By Michael S. Shelton
Aerospace Engineer
Stafford, VA
(Revised July 07 2005; July 24
2005)
Dr.
Allan H. Harvey of the Physical and Chemical Properties Division (as of
September 2000) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in
Boulder, Colorado produced the following treatise on the Second Law of
Thermodynamics (SLOT). I first received
this in mid-1997 (the 1 August 1996 version) as a result of on-line dialogue
with an atheist in several theological and science forums. His assertion was that SLOT has nothing to
do with evolution, in direct contradiction to my ongoing commentary that SLOT
has everything to do with the arguments against evolution. My atheistic debate colleague then chanced
upon this document and cheerily pointed out to me that one of my very own
“fellow” Christians, with a PhD specializing in molecular thermodynamics, had
refuted my claims.
I originally posted a response to
Dr. Harvey’s treatise in December 1999, graciously hosted by The Errant
Skeptics Research Institute (http://www.errantskeptics.org/). I recently moved my material here at the
gracious invitation of JP Holding, host of the Tekton site. This July 2005 update specifically addresses
Dr. Harvey’s substantial revision of September 3, 2000 (http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html). Anyone can download the authentic copy.
Dr. Harvey has assembled an
extensive document that is “nonrigorous” by his own acknowledgement. Nonrigorous means that a detailed
mathematical approach is not used.
Rather, word-picture and descriptive methods are used to describe the
topic at hand, dispensing with all the messy calculus, differential equations
and other math. Likewise, in a
nonrigorous manner, I will show that his claims that The Second Law is either
misused by Christians / Creationists, or, are non-applicable to the evolution
discussion, are erroneous. His points
are trivial to refute. In fact, I will
show that a man who claims to have specialized in “molecular thermodynamics” is
incongruent on the subject throughout the document. Dr. Harvey unabashedly and unashamedly claims to be an
evangelical Christian and correctly points to Christ as the Author of Truth and
as the correct object of Christianity.
Commendably, this is a refreshing and wonderfully encouraging posture in
today’s hostile anti-Christian setting.
In spite of this, Dr. Harvey demonstrates theological confusion in much
of his treatise.
I
do not presume to know Dr. Harvey’s heart – in fact, Scripture compels me not
to judge his heart (Luke 6:37 and John 7:24).
I have enough struggles of my own and fall short frequently. I look forward to that future home in Heaven
when I can ask Dr. Harvey to teach me about molecular thermodynamics. I thank God for Jesus Christ as my Savior, a
complete act of Grace that negates my inadequate attempts to achieve a right
relationship with God. Although I
cannot judge his heart, I certainly reserve the right to critique his work, and
I feel it is necessary to highlight the deficiencies in the argument of Dr.
Harvey’s treatise. Feedback on my
rebuttal is welcome (Proverbs 27:17).
My background includes a BS and MS
in Aerospace Engineering, with an emphasis in avionics design / engineering
(radar, electronic warfare, lasers, infrared systems, etc.) in my masters
work. Operationally, I enjoyed a
23-year career in the U.S. Navy in both the enlisted and officer ranks. I was a Naval Aviator with F-14A Tomcat and
TA-4J Skyhawk flight time, with extensive time at sea during four extended
carrier deployments. I currently work
as an engineer. Similarly as Dr. Harvey
states, my opinions and conclusions are mine alone and do not necessarily
reflect those of any associated organization.
The reader should note, however, that I have found a surprising number
of my work peers (many with PhDs and Masters) who are Christians and believe in
special creation. Of course, I also
work with similarly-educated peers (both Christians and non-Christians) who
believe in evolution.
Rigorously, SLOT involves
intricate and intimidating mathematics (see my lightly-applied rigorous
application at http://www.tektonics.org/guest/slot.htm). However, the broad concept of SLOT is quite
simple – all potential forms of energy normally are convertible to kinetic or
thermal energy, sometimes reversible almost to its original state. “Reversibility” and “irreversibility” are
standard word tools in the analysis of The Second Law of Thermodynamics. For example, a simple coiled spring, when released,
is capable of powering a watch or launching a steel ball. If the steel ball were to fall back to earth
and be perfectly captured by the spring again, the ball, depending on the
system’s design, may be able to reset the spring closely back to the original
position. This would be an example of a
“reversible” process (or nearly so – our real world conditions of friction and
other losses don’t allow perfect recovery).
Another potential-to-kinetic energy conversion example is the burning of
exactly one gallon of gasoline to power a riding lawn mower (assume perfectly
level terrain). But once the gasoline
is depleted, the thermal energy released during combustion has been completely
depleted and is 100% unrecoverable – all the energy has been expended into the
atmosphere via combustion exhaust and heat or in kinetic, vibration, cutting,
and propulsion energy to cut the grass.
The grass residue, practically speaking, cannot be restored to its
original state. All energy from the
combustion, vibratory, and friction processes has been radiated away into the
local atmosphere and eventually away from the earth into space. The lawnmower remains at rest until acted
upon by an outside force. In this
example, we have attained a state that is now maximally useless in the
utilization of the energy that is still there (The First Law of Thermodynamics)
but cannot be restored to its original form.
This is an “irreversible” process.
We speak of going from one state of order to a more random state of
order, i.e., things have wound down, the battery is dead, the candle is fully
burned, the gunpowder has been consumed, the lawnmower is stranded. All similar to the idea of a grandfather
clock that eventually stops when the weights reach the bottom of the case.
My basic
premise is that SLOT is the Silver Bullet between the eyes of Darwinism,
neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, and any other evolutionary explanations
of the descent of life forms from more simple ancestors. It has been my experience that when SLOT comes
up in the debate, Evolutionists often either don’t understand SLOT and entropy,
or, they do and enter into absurd explanations or character attacks. For good reason. SLOT slays them, and they know it. Whether the Evolutionists choose to address abiogenesis (the
speculative spontaneous birth of life from non-life matter) or not, SLOT is
still my answer to them that it just could not have happened by chance. Before launching into my commentary on Dr.
Harvey’s extensive treatise, the observer will note that I first present Dr.
