or variations of "my commonsense says this can't be true, so it isn't" statements. But then, we have had very few new creationists posting in the forum recently. It might even go completely silent if YEC wasn't around to continue to stir controversy. (Not that this is a bad thing, since many quite interesting discussions have ensued from YEC's rather aggressive participation here)

[YEC]

Hello.

So it does not go against Evolution, it rather enhances evolution, as Evolution also, does not mean improve, but means change.

Tell us how it enhances evolutionism?

[otseng]

In terms of the second law of thermo, the main thing I've argued about here on this forum is that the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time.

Here is one explanation of the law:

The second law says that the amount of random movement, i.e. the entropy, can only increase in a closed system, i.e. that we cannot put this randomness in order without some external influence.

If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, entropy would be at its maximum value and usable energy would be zero. The universe would have experienced the heat death.

Obviously we are not in the state of the heat death, so the universe has existed for a finite amount of time.

Then the question becomes, if the universe started at a particular point in time, how did it come about? And with the first law of thermo (matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed), the universe could not have spontaneously appeared. An external source must've been the originator of the universe.

So, to be consistent with the first 2 laws of thermo, the most logical conclusion is that a supernatural entity created the universe at some point in the past.

[gf]

If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, entropy would be at its maximum value and usable energy would be zero. The universe would have experienced the heat death.

Actually, you get a problem here.... "Entropy would be at its maximum"... And what do you mean with maximum?


Entropy seeks to get equilibrium (this does not mean perfect balance, its notlike a scale of a balance), but what sort of equilibrium it is, is neither stated, nor known. So you can only, obviously, state, that its a different kind of Entropy. As we do not know where its going, or where it has been.

Tell us how it enhances evolutionism?

I just tried to explain (i assume you guys know this), Evolution does not mean "better" in the same sense as a Porche is faster then a Lada. But Evolution simple means change. And this would be a simplified example of how Evolution would be explained to somoene who does not understand this. (If you can understand the second law, or want to understand it that is).

[Jose]

Welcome, gf!

Actually, I've had a few students in recent years insist that evolution violates the second law. The idea is still kicking around out there. Hopefully, though, it will finally become recognized as being "not very helpful" and won't be raised any more.

Even in a closed system it would not be a valid argument. I note this, because I've heard the variant that the Entire Universe is a closed system, and since evolution is within the universe, it's in a closed system, so it can't happen. All we need is an increase in entropy here, to balance a decrease in entropy there, and the total entropy of the system is still in equilibrium.

That's why we eat food, after all. We increase the entropy of glucose molecules by breaking them to bits, and use the energy to decrease the entropy of amino acids that we assemble into proteins.

Tell us how it enhances evolutionism?

I think I'm with you on this one, YEC. Gf, you whizzed this one past me a bit too quickly. I can imagine a glimmer of understanding when I think of the value of random mutagenesis...if mutations were restricted to a small number of types of DNA changes, in only a few places in the genome, there would be less diversity for selection to sort through. In that sense, the entropic tendency of molecules to become damaged/oxidized/broken is advantageous. Still, I'd welcome more of your thoughts on this point.