Hawkingfan

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases with time. In preparing for a friendly debate with a Christian, I would like to know everyone's thoughts on the following subject: Does the second law of thermodynamics prove that evolution could not have happened? Or in the event that evolution did occur, does the opinion that entropy had to of been "suspended" in order for evolution to take place prove that there is a "God" whose "unseen hand" made it happen?
I will be taking the position of the non-believer (of which I am).

Dr.GH

Read the material on the following, and you should be ready for a "friendly" debate.

<a href="http://www.acchurch.com/reading/evolution.php" target="_blank">Entropy and Evolution</a>

and,

<a href="http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html" target="_blank">The second law of thermodynamics and evolution</a>

tgamble

Which one? The real one or the one invented by creationists to make it impossible?

The actual law provides no problems for evolution.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html</a>
<a href="http://www.americanatheist.org/smr97/T3/thermodynamics.html" target="_blank">http://www.americanatheist.org/smr97/T3/thermodynamics.html</a>
<a href="http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html" target="_blank">http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html</a>

Creationists insist that the 2nd law provides a problem but they're just plain wrong.

Not that they care really. Evolution is wrong because the HOLY WORD OF GOD says so. Everything else is just details.

Jerry Love

Are you asking for the false argument you will be presented with by the Christian?

The first is the equivocation of "entropy". Thermodynamics says that, in a closed system, energy will dissipate. That's what increasing entropy is. They will equivocate it to "disorder".

First they will tell you that order cannot increase. You can point out that people build things. Then they will tell you that order can increase, but only with intervention (despite the lack of any exceptions in thermodynamics). So you can point out that a disordere mixture of oil and water will order itself if left alone. Then they will start changing how they define "order".

I don't like ever letting them past the point that they are equivocating the word. If you really want to let them use "order", then point out it's "overall" order as opposed to "local" order. The Earth is not a closed system. i dislike this route because it is accepting of an incorrect premise.

Late_Cretaceous

You can always point out to creationists that, if evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then by thier logic - so does life itself. Think of it, all the biomass of the earth, even if it were only 6KY old is absorbing energy and defying the creationist version of entropy. The typical rebuttal to this is something along the lines of "well since the fall of man, life on earth has been in a state of degeneration anyways".

enigma555

If evolution violates 2LoT because more complex things are growing out of less complex things, then so does life itself. A wonderful example I've used to blast holes in that particular line of absurdity is that of a baby forming from a single cell.

KC

It's always fun to catch them with the oil/water example, since the more 'ordered' (separated) arrangement is actually higher in entropy.

Cheers,

KC

Hawkingfan

Thank you. After reading the above sites, I agree that it is important to know exactly when the 2nd law applies. It does not apply to open systems where material or energy is being traded with some outside system (i.e. the earth receives energy from the sun). But just playing the advocate, is the universe entirely made up of open systems? And isn't this only pertaining to a small scale "locally" as the site says? Why on a "large scale" does entropy increase?
Another good point made at the site is that increased disorder is not equal in meaning to increased entropy.
Anway, by experience with arguing the point of the non-believer, the problem mentioned in "Entropy and Life" always arises--the Christian's definition of evolution as being a process to achieve higher order and design. This defintion leads to a warped view of entropy. Disregarding this Christian definition, what is the true definition of evolution?
There is a section where it says, "If we cannot answer such questions(i.e. how do you compare an "ordered state" to a "disordered state" in entities that have undergone the evolutionary process, i.e. which is which?), these arguments about order and design will fall outside the realm of science". But why is it that Stephen Hawking says in his book "A Brief History of Time" regarding the 2nd law: "This is why we do not see broken tea cups putting themselves back together, etc." Is he not discussing order and design within the realm of science?
The Christian will argue this point when I say that the 2nd law clearly says nothing about "design" or pathways or synthesis or a "predictor of disorder", etc. It was this Hawking quote that started the debate.
He will argue the same point when I show him the second site you gave me that says, "The second law concerns energy, not patterns of objects. Intense or concentrated energy tends to spread out and diffuse...It is an "illusion" of disorder that is a "consequence" of dispersing the energy."(emphasis mine)
Need more help, please.

Hawkingfan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tgamble:
[QB]

Which one? The real one or the one invented by creationists to make it impossible?

the real one

Hawkingfan

Thanks. I'll use this.