Harvey’s work with my in-line commentary sprinkled throughout the document
(Appendix I). Again, please note that
this September 2000 Revision is much different than the original August 1996
version that I initially commented on. Dr. Harvey’s work is then repeated (both the original August 1996
and revised September 2000 versions) as Appendices II and III in their entirety
without comment, exactly as I received the first version in mid-July 1997 and
as I pulled off the web for his September 2000 update. This will allow the observer the opportunity
to first read the treatise in Appendices II and III without bias (in fact, I
encourage the reader to do so), then the reader may come back to Appendix I to
study my commentary / counterpoint. My
comments are characterized [by italicized blue font, followed by my initials “MSS,”] located throughout the document in Appendix I.
Michael S. Shelton, BS/MS
Aerospace Engineering
Stafford, VA
Suggested reading:
Dr. Michael J. Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,”
New York, NY, The Free Press, 1996
Mike Behe received a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from Drexel
University in 1974 and the Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of
Pennsylvania in 1978. After doing
postdoctoral work at the National Institutes of Health he became assistant
professor of Chemistry at the City University of New York/Queens College. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University in
Bethlehem, PA, where he is currently Associate Professor in the Department of
Biological Sciences.
{http://www.wildersmith.org/index.htm},
Three PhDs, his first in Physical Organic Chemistry, former full professor at
pharmacology and medical schools, he was a strong and dedicated
Creationist. His views of SLOT being problematic
for evolution are in line with mine.
Wells earned two doctorates – one in theology at Yale
University and the other in molecular and cell biology at the University of
California at Berkeley. Wells is a
Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Even if you believe evolution to be a
working theory, this book addresses many fallacies put forth in modern day
classrooms – fallacies that have been proven wrong, inaccurate, or simply
inappropriate as proof. He uses
non-Christian, non-religious language, and supports himself with information
gleaned from many sources (many from evolutionists themselves refuting the
erroneous examples).
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this
rebuttal are the opinion of this author alone and should not be taken to
necessarily represent the views of any other person or organization.
Appendix I
in the
Context of the Christian Faith
Allan H. Harvey
aharvey@boulder.nist.gov
This essay was written in
response to questions that came up on the Science and Christianity mailing list
touching on issues of entropy and/or the second law of thermodynamics. I found
myself writing the same things repeatedly to straighten out various
misconceptions. So, I have written something between a personal essay and a FAQ
on the topic. Since this is written from my personal viewpoint, I will start by
stating my background and personal convictions which cannot help but influence
what I write.
I have a Ph.D. in Chemical
Engineering (UC-Berkeley, 1988), specializing in “Molecular Thermodynamics,”
which combines classical and statistical thermodynamics to describe the
thermophysical properties of fluids. I then did two years of postdoctoral work,
more or less in Chemical Physics, followed by four years in private industry. I
am now with the Physical and Chemical Properties Division of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado. [Nothing I say
here should be construed as representing NIST or the US Government.] I do
not consider myself a specialist specifically in the second law, but my overall
expertise in thermodynamics is sufficient to shed light on the relevant
issues. [Dr. Harvey confuses this reviewer by saying
in the same paragraph that he specialized in “Molecular Thermodynamics” but
does not consider himself a “specialist in the second law.” – MSS]
I am an evangelical
Christian. I believe the Bible to be
entirely trustworthy in conveying God’s
messages. [I
concur (I Timothy 2:14-15 and 3:16-17).
– MSS] Where people get
into trouble is when, for example, they take the message of Genesis 1 (that God
created everything, including us) and try to read it as something it is not (i.e.,
a science text). [I have encountered
similar things, including this treatise. – MSS] I get annoyed at the silly arguments of “creation science,” but what is more annoying is when non-Christians see those
arguments and get the false impression that such issues (rather than Christ)
are what Christianity is all about. I
do believe that God created everything, but how and when and to what extent
that involved his sovereignty over “natural” processes are secondary questions
that should not divide the church. [This paragraph changed substantially between the August
1996 and the September 2000 versions. I
will restate his original paragraph in red
font below, then comment in general on both
versions, carefully noting what he had said previously and what he says now. –
MSS]
<Quote>
“I am an
evangelical Christian. I believe the
Bible to be entirely trustworthy in conveying the messages God wants it
to. Where people get into trouble is
when, for example, they take the message of Genesis 1 (that God created
everything, including us) and try to read it as something it is not (i.e., an
astronomy text). I believe God’s
revelation in his creation (which is consistent with his revelation in
Scripture) makes it clear that the Earth and the Universe are billions of years
old, and I sometimes get annoyed at the silly arguments of young-Earth
creationists. And even more annoyed
when non-Christians see those arguments and get the false impression that the
age of the Earth (rather than Christ) is what Christianity is all about. I do believe that God created everything,
but it does not matter to me (nor do I have a strong opinion) whether he did it
as a series of separate sudden acts (the old-Earth creationism position) or by
guiding mutations and other “natural” mechanisms (the theistic evolution
position).” (from the August 1, 1996
version)
<Unquote>
[In response to his original paragraph, I
have read Genesis several times, the first few chapters numerous times. I do not concur that it is “clear” that the
Universe’s age is billions of years old.
It is true that Genesis, combined with God’s natural revelation in His
creation and with empirical data, can be powerfully argued to call the Universe
very old. However, lower textual
criticism and careful scriptural exegesis can also provide persuasive arguments
for a young Universe (less than 10,000 years old). We were not there “In the Beginning.” Modern Creation literature has convincing and powerful arguments
presented from either of Old and Young Universe Camps. I have tremendous respect for much of the
scholarship from both Camps. There can
be honest disagreements between principled and godly people.
In the latter part of his original
paragraph, Dr. Harvey appears to eliminate the Young Earth view as non-viable
(could be those “silly arguments?”). He
also exhibits theological confusion in reference to theistic evolution. The history of this view clearly shows
attempts by certain Christians to compromise with science. This means compromise with Secular Humanists
who, by definition, leave God out of the picture. In view of the fact that Dr. Harvey infers throughout this document
that Christianity and the Bible and science do not conflict, as is also my
position, then his acceptance of theistic evolution as a possible explanation
muddies the discussion in the attempt to placate the evolutionists. I will be specifically clear on this point –
Creationists and Evolutionists are on unalterably opposed sides of this
discussion, because it centers on the existence of God. This is the conflict between those who
artificially bound science to ONLY the physical, material universe, and those
who don’t use such restrictions.
