Posted by
ValiantForTruth on Monday, March 14, 2011 8:08:00 PM
Through the first man sin entered the world. And being subjected to futility the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now waiting to be delivered from the bondage of corruption. And we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the redemption of our body. [Romans 5 and 8]
Is genetic entropy consistent with the bondage of corruption or the primary axiom of mutation and selection? Can there be any accommodation between evolution theory and Biblical Theology?
What is Entropy?
"Another way of stating the second law: The universe is constantly getting more disorderly. Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself, and that is what the second law is all about." [Isaac Asimov]
This is a remarkable statement from Mr. Asimov because he is a well known anti-theist and defender of the primary axiom. He sees no conflict between evolution theory and the second law. If evolution is fact and the second law is fact, then obviously there can be no contradiction between the two. Let's try to untangle their twisted logic...
What is Uniformitarianism?
In the philosophy of naturalism, uniformitarianism assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world. [Wikipedia]
We like this definition because it unknowingly fulfills Peter's prophecy, even using the same language...
Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” [2 Peter 3].
If the present universe is constantly getting more disorderly, meaning that its entropy is steadily increasing as the supply of energy available for work constantly decreases, then how can men as intelligent as Asimov not see the illogic of their own statements and beliefs? How can they hold to uniformitarianism in one context and then claim that the conditions of the present universe must not be confused for those conditions that must have existed during the origin of the universe?
If the natural laws and natural processes now governing the universe are leading inexorably to its death and destruction, and if these natural laws and processes are all there is and all there ever has been, then how could these very same natural laws and processes create the universe in the first place? Could the natural laws and processes now destroying the universe also be responsible for its creation? [Duane Gish]
What sort of tortured logic would one have to use to reach such an impossible conclusion? Welcome to darwinite group think: the primary axiom must be defended even at the expense of logic. Presupposition is taken as axiomatic in the religion of neo-science.
Does the "Open System" argument trump the Second Law?
Consistently and without exception, the darwinites advance the "open system" argument against the Second Law contradiction raised against their theory. Here are some quotes cherry picked from their writings to illustrate the shallowness of neo-science...
"What [the creationists] completely overlook, of course, is that in biological systems order can be created from disorder at the expense of energy input from an external source, the sun. Their arguments are spurious at best and are based on a misleading simplistic approach to a complex, quantitative scientific concept. In brief, they have created a clever word game by introducing thermodynamics into their arguments." [Darwinite #1]
So now the darwinites are accusing creationists of sophistry? Note what is being said:
1. Raw energy from the sun is all that is needed for biological systems to create order from disorder.
2. These things are too complex for the simple minded; they can only be comprehended by the neo-scientists.
Even the simple minded can see the fault in this logic. Raw energy cannot bring order to anything without a means of energy conversion into useful, beneficial work. The Second Law requires work to be done on any system (open or closed) in order to reverse the natural tendency for systems towards increasing entropy. Work requires more than raw energy. Work requires the existence of an engine designed for the purpose of energy conversion. The darwinites assume the existence of the engine. Now who is being simplistic? or are they intentionally being deceptive?
"We must emphasize that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems...What has all this got to do with the appearance of new organisms on the earth? Absolutely nothing! The origin of life, and the evolution of progressively more complex organisms, took place on the earth's surface, and this cannot possibly be described as operating in a closed system. Energy is free to flow in and out of the system, and the laws of thermodynamics are therefore absolutely irrelevant." [Darwinite #2]
Note that the natural laws and processes of thermodynamics are irrelevant to the origin of life and the evolution of life to more and more complex life forms. The neo-scientist has spoken. Who are we to question such compelling arguments? Free energy evidently doesn't require a directing program or an engine. How is it then that my tractor deteriorates while left alone on the surface of the earth in the sun and wind? Unless a man "works" on it to keep it maintained, without exception, it will eventually stop working all on its own. We can see that the practical definition of work is intelligent and directed energy. Raw energy is no answer to the Second Law contradiction to origin of life and the evolution of life. How can it even be considered when present processes indicate that even on simple systems, raw energy is totally inadequate for the purpose of increasing order, but actually contributes to the deterioration. Ever been to a junkyard?
"Most [darwinites] simply dismiss the Second Law as irrelevant to the central questions of their field because it deals with closed systems and does not preclude local buildups of more highly organized energy in open systems." [Darwinite #3]
There it is! The Second Law is dismissed because the darwinites have declared it irrelevant. If only they would listen to their own words and consider that they are most properly applied to themselves..."Their arguments are spurious at best and are based on a misleading simplistic approach..."