>>The argument CMI is advising creationists to avoid is the idea that the Second Law began at the Fall. If I understand CottShop correctly, hes not making that argument. Rather, hes pointing out that the Second Law makes Darwinian evolution impossible.<<
The 2nd law doesn’t apply to the earth because the earth is not an isolated system.
Not to mention the 2nd law only applies to total entropy, some areas can become more ordered while others become less ordered, even in a completely isolated system.
[[Not to mention the 2nd law only applies to total entropy, some areas can become more ordered while others become less ordered, even in a completely isolated system.]]
Lol- entropy isn’t about ‘order’ While a species can experience ‘order’, entropy still takes it’s toll while the ‘order’ is working it’s function.
As well your ‘isolated/non isolated’ system falls apart at hte seams (and the open systems is infact even worse than a closed/isolated system- contrary to popular Anti-Creation opinion, open systems do NOY nullify the effects of entropy, and infact increase the problem for Macroevolution. Pointing to moot irrelevent static examples of DECREASED Entropy, and asserting those examples thusly translate to living dynamic systems is a losing argument as seen in the links I provided- not sure why Anti-Creationists keep makign hte claim that open systems allowed trillions of violations in Dynamic living systems- but whatever- The evidence and real world facts do not match the claim
Open vs. Closed Systems
The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.
The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.
Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenonfact, not theory.
The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an exception because we live in an open system: The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.
But simply adding energy to a system doesnt automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or build-up rather than break-down). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropyin fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your cars paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
So, what is it that makes life possible within the earths biosphere, appearing to violate the second law of thermodynamics?
The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Each living organisms DNA contains all the code (the program or information) needed to direct the process of building (or organizing) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organisms physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.
Living systems also have the second essential componenttheir own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the suns energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
So we see that living things seem to violate the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures in spite of the second laws effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).
While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earths open-system biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described abovenor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.
In short, the open system argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with careand within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.
The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that ... biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.
[C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]
We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of lifes complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.
[G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465]
Closely related to the apparent paradox of ongoing uphill processes in nonliving systems is the apparent paradox of spontaneous self-organization in nature. It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays fro which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one.
[J.W. Patterson, Scientists Confront Creationism, L:R: Godfrey, Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 110]