Additionally, because humanists / atheists / evolutionists have actively
tried to keep Christians and Creationists and “religion” out of the public
school classrooms since the late 1800s, then Bible Believing Christians must
always be alert to any peace-pipe overtures by atheists to compromise with them
and acknowledge that some deity could have been in the picture.
Now, addressing his September 2000 update,
the reader should note that it is true the Bible alone is not to be used a
science text. However, in those areas
where the physical universe can be observed and data gathered, the Bible does
not disagree. My position is that where
we see conflicts, it is either (1) we misunderstand the data / information that
has been collected, or (2) we misunderstand the Biblical text and passages, or
(3) a combination of both. For the
record, in both versions, Dr. Harvey stated, “. . . . . the Bible to be
entirely trustworthy in conveying God’s messages.”
So we’re both on the same sheet of music. But then he gets sappy and condescending by referring to the “silly
arguments of “creation science” (“silly arguments of young-Earth creationists” in the original version”). He makes no specific charges, and it’s not
very clear in the remainder of the body of his treatise what these “silly
arguments” are, except to mis-state alleged positions concerning entropy and
the Second Law. Thus, I am left with
the impression that in order to not be evaluated as stupid by his secular peers
and comrades (perhaps to save his job?) and to impress the uninformed with his
PhD credentials, he must compromise with his secular peers while throwing
stones at his fellow Christians who happen to disagree with his stance on
Creation. It’s sad that a fellow
brother in Christ has to stoop to such measures publicly in front of
non-Believers. For the record, the
Special Creation / Intelligent Design forces are populated with a very large
number of Bible-believing Christians with advanced degrees in the physical and
organic sciences / engineering, with PhDs and Masters galore. The Common Descent as posed by Darwin and
his followers is met quite well by the Uncommon Dissent of the Creationists
side.
To
read more concerning poor Biblical scholarship and poor addressing of SLOT, see
my book review of “Science on Trial” by Futuyma on this Guest Commentary
site. – MSS]
Finally, I should add that God has
given me a passion for truth. Truth in
all things, since all truth is God’s
truth. [I concur. – MSS] I therefore welcome correction or
constructive criticism on this document.
[Well,
since you asked . . . . . . . – MSS]
First, we need a few
definitions. In thermodynamics, we must
refer to a clearly defined system.
Textbooks commonly consider the system to be the contents of a box-like
container. But we could also define it
to be a specific cubic meter of the atmosphere above Phoenix, or the Earth
(provided we define the boundary precisely), or my left kidney. Everything in the universe that is not a
part of the system is the surroundings.
Systems are divided into three categories: an isolated system can
exchange neither matter nor energy with its surroundings, a closed system
can exchange energy but not matter, and an open system can exchange both
energy and matter. The Earth, for
example, is an open system, but might be considered closed if one neglected
meteors, space probes, etc. It is not
an isolated system because, among other things, it receives radiant energy from
the Sun. [NOTE: this categorization is
not universally used; in particular it is not uncommon to hear an isolated
system as defined above described as “closed.”] [I
mostly concur. For all practical
purposes, here we should address only Open and Closed Systems, with the Closed
System essentially Isolated (with a perfect adiabatic boundary that allows zero
heat and mass transfer). The Earth
operates continually in an Open System with the Sun as its main thermal energy
source. Presently, solar system mass
flow (solar wind mass and meteors / other space debris) into and out of the
Earth is negligible, so that may be disregarded, i.e., the sun’s light and
thermal irradiation of the earth is the largest contributor to our system
compared to any mass contributions from the solar wind and solid space
matter. If we arbitrarily place a spherical “closed” boundary around our solar system
at a two or three light-year radius (two light years is 11.7 trillion miles
(11.7 x1012)), then no known power source of sufficient strength,
other than our sun, adds significant value to our solar system’s energy
resources. The reader should note that cosmologists
on both sides of the evolution issue agree the Universe is a closed
system. Eventually, all the stars will burn
out, and the last piece of matter will approach absolute zero, uniformly
distributed throughout the then dead and cold Universe. – MSS]
The first law of thermodynamics,
also known as the law of conservation of energy, states that the total energy
of any system remains the same, except to the extent it exchanges energy with
its surroundings. This exchange can be
in the form of heat transfer (perhaps by placing a hot body in thermal contact
with the system) or work (perhaps by compressing the system via a piston). This gets modified a little for
matter/energy conversion (important if the system is the Sun), but it is
basically the simple idea that energy is never created or destroyed. [“First Law of Thermodynamics (FLOT).” All Evolutionists and scientists need to
correctly understand this last sentence.
Study it closely, for it is crucial to understanding the Second Law of
Thermodynamics (SLOT). – MSS]
The second law is trickier. There are many statements of it; perhaps the
simplest is that it is impossible for there to exist any process whose only
effect is to transfer energy from a system at a low temperature to one at a
higher temperature. In other words,
heat flows downhill. [Well stated, although
SLOT is not THAT tricky. – MSS]
The 2nd law is also formulated in terms of entropy, a
well-defined quantity in terms of heat flows and temperature. Another statement of the 2nd law is that,
for any isolated system, the entropy remains the same during any reversible
process and increases during any irreversible process. The 2nd law also places bounds on the
entropy change in a non-isolated system in relation to the temperatures of the
system and the surroundings and the amount of energy leaving or entering it,
but it is important to note that a system can experience a decrease in entropy
if it is exchanging energy with its surroundings. The 2nd law is ultimately a statement about heat flows, work, and
temperature, and also about the direction of time. It states that, as time goes forward, the overall effect is for
energy to dissipate from hot things to cold things. [Again,
well stated. Allow me to amplify:
statistically, entropy, which is a measure of the randomness of a system, is
part of the process of energy conversion.
As Dr. Harvey said, heat flows downhill, because it is more probable for
things to go from order to disorder as the heat dissipates. Heat propagates from a warmer source toward
a cooler background. When an open
container of gasoline is lit by a match, it is more probable that it will burn,
be consumed, and radiate / conduct / carry heat and combustion by-products into
the atmosphere. The reverse is
extremely improbable. If a person
builds a beautiful sand castle with exquisite design, it is more probable that
tide, winds and rain will convert the sand castle back to its random collection
of sand particles, scattered along the beach.
The opposite process, that tide, winds and rain alone will build a sand
castle, is extremely improbable.
