hezekiah jones

Since the subject never seems to go away, for what it's worth, here is a paper I wrote for an Intro to Biology class a couple of summers ago. Feel free to mercilessly critique.

The Second Commandment of Thermodynamics:
Increased entropy in the closed system known as "Creation Science"

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Louisiana’s "Creationism Act," a law that forbade the teaching of evolutionary theory in that state’s schools without concurrently teaching what has become known as creationism, or "creation science." In that decision, Edwards vs. Aguillard, the Court ruled that "creation science" was in fact nothing more than thinly disguised religion, and more importantly, served no secular purpose.1 Therefore, the teaching of "creation science" was deemed to be in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Despite this ruling, the efforts of fundamentalist Christians to impose the creation mythology of the Bible on public school science curricula has continued unabated. In 1999, the Kansas Board of Education adopted a modified version of the Louisiana Act, differing only in that the policy was not mandatory. However, it opens the door for fundamentalists to teach Christian mythology in the science classroom, a situation which will no doubt reach the higher courts, and again, be invalidated on Constitutional grounds.2

Although there are many divisions within the creationist community with regard to what scientific evidence they will and will not accept, the most vociferous element, and that which would appear to have the most potential influence on public policy, are the so-called Young Earth Creationists. It is this group that insists on a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis; that is, among other things, that the earth was created over a period of six days, that all species (which they refer to as "kinds") were created as described in Genesis and have not changed since that time, and that by figuring the arithmetic set out by the generations of Biblical characters, one can conclude that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Furthermore, they believe in the literal truth of the story of a catastrophic worldwide flood and Noah’s ark, aboard which they claim were all the "kinds" of biological life, including dinosaurs, which they assert co-existed with humans.3

What they put forth as the age of the earth also allows them to argue that there has not been enough time for anything to evolve, since the theory of evolution requires hundreds of millions of years for its implementation. In fact, the basis of the creationist reasoning generally is not to put forth any actual evidence through scientific methodology, but rather to invoke attempts at criticism of evolutionary evidence by comparing it to a literal reading of Genesis.

The "creation science" movement can trace its own genesis in America to a book published in 1923 called The New Geology, by George McReady Price. In this 700 page text, McReady asserted that there was no natural historical order to the fossil-bearing rocks, and that all stratigraphic layers in the earth’s crust were deposited by the deluge described in the Bible, concluding with his assertion that the earth is very young, and thus unable to support evolutionary processes over time. Although Price’s book was ridiculed by the scientific establishment at the time (Price himself was a self-taught, armchair rock-hound), his ideas took hold within the fundamentalist Christian community, who felt they had found a reputable scientist to advance their anti-evolutionist beliefs.4

The American psychologist Leon Festinger coined the term "cognitive dissonance" to describe the incongruity individuals perceive when confronted with two competing belief systems, or seemingly mutually exclusive circumstances. Festinger demonstrated that the level of cognitive dissonance increases dramatically when the belief being questioned was conditioned through early social connections, rather than through demonstrable, testable physical realities.

Among the three main strategies that individuals implement to alleviate this dissonance, Festinger asserted, was the act of reinterpreting the disagreement in the hopes of thereby invalidating the opposing viewpoint altogether.5 This strategy is apparent in much of the creationist literature, and particularly in the work of possibly the most influential and prolific "creation scientist" of all, Henry M. Morris.

Morris was a hydraulic engineer at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 1961, when he and John C. Whitcomb, Jr., a theology professor at the Grace Brethren seminary in Indiana, published The Genesis Flood in 1961.6 With the publication of that text, and his numerous subsequent publications, Morris became the spiritual godfather of the "creation science" movement, and it is most often his texts which creationists are fond of citing.

Although the "creation scientists" make numerous claims against evolution, and scientific theories in general, perhaps one of their most well known gambits is the invocation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, to which Morris devotes at least one entire chapter in his book, The Troubled Waters of Evolution.

Thermodynamics, as the Oxford Dictionary of Physics succinctly states, is "the study of the laws that govern the conversion of energy from one form to another, the direction in which heat will flow, and the availability of energy to do work."7 The energy in question consists of potential energy, that is, energy that is stored in a body or system as a characteristic of its physical configuration, and kinetic energy, or energy in "motion," defined as "the work that will be done by the body possessing the energy when it is brought to rest."8 The sum total of these two concepts is referred to as internal energy.

According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, the energy of the universe is conserved, or, more familiarly, "energy can neither be created nor destroyed."9 On the other hand, energy can be converted from one form to another, such as from chemical energy to heat, from heat to mechanical energy, and vice versa. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, stated by both Rudolf Clausius and William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) in the mid-19th century, introduced the concept of "entropy." The Second Law was stated in two ways: "Heat cannot be transferred from one body to a second body at a higher temperature without producing some other effect" and "the entropy of a closed system increases with time."10

The simplicity of these concepts, and the very specific processes to which they apply, must be borne in mind during the examination of Henry Morris’ argument against evolution, and the use he makes of the word "entropy" in particular. Entropy, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Physics, is "a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work; in a closed system (italics added) an increase in entropy is accompanied by a decrease in energy availability." Furthermore, the definition continues, "entropy can be interpreted as a measure of disorder (italics added); the higher the entropy, the greater the disorder."

