U.C. Student Record |
Editorial Page
|
Date currently unknown |
| David Krusling makes the argument that evolution
violates the second law of thermodynamics. This creationist meme is long
sustained not because of its scientific merit, but because of the energetic
proslytism, most recently by Henry Morris at the Institute of Creation
Research. It is important to note that this argument dates to the late
19th, early 20th, century and was long ago refuted. The need for creationists
to resort to intentional misrepresentation and deception, in my mind, emphasizes
that creationism is not only poor science, but poor religion as well.
The second law of thermodynamics does indeed describe an overall tendency in nature for entropy to increase. But think for a moment, on the face of it, wouldn’t that mean that a baby would never grow to an adult. How can that be? Because creationists selectively omit the notion of systems, a very basic concept within the field of thermodynamics. There are two main types of systems, isolated systems and open systems. Isolated systems are those that exchange absolutely nothing with their surroundings. An example of an isolated system would be the universe as a whole (as far as we are currently aware) Open systems are subsystems to isolated systems and are quite different. They exchange heat, work, and substances with each other. Open systems include biological organisms like you and me. Strictly speaking, when the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy only increases, it does so in isolated, not open systems. Growing organisms are examples of open systems which can experience localized entropy reduction (an increase in complexity). Entropy routinely decreases in open systems as long as the total quantity of entropy yields a net increase between open systems. |
For example, take two open systems; a baby
and its food. When the baby eats its food, the food is broken down (its
entropy increases). The baby uses the energy extracted from the food for
growth (its entropy decreases). There is a greater degree of entropy increase
when the food is broken down, then the entropy decrease from the babies
growth. So the second law holds true. Total entropy has increased, even
though there has been a localized entropy decrease in the baby.
One cannot insist that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution without simultaneously maintaining that growth-development, morphogenesis- is similarly impossible. And evolution is merely change (via mutation, selection and other processes) in the genetic basis for morphogenesis over time. David’s comparison of the self assembling Mercedes to the self assembling cell is a similar misrepresentation. We have to leave the realm of classical thermodynamic and move to non-equilibrium (or irreversible) thermodynamics for which Prigogine was awarded the 1977 Nobel Prize in chemistry. It inquires into the stability's of molecular structures under various non uniform conditions. It has been shown that the imposition of naturally occurring temperature, pressure, and composition gradients can force a system into highly non uniform configurations that eventually become unstable relative to (and hence transform into) highly organized configurations. A good many have been produced in laboratory experiments carried out in inorganic and organic media, and have caused a great deal of excitement because of their remarkable similarity to the simplest known forms of life. I’m sorry David, but you’ve been duped by people who are intentionally misrepresenting science in order to advance their particular version of their particular belief system. Todd Brennan
|
 |
 |