Entropy tends toward a maximum.
Unless someone detects a supertanker spaceship enter our Universe from
without, and then proceeds to each star for a hydrogen refueling, then total,
complete randomness and exhaustive heat death is the final end game of our
beloved Universe. – MSS]
The third law concerns changes in
entropy as the temperature approaches absolute zero, and indirectly can be used
to show the impossibility of attaining absolute zero. It does not come up in the contexts of concern in this essay.
For those who want to learn more,
I recommend The Second Law, by P.W. Atkins, Scientific American Books,
New York, 1994. This is a well-written
popular introduction to the subject.
The reader is cautioned, however, that Atkins has a bias toward
metaphysical naturalism which sometimes leads him to extrapolate from the
science to unfounded metaphysical conclusions.
If you can ignore the philosophy and stick to the science, you will
learn a lot from his book. [Sounds like a great
resource I may have to acquire. It
would be nice here if Dr. Harvey would explain more, and also define
“metaphysical naturalism.” I speculate
that Atkins is perhaps a traditional Creationist and there fore deserves the
ire of Harvey. However, Harvey makes a
very good point – concentrate on the actual science, something that he strays
from in this treatise. – MSS] A
good exposition at a higher technical level is given in the introductory
chapters of Entropy, by J.D. Fast, McGraw Hill, 1962. [Pricy book – a casual internet search
revealed a street price of about $140 or so. – MSS] [NOTE: Fast’s classic work should not be
confused with a book of the same title written around 1980 by notorious gadfly
Jeremy Rifkin.] Of course any textbook
on thermodynamics will cover these topics.
Some of the following information is adapted from Ira N.
Levine, Physical Chemistry, McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Something that was roughly the 2nd law was stated by French
engineer Sadi Carnot in 1824 with regard to the efficiency of steam
engines. [Carnot may also have been the
first to postulate the 1st law, but he never published that and got no credit
until long after his death.] Carnot’s work was almost universally ignored, but
was rediscovered (and stripped of its tie to the pre-1st-law “caloric” theory of
heat) in the 1840’s. Around 1850 came
the first rigorous statements of the 2nd law by William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)
and Rudolph Clausius. It was Clausius
who first defined the quantity entropy and coined the word (from a Greek word
meaning “transformation”). He made the
often-quoted brief statement of the first and second laws: “Die Energie der
Welt ist Konstant. Die Entropie der
Welt strebt einem Maximum zu.” [rough translation: The energy of the world
(more properly, an isolated system) is constant. The entropy of the world strives toward a maximum.] Maxwell made
his contributions a little later, followed by Boltzmann. Their main contributions here were in tying
things to the concept of molecules (including the science of statistical
mechanics, which they basically invented though Gibbs brought it to maturity),
which was not a part of the thinking of people like Kelvin and Clausius.
Now we address the context in
which the 2nd law arises in creation arguments. The usual argument goes something like this: “The 2nd law says
everything tends toward increasing entropy (randomness and disorder). But the evolution of life involves the
development of great complexity and order.
Therefore, evolution is impossible by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
While it sounds simple, there are major flaws in this argument that render it
worthless. [This basic premise, as stated, is
confusing. I was not clear enough in my
original December 1999 answer, so allow me to expand and clarify. As stated, “Therefore, evolution
is impossible by the 2nd law of thermodynamics” is indeed true. The argument is worthless?
Hardly. Unguided, unplanned, and
undirected assembly of atoms and molecules into amino acids (the basic building
blocks of life) and further into the necessary proteins, enzymes and the
all-important DNA double helix has never been observed. As Francis Schaeffer postulates,
“.
. . . the impersonal plus time plus chance” (“He Is There and He Is Not Silent,”
Schaeffer, December 1972)
and as Dr. Wilder-Smith observes,
“So we can only conclude that the
actual building blocks of life at biogenesis – approximately 20 optically pure
amino acids – were not (emphasis in the original) synthesized by means
of inorganic, random processes.
Accordingly, Miller’s experiments have little in common with real
biogenesis, although text books describe the experiments as if they provided
the last link in the chain of evidence for chance biogenesis. To claim that Miller has provided the first
step for spontaneous biogenesis involves a willful misleading of the uninformed
general public in the interests of biased materialistic philosophy. The facts are purposely concealed in order
to render plausible a materialistic philosophy of life. Thus science is manipulated in the interests
of popular materialistic philosophies” (Wilder-Smith, page 26)
and
“. . . . . It must be borne in mind
that for the synthesis of life to occur, practically 100% optical purity is
required in as many as 20 different amino acids. Never has an optically pure specimen been obtained by any organic
random reactions. For these and other
reasons, spontaneous biogenesis has remained an experimental [emphasis
in original] impossibility to the present day.
Theoretical considerations also support this negative experimental
result.”
(Wilder-Smith, page 23)
These
things alone cannot produce the enormous complexity of just one protein, let
alone that of a cell or a living animal.
Yes, indeed, Evolution is impossible by the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. I will address the how
and the why of intelligent planning later in my response. In this paper and elsewhere, Creationists
are often unfairly lumped into the same bowl as ‘postulating that the growth of
a baby into an adult violates SLOT’ because the person becomes more ordered and
complex. No knowledgeable
Bible-believing Creationist I have spoken with who has technical / scientific /
engineering / mathematics has said this.
I don’t believe that Henry Morris, Hugh Ross, David Berlinski, Michael
Behe, William Dembski, Malcolm Cutchins, John Burkhalter, Jonathan Wells, and
other creationists of similar tremendous credentials, would be caught dead with
their name assigned to, signed by, or corroborating to such a hypothesis (“the
growth of a baby into an adult violates SLOT’). This is a lie promulgated by atheists to convey the thought that
all Creationists are rustic hayseed rubes.
By the way, the reader should note that Dr. Harvey never addressed
Creation in any coherent manner in the above paragraph, even though he
mentioned it in the subtitle. – MSS]
The Earth is Not an Isolated
System [True.