Although there are many ways to state and apply the Second Law, including the fact that it forbids the existence of a perpetual motion machine, since there must be some energy loss during transference from one component of a closed system to another, it is essential to remain strictly cognizant of the meanings of the terms "entropy" and "closed system" when evaluating Morris’ argument.

A clear definition of what constitutes a "closed system" is vital in terms of the misapplication of the term "entropy" that Morris puts forth, as we shall see. In other words, it is extremely disingenuous to interpret the term "entropy" as simply meaning "disorder," in the traditional English sense, without always taking into consideration the specific application this term was intended to describe by Clausius, and of course all scientists whose investigations interact with the concepts of thermodynamics. In this case, "disorder," and particularly with respect to the study of thermodynamics, is specifically intended to describe situations involving energy transfer, particularly in the form of heat.

Morris’ motivation, and the root of his disingenuous application of the term "disorder," can be gleaned from the following statements made by him:


Some idea of Morris’ basic motivation needs to be injected into this discussion, since it sheds considerable light on the statements he makes concerning the Second Law. And after all, this is science – objectivity and the pursuit of all available evidence are essential to our inquiries. Morris sets forth his assertions in a chapter of his book The Troubled Waters Of Evolution entitled, "Can Water Run Uphill?"

The chapter begins with Morris’ examination of the Greek word entrope, which he advises was used several times in the New Testament, variously translated as "shame," "confusion," and "dishonour" (sic). However, Morris notes, "Neither the word nor the concept of evolution is found in the Bible at all. It is evidently an idea completely alien to Scripture, except as associated with the philosophy of idolators and skeptics (II Peter 3:4; Romans 1:21-25; Jeremiah 2:27, etc.)”14

"Entropy," Morris says, "means literally (italics added) 'in-turning.' It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning 'in') and trope (meaning 'turning'). The concept is of something spiralling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept of 'evolution.' Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward."15

Aside from Morris’ questionable etymology and blatantly misleading use of semantics, it is difficult to perceive the relevance of ascribing three- or even two-dimensional qualities to these processes. Simply assigning this concept of "direction" seems particularly meaningless under the circumstances. Although it is easy to see what Morris is trying to prove, what is difficult to see is the connection between the processes Morris is describing and the spatial, almost geometrical characteristics he is attempting to impute on them.

Incredibly, it is the above basis on which Morris establishes his critique of evolutionary theory, with respect to thermodynamics. "Thus," writes Morris after a brief history of scientific investigation into heat and energy, "the modern scientist has come to recognize that the science of thermodynamics is exceedingly broad."16 (However, the intent and application of the Second Law is extremely narrow and specific, as we have seen above.)

Morris goes on to describe the First Law of Thermodynamics, and to be fair, his characterization is consistent with the Clausius’ classical definition. However, his conclusion contains a startling intuitive leap: "The First Law is itself a strong witness against evolution, since it implies a basic condition of stability in the universe. The fundamental structure of the cosmos is one of conservation, not innovation."17

The basic condition of stability to which Morris refers, it is assumed, refers to the fact that, according to the First Law, the quantity of energy (and matter) in the universe is constant. To conclude from this that there has been no innovation within the universe, particularly with respect to biology on earth, is, of course, utter nonsense. The early experience of Charles Darwin’s observations of the variety of finches on the South Sea islands is enough to refute this erroneous assertion.

But as if, according to Morris, the First Law isn’t enough to make biological evolution impossible, he attempts to drive the following nail into Darwin’s coffin: "It is the Second Law, however, that wipes out the theory of evolution. There is a universal process of change, but it is not an upward change."18 Once again Morris introduces this new, and seemingly irrelevant spatial characteristic: upward versus downward. Of course, nowhere in the Laws of Thermodynamics are these attributes invoked.

Morris’s discussion of the definition of "closed" and "open" systems is also somewhat fascinating. "The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics (evolutionists) say, apply only to isolated systems – systems into which no external energy can flow – and so supposedly do not apply to the earth."19 The first part of this statement would appear to be true. However, the reputable scientific texts I examined failed to support the proposition that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to earth; indeed, it’s difficult to imagine any self-respecting scientist making such an assertion.

The evolutionist, Morris continues, "will cite various examples of growth to illustrate his point, such as a seed growing up into a tree with many seeds. In like manner, he says, the sun supplies energy to the open-earth system throughout geologic time to keep evolution going, even though perhaps at some long-distant time the greater earth-sun system will finally die and evolution will stop.”20 Aside from introducing the question of cosmology into the equation, which is a separate field of investigation from biology, it seems as though Morris is faintly mocking one of the central tenets of the life sciences: that the energy from the sun is critical to the biological processes on earth.