It is an Open System. – MSS]
It is only in isolated
systems that entropy must increase. [Yep. The Universe is just such an example, as
stated by me earlier. – MSS]
Systems that can exchange energy with their surroundings have no such
restriction. For example, water can
freeze into ice (becoming more ordered and decreasing its entropy) by giving up
heat to its surroundings (this increases the entropy of the surroundings, of
course). [I wonder what the point is? No information or code to obtain complexity
is exchanged, merely the natural process of the water falling below freezing
temperature. – MSS] In the
case of the Earth, the Sun is a major source of energy, and the Earth also
radiates energy into space. [Hint to the reader –
the sun is THE major contributor, virtually all, of energy to the Earth. None of the radiant heat from the planets or
our moon contributes usefully to our thermal input. – MSS] One consequence of thermodynamics is that,
when energy comes from a “hot” source (like the Sun) and is output to a “cold”
reservoir (like space), it can be used to do work, which means that
“complexity” or “order” can be produced.
[Only
with a design, a code, a blueprint, according to specific Laws. – MSS] The main point is that, for a non-isolated
system, an increase in “complexity” (to the extent one can connect that concept
with the thermodynamic entropy, which is far from straightforward for living
creatures) does not necessarily indicate a violation of the 2nd law. [This is correct, but Dr. Harvey is not
telling the full story. To gain local
decreases in entropy, i.e., specified complexity such as a John Deere factory
or a butterfly, a design, code and tools for implementation are needed. – MSS] A good example is the development of a human
fetus into an adult; this is the production of a more thermodynamically complex
system but involves no violation of the laws of thermodynamics. [Correct.
That fetus growing into an adult gets that way because that person’s DNA
programmed everything in that body, from eye color to shoe size to height to
his taste for pizza. Overall, this
paragraph is true, but Dr. Harvey has not made any coherent point except to
state the obvious. – MSS]
It is worth mentioning here that
the usual reply to creationists that “the second law doesn’t apply to
non-isolated systems” is not quite correct.
The second law always applies; in fact, it was originally developed for
non-isolated systems (the working fluid of a heat engine). The key point is that it is only in isolated
systems that the second law takes the simplified “entropy must increase” form. For non-isolated systems, the second law
still applies as a statement about heat flows and temperatures, just not in the
form used in creationist arguments. [Another hint – SLOT
is ALWAYS at work. The mumbo jumbo of
Isolated and Closed and Open Systems doesn’t matter. SLOT is always at work.
And the truth is, the overall entropy of a system and its surroundings
always increases. – MSS]
[Note to the reader: Dr. Harvey’s original
treatise next addressed a topic titled “Flaw #2: How do You Measure a
Planet’s Entropy?” Thankfully, he dropped the topic for it
added nothing to the discussion, except for some blatantly incorrect and
easily-dismissed statements about the measurement or calculation of entropy
increases. – MSS]
Some creationists assert that
advanced (especially human) life represents a decrease in entropy which
violates the 2nd law, and they therefore invoke intervention by God, who is
outside the laws of thermodynamics. [Who? We need names of these “creationists” who
assert such. What are the scientific
journals, proceedings, peer-reviewed papers?
What are the sources? True, God
is indeed outside the four dimensions of our Universe and thus does invoke
miracles. – MSS] They also, however, generally assert that
this particular “intervention” stopped with the creation of man, and that (with
the exception of the occasional miracle) God has allowed things to develop in
accordance with the laws of thermodynamics and other physical laws since
then. [Miracles:
Joshua 10 – sun stood still; Isaiah 38 and II Kings 20 – shadow moves
the other way; John 2 – Jesus turns the water to wine. – MSS]
These two assertions are, however,
mutually inconsistent. The reason is
that the thermodynamic entropy is strictly an additive quantity. If the 2nd law has not been violated as the
number of humans grew from two to 6 billion, it is ridiculous to assert that it
was violated in the comparatively minuscule change from zero to two. If we say that the first two humans
represented a violation of the 2nd law, the logical conclusion would be that
God must be continually intervening in violation of the 2nd law in order to
increase the number of humans on Earth.
While God is certainly capable of this, there is no evidence to suggest
that such violations are happening as complex life forms like humans reproduce
and increase in number. [NOTE: All this
is not to say that God’s creation of human life was not miraculous. My only point is that the specific assertion
that the existence of human life in and of itself violates the 2nd law is unfounded.] [Again, I have addressed this earlier. This particular paragraph is invalid and has
no coherent conclusion. – MSS]
An occasional creationist response
to the first flaw mentioned above is to say that, while the Earth is not an
isolated system, the universe as a whole is.
However, this does not help the argument they are trying to make. Astrophysicists, using data such as the
cosmic background radiation, have verified that the universe has obeyed the
second law of thermodynamics very well since the time of the big bang. The 2nd law predicts that something small
and hot should become larger and colder, and that is just what has
happened. The existence of some ordered
life in a little corner of the universe like ours is a drop in the bucket -
when the whole system is considered (which one must always do in
thermodynamics), there is no violation of the second law in the development of
the universe. [100%
concur. – MSS]
So what about “before” the
inception of the universe? Can it be
said that bringing into existence the hot, pointlike early universe from
nothing was a violation of the 2nd law?
While that argument has a certain appeal, and I believe the creation of
the universe to have been miraculous, I think a 2nd-law argument is
inappropriate here as well. The 2nd law
is an attribute of the physical universe, describing how systems go with
time. Modern physics tells us that the
physical universe is not just space but also contains time as a fundamental
dimension. The process by which all
that came to be is not something that can be addressed by the laws (including
the laws of thermodynamics) characterizing the resulting universe.
Since their arguments do not work
in terms of thermodynamics, some anti-evolutionists turn to information theory,
which contains a quantity called “entropy.” While I am no expert in information
theory, I can offer some relevant comments.
As a preliminary, we must talk
about the definition of entropy from statistical physics. This definition is mostly due to Boltzmann,
and is even engraved on his tombstone.
He defined the entropy of a system in terms of the number of different
states available to it. So, for
example, the expansion of a gas into double its original volume at constant
temperature would represent an increase in entropy, because each molecule would
have twice as much volume (and therefore twice as many “states”) accessible to
it. It is this definition that causes
entropy to be thought of in terms of “disorder,” because a highly ordered
system like a crystal has fewer available states. Boltzmann’s identification of this quantity with the
thermodynamic entropy is now universally accepted. [OK. So, what’s the point here? Are we to assume that a crystal has
something to do with information theory? – MSS]
More recently, a field has arisen
called information theory. This deals
with, among other things, quantifying the “information content” of various
systems. Some of the results of
information theory resemble the results of statistical physics, so much so that
in certain well-defined conditions a quantity can be defined that is labeled
“entropy” and that obeys something analogous to the 2nd law. While the identification of the information
entropy with its thermodynamic counterpart is controversial, it is plausible
enough to be taken seriously. [According to the “Properties” feature of WORD, the
reader will note that this paragraph happens to have 82 words with 466
characters (550 including the spaces).
This paragraph is extremely information-rich and could not have been
assembled without an intelligent agent (the writer), a sense of project, a
plan, tools (alphabet and a word-processor), and a means to convey the
information-rich scheme. On the other
end of the conveyance, intelligent agents are meant to read this
information-rich paragraph. Does anyone
think for a moment that it could have been randomly typed? I’m sure that someone with time on his hands
could do a statistical permutation computation to show the odds that this
paragraph could have been typed with the characters and spaces in this specific
order. - MSS ]
So some creationists, recognizing
that their argument fails for the thermodynamic entropy, assert it in terms of
the information entropy, which talks about things related to “complexity” and
“disorder.” It still doesn’t work. [Hogwash – I
have already shown more than enough refutation to Dr. Harvey’s “learned”
demonstration of complexity and disorder and SLOT. He is the one who is disordered. – MSS] First, there are real problems, without
satisfactory solutions thus far, in quantifying the information entropy of
living things. Someday this may be
do-able, but right now science is not sufficiently well-developed to make
definitive statements with regard to information entropy and life. [Again, this is
absurd, this is pure nonsense. See
below as I wrap up this section. – MSS] Second, the first flaw mentioned above still applies in that the
systems under consideration are not isolated.
This means that, even if one can apply a “second law” to them, it will
not be in the simple “entropy must increase” form valid for isolated
systems. Finally, I can mention that,
contrary to statements one finds in the creationist literature, cases are known
in which genetic “information” (by some reasonable definition of the term) in
living creatures can increase via natural processes. [OK, name at least one of these
cases. Cite the case, the study, and
the peer-reviewed conclusions and paper. – MSS]
[To summarize this
“Information Theory” section: I most
vigorously disagree in the strongest possible manner. Dr. Harvey’s work indicates that he has not read / understood
evolutionist Dr. Michael Denton’s thorough work, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” (1986). Evidently, he also is not familiar with the
many, many creationists / intelligent design proponents, such as Dr. Michael
Behe’s work of 1996, “Darwin’s Black Box.”
Both of these well-researched and superbly written books address head on
the information theory question and thoroughly put the information question to
rest. Unless an intelligently designed
mechanism is used, viable complex entities will not exist or build themselves. Sorry, but hurricanes, ice and snowflakes
don’t count. Furthermore on the
Information Theory issue, allow me to quote Dr. Werner Gitt:
“The essential quality in all life forms
is the information contained in the genes.
The presupposed evolutionary tree of descent (phylogenesis) is not
controlled nor guided by information; thus it is an impossibility according to
informatics theory (cited: W. Gitt, “Information und Entropie als Blindeglieder
diverser Wissenschaftszweige,” PTB-Mitteilungen 91 (1981), pp.16-17). On the other hand, the development of
embryos (ontogenesis) is a process which is controlled and guided by
information. Recent discoveries in
molecular biology have shown that very many mechanisms in living cells exist
for the purpose of transferring exact information.”
Dr. Gitt further cites evolutionary
biologist G. Osche:
“The set of genes of an organism is a
finely tuned team, a balanced ‘genome’ whose harmonious cooperation determines
the orderly development of a living being.
This finely balanced genome is extremely important for the organism, and
is always transmitted unchanged at every single step of cell division and the
division of cell nuclei and chromosomes.
Before every cell division the genetic code must be replicated, in such
a way that exactly the same chemically defined configuration is formed. This identical replication of the genes
guarantees the constancy of genetic information. Roughly speaking, this replication is responsible for the
phenomenon that storks always hatch from stork eggs with all the
characteristics of this kind of bird. (G. Osche, “Die Motoren der Evolution –
Zweckmabigkeit als biologisches Problem,” Biologie in unserer Zeit 1(1971),
page 53).”
From Dr. Werner Gitt, “Did God Use
Evolution?” original German 1988, 2nd English Edition 2001,
Copyright of the English Edition 1993, CLV – Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung
e.V., page 64.
Mutation
and random selection are not the sources of new information. In fact, the very opposite occurs with
mutations. Mutation always results in
the loss of information, not the gain. Five-legged
cows or two-faced cats don’t represent the latest advances in animal husbandry.
– MSS]
A few of those invoking the 2nd law to oppose evolution have
recognized the isolated system problem, and responded by saying that for work
and structure to be produced in a system, it is not enough to have energy flow,
one must also have an “energy conversion mechanism.” This statement is actually correct, but it does not help the
anti-evolution cause. The biochemistry
of life is full of such mechanisms (a more standard name is “dissipative
structures”). Photosynthesis is one
example, as are other pieces of the biochemistry of the cell. With these structures in place (in other
words, once life exists), there is then no obstacle from the standpoint of
thermodynamics to the evolution of more and different life. [Absurd! This is so confusing that I hardly know
where to start. Photosynthesis is an
information-rich process that is governed by the DNA of the plant. This required an intelligent design and plan
to make it work. Information theory
again (see above). – MSS]
One might, of course, ask
about the origin of these dissipative structures. This is a legitimate question, though not really one of
“evolution” (which normally refers to the development of life from other life)
but instead one of “abiogenesis.”
Whether or not the biochemistry of life could arise “naturally” is one
where the evidence is not so clear, and legitimate arguments can be made
here. However, at this level the
arguments are primarily about plausibility of chemical mechanisms rather than
thermodynamics (and those who use them should not say their position is based
on thermodynamics), so they are outside the scope of this essay. [Dr. Harvey is
now showing his true colors. He claims
to be an evangelical Christian, but in essence his talk exudes pure liberal
Christianity playing loose with the facts.
As a fellow Christian and Believer in Jesus Christ, I must ask the
question – is Dr. Harvey a Christian first who happens to be a scientist, or is
he an evolutionary scientist who happens to think Christianity might be a cool
thing? Again, I emphasize that I am not
at liberty to judge his heart, but as an inspector of his writings and
statements, I detect incongruent psychobabble.
When he states, “Whether or not the biochemistry of life
could arise “naturally” is one where the evidence is not so clear,” this is completely in line with theistic evolution. The reader will note that Dr. Harvey dropped
his original reference to theistic evolution in his September 2000 revision –
I’m sure he was uncomfortable with combining “Evangelical Christian” with
“Theistic Evolution,” for the two go together like oil and water. On that topic, allow me to quote Dr. Gleason
Archer (note the emphasis in red):
“Despite the foregoing considerations, however (or perhaps in
ignorance of them), there are many committed Christians who are prepared to
accept the theory of evolution upon a theistic basis. That is to say, they
profess adherence to the mechanistic process of natural selection (according to
Darwin’s formulation), or even to the newer emergent theory of evolution; but
they nevertheless insist that matter was not eternal (as nontheists must
suppose), but that it was created by God ex
nihilo.
Furthermore, they regard the whole mechanism of the evolutionary process as
devised and controlled by God, rather than by some mysterious force which
cannot be entirely accounted for by science.
“To those who hold this position [theistic blend of Darwinian
evolution – MSS] it should be pointed out that historically the whole
theory was elaborated in an effort to explain the development of life along
purely natural mechanical principles, without the necessity of any divine
influence whatever. Darwin and his colleagues made the most determined efforts
to overthrow the argument for God’s existence based upon the evidence of design
in nature, and exploited every conceivable instance of dysteleology and
purposelessness which they could discover. They pointed to the fact that out of
the many thousands of eggs laid by a mother fish a very small percentage ever
survive to maturity, and that only a very few seeds deposited by fruit-bearing
trees ever live to produce new trees. (Thus the food supply afforded to other
creatures by this overabundance of roe and fruit was conveniently ignored.) A
consistent effort was made to explain the universe without God. For this
reason, Darwinian evolution became the official philosophy of the leading
atheistic movements of the twentieth century (such as the purest form of Nazism
and of Marxist socialism). Darwin’s concession that a higher power may have
provided the original raw material and vital impulse which started evolution at
the beginning was nevertheless a complete negation of Hebrew-Christian
revelation. It inevitably led to the result that moral and religious
conceptions discoverable in mankind result from a mere fortuitous combination
of molecules and have no counterpart in spiritual reality.
“Evolution
as a philosophy of world view really involves an outright denial of spiritual
reality even as it rejects the existence of a personal God. All of its leading
exponents have said as much in no uncertain terms. Ernst Haeckel’s Riddle of
the Universe (1929) employed the evolutionary thesis to disprove
supernatural religion and became thereby one of the major influences for
atheism in the twentieth century. G. G. Simpson declared that a wholehearted
acceptance of evolution is inconsistent with belief in the activity of God in
the universe.14-17 Charles Darwin himself, during an interview with a newspaper
reporter soon after the publication of the Origin of Species, simply
shrugged his shoulders at the whole moral issue. When asked if it was not true
that his book had shown every criminal how to justify his ways, he simply
dubbed the accusation “a good squib” and let the matter drop.14-18 In view of such factors as
these, it seems a very dubious procedure for a convinced Christian who means to
be loyal to the authority of Scripture to acknowledge himself an evolutionist,
except in a most restricted sense—in fact, in a sense utterly unacceptable to
Darwin and all his followers. For a Christian, there is no alternative to
identifying natural selection with divine selection, whether in a direct or an
indirect sense.” {Dr.
Gleason Archer, “A Survey of Old Testament Introduction,” Part Two –
Special Introduction, 14. Genesis, ‘Biblical Creationism and Modern
Evolution,’ 1964, 1974, 1994, The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, pages
208-209}
Emphasis
in red is mine. – MSS]
A common misuse of the 2nd law
occurs in connection with events that are highly improbable. An example is the hypothetical origin of
life from normal chemical processes, which has been compared to unlikely
occurrences such as the assembly of a 747 by a tornado passing through a
junkyard. That may or may not be an
appropriate analogy, but it is definitely mistaken to assert that, simply
because it is ridiculously unlikely, the scenario would represent a violation
of the 2nd law. The important point is
that, while violations of the 2nd law are highly improbable (this improbability
is the essence of the 2nd law in the statistical-mechanical formulation), not
every improbable event is a violation of the 2nd law. For example, if I flipped a coin 1000 times and came up “heads”
each time, it would be highly improbable but would not violate any laws of
thermodynamics. [This is an invalid argument
because there is no information in 1000 consecutive heads. Why 1000?
Why not 1200? Why not
10,000? Dr. Harvey likes thought
problems, so let’s illustrate using one.
For a moment, pretend that you are playing a game of Hearts. Let’s further pretend that you have just
been dealt the highly improbable hand of ALL hearts. Not only that, but pretend further they were unbelievably dealt
to you consecutively, the Deuce through the Ace. Further, let’s say your pet dog Fido, pet parrot Pete, and pet
hamsters Jake and Martha all were watching and “witnessed” this incredible
improbability. Tell me – does this hand
mean something to all these “witnesses?”
Or just to the humans at the game?
You see, Fido and the rest of the animal gang have no inkling or
appreciation of what just happened.
1000 consecutive heads or a straight consecutive hand of hearts means
nothing to them. It’s like reading
Gulliver’s Travels to a cow. The
blueprints and technical specifications of a bored-and-stroked Chevy small
block V-8 engine contain usable information for the mechanically-inclined gear
head human, but the blueprints may elicit a urination event by Fido or worse by
the parrot. Information is detectable
and usable only with intelligence. The
human brain’s intelligence and its complex speech computer are orders and
orders of magnitude above that of our “fellow animals.” – MSS]
Finally, there is the use of “entropy” in situations where
thermodynamics is simply not relevant.
One hears entropy invoked as an explanation for everything from my messy
desk to the decline of society. That is
tolerable and perhaps even useful as a metaphor; certainly there is some
similarity between the “decay” and “disorder” in these situations and the
thermodynamic consequences of the 2nd law.
But we must not mistake metaphor for real physical law. To do so can lead to false and even harmful
conclusions, such as when “relativity” is invoked to argue against the idea of
absolute right and wrong. [Cute, but I detect
little of use in this paragraph. However,
allow me to point out to the reader that it takes an intelligent agent to
straighten the messy desk, and it takes a group or society of teamed
intelligent agents to combat the decline of society. Furthermore, the moral issues of right and wrong as applied to
the decline of society came from somewhere.
And where is that where? – MSS]
My final topic is the occasional
identification of entropy with “evil” or “death,” an identification often
accompanied by the assertion that the 2nd law is a consequence of the
Fall. I believe that this is wrong for
several reasons. [NOTE: I am neutral
with regard to the literalness of the Biblical account of the Fall. I am open to the idea that it is a
figurative account of mankind’s collective rejection of God’s authority. For simplicity, this section uses
terminology that presumes the literal interpretation. But the arguments are not significantly affected if one takes a
less literal view.] [Dr. Harvey finally
makes it official, he gives himself away, the mask comes off. He is ambivalent to the truthfulness of
Scripture and God’s account of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. He is a Liberal Christian, picking and
choosing amongst the smorgasbord of salad-bar Scriptural delights. He stated at the beginning of this treatise,
“I believe the Bible to be entirely trustworthy in conveying God’s messages,” but what he really meant was according to the trustworthy
messages of Truths as Harvey sees it, not God. – MSS]
First, I believe the
identification of the 2nd law with “evil” is a consequence of some of the
misconceptions mentioned above. We
identify God (and therefore good) with “order,” but mistakenly identify the
ungodly “disorder” in the world with the thermodynamic entropy. Certainly entropy is a factor in some of the
world’s “disorder,” such as the degradation of the environment. But gravity, electromagnetism, and the 1st
law are all involved as well, and there are no grounds for assigning any
special “evil” role to the 2nd law.
Calling the 2nd law evil because it is involved in, for example, the
decay that accompanies physical death is as unfounded as calling gravity evil
when somebody falls off a cliff. [True. Amazingly, I concur. – MSS]
Second, the physical evidence
strongly indicates that, like all God’s other physical laws, the 2nd law has
been operating since creation. Entropic
processes are involved in the burning of the Sun and other stars (many of which
emitted the light we see today longer ago than the 6000-20,000 years ago
usually assigned to the Fall), and would have been involved as Adam and Eve
walked, ate and digested their food, etc.
Assuming there were flowers in the garden, it is the 2nd law that
allowed Adam and Eve to smell them (again speaking against the concept that
entropy is inherently evil). While it
is not impossible that God had an entirely different set of physical laws in
place before the Fall, such speculation is not supported by any scientific or
Biblical evidence. [True. I concur again. We’re on a roll! – MSS]
Third, we need to deal with Romans
8.18-23, which talks about (in the context of the final fulfillment of the
Kingdom) how “the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay
and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (v. 21, NRSV). The “bondage to decay” is sometimes taken to
refer to the 2nd law. That
interpretation is at best incomplete.
The Bible teaches (cf. Rev. 21) that, when all is said and done, God
will throw out the current physical laws and create something that transcends
all the limitations we now know. So
while the “repeal” of the 2nd law may be a part of what the passage refers to,
it is at most only a small portion of a much greater transformation. As to when the “bondage to decay” began, the
passage says nothing to suggest it began with the Fall. Some of it, in fact, seems to imply that
this bondage has been an aspect of creation from the beginning. [Don’t know about that last sentence, but
with the rest, I concur. – MSS]
There may be an additional logical
(and theological) fallacy at work in those who attribute the 2nd law to the
Fall. The (faulty) line of reasoning
goes something like, “Since the 2nd law will not exist in God’s final Kingdom
[that may or may not be the case], it must not have existed before the
Fall.” This simply does not
follow. Nowhere in the Bible does it
suggest that the final Kingdom will simply be a restoration to pre-Fall conditions. Instead, it is pictured as something brand
new and infinitely more glorious than what Adam and Eve experienced in the
Garden. [True.
Amazingly, I again concur.
Perhaps there’s hope for Dr. Harvey. – MSS]
With all that said, I should add
that I do believe that the Fall has consequences. The primary result, of course, is our separation from God and
resultant need for salvation. But
Scripture does teach (Gen. 3.17) that there was also some negative consequence
for our surroundings. I do not deny
that, in some sense, the ground (and maybe even all of creation) is “cursed” because
of our sin (I lean toward viewing that as our relationship to the environment
being corrupted by sin). What I do deny
is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is any more a part of that curse than is
gravity or any of the other physical laws God has crafted for His
creation. [I still agree. Profoundly, Dr. Harvey has touched on a point that has also
frustrated me. I have debated /
discussed with at least a half-dozen Bible-believing, traditional-thinking
Christians who are convinced that SLOT never came about until the Fall. Most of these fellow Christians have little
or no education or exposure to the physical or engineering sciences, so they
have glommed on to Scripture and perhaps a well-meaning but uninformed
literalist preacher or teacher who teach that all physical Laws we see today
were either suspended or not in existence before the Fall. – MSS]
I used to think about entropy
childishly. When I was about 20 and a
fairly new Christian, I even wrote a poem called “The Second Law” in which I
invoked entropy to explain decay of the human soul, of human society, and of
Christ’s church. [I later saw a “Life
in Hell” cartoon listing “Entropy” as a topic about which all bad poets must
eventually write.] Since then, I have learned more about thermodynamics and
about God. I know how alluring the
simplistic entropy arguments sound. But
God calls us to truth, and that sometimes requires abandoning simplistic
concepts.
My main purpose here is to
dissuade my fellow followers of Christ from pursuing incorrect arguments based
on a lack of understanding of the second law.
One might ask whether it is really important for Christians to think
about entropy in a mature manner. For
many, it probably isn’t. But for those
who engage in apologetics, and for those who might find themselves defending
the faith to those who are scientifically literate, I think it is important for
three reasons.
The first is that, by abandoning these errors, we can focus more effectively on legitimate arguments for the faith. While I do not subscribe to the notion that one can arrive at Christianity through pure reason, I do believe that it is reasonable in all respects. With regard to origins, there are reasonable arguments that the universe and human life did not come about through random Godless chance. But none of these arguments is based on thermodynamics, and it can only confuse the issues and obscure God’s truth when the 2nd law is inappropriately dragged in. [True, but needs more clarity. The reader will note that in Dr. Harvey’s original August 1996 treatise, he mentioned Hugh Ross, founder and president of Reasons to Believe.<