At this point, Morris embarks on two of the more outrageous analogies that creationists are fond of making. Suggesting that evolutionists insist that the sun is solely responsible for biological growth (I am quite certain there are several other factors involved), Morris states:

These statements are indicative of Morris’ interpretation of the concept of entropy, which, although often termed "disorder" in classical thermodynamics, cannot be construed to have the same general meaning as "disorder" in the sense that, "My sock drawer is in a state of disorder." It seems clear that the concept of disorder, as it relates to thermodynamics, refers specifically to the concept of entropy with respect to the exchange of energy between components of a closed system.

In fact, Morris goes on to apply his definition of entropy, that is, his definition of "disorder," to everything from the extinction of species, disease, the decay of nations, cultures, and languages, breakdown of morals and religion, and finally, "personal disintegration," the idea that a “universal fact of experience is that one’s moral behavior is under constant pressure to drop down to lower levels."23

Presumably, this is not exactly what Clausius had in mind when he articulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Unfortunately, the fact that Morris attempts to apply thermodynamics to questions of morality severely undermines his attempts at real scientific argument.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972), one of the most influential theoretical biologists of the 20th century, defined a "closed system" as follows: "An isolated system having no interaction with an environment."24 This definition, simple as it is, would seem to rule out Morris’ argument in totality, since one of the prime considerations in evaluating biological processes, and indeed in defining life itself, is the quality of interaction with the environment.

So is thermodynamics relevant to biology at all?
The applicability of thermodynamics, and, it would seem, the relevance of Morris’s argument, is addressed at some length in Noam Lahav’s Biogenesis – Theories of Life’s Origins as follows:

Or, more succinctly: "The only definitive statement that thermodynamics makes about evolution is that ultimately it will result largely in CO2, H2O, and N2. Fortunately, the sun allows us to live in a world that is kinetically controlled due to an input of energy. Nevertheless ... thermodynamic principles can be used to predict what reactions are possible in this transitory world."26

In other words, not only have scientists acknowledged the relationship between the physical laws enunciated by thermodynamics, but also they assert that there is nothing dictated by these laws to prevent the processes required by evolution. In fact, many scientists, particularly molecular biologists, have moved beyond the accepted tenets of Darwinism to the search for life’s origin on earth. (And quite obviously well beyond the basic characteristics of cytology, molecular physics, and intracellular transport, all those other nasty processes which do not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, much to the chagrin, presumably, of Henry M. Morris and his heirs among the “creation science” movement.)

The concept of entropy in both micro- and macro-biology is also discussed at some length by David Jou and Joseph Enric Llebot, of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona in their book, Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Biological Processes. In fact, they specifically address the "paradox" which some, including Morris, have construed by attempting to relate the pure laws of thermodynamics to biology:

Furthermore, many biologists refer to molecular structures, including cells and assemblages of cells, colloquially as "machines," which the laws of thermodynamics were originally intended to describe during the 19th century. In fact, Lord Kelvin’s enunciation of the Second Law was as follows: "It is impossible to devise any engine which, working in a cycle, shall produce no effect other than extraction of heat from the reservoir and the performance of an equal amount of mechanical work."28

Hence, contrary to Morris’ assertion that mainstream science has been unable to rectify what he contends is the incompatibility of biology and thermodynamics, some scientists are in fact invoking the second law to help understand biological and biochemical processes. In other words, not only are evolutionary processes compatible with the laws of thermodynamics, in many cases the second law can be used to explain these processes.

In their book Biophysical Thermodynamics of Intracellular Processes, Lev Blumenfeld and Alexander Tikhonov undertake a discussion of the work of the theoretical biologist C.W.F. McClare, who actually proposed placing a further restriction on the Second Law by adding a variable to represent time. McClare, the authors argue, proposed this reformulation of the second law in order to extend the statements of classical thermodynamics to the molecular level, since, having been put forth nearly 150 years ago, it did not encompass more recent discoveries concerning the properties of molecules and their atomic constituents.

Clausius, the authors assert, "discovered and introduced to science a new function of state – entropy. As a matter of fact, he had completed the construction of contemporary phenomenological thermodynamics. Until the present day, this science has served as the foundation of chemical thermodynamics and chemical kinetics. In turn, these fields of thermodynamics are used as generally accepted tools for the description and understanding of the energetics of cellular processes."29

As dry and academic a subject as this discussion may seem to some, the issue of the permissibility with regard to teaching "creation science" in public schools is one of crucial legal, academic, and social importance. The fundamentally disingenuous and erroneous application Henry Morris makes of this basic law of physics in the furtherance of his ideological agenda is simply bad science and worse public policy. That any self-respecting public school board in America would entertain furthering his baseless attacks on sound scientific theory in the name of "balanced treatment" is an affront to the young minds of this nation, and also an insult to the established academic and scientific community, and the substantial body of work it has, and is, producing.

On the other hand, last week on August 1st in the state of Kansas, three of four school trustees who had supported that state’s anti-science curriculum were defeated in Republican primaries, defeated by candidates who oppose the atavistic revisions to the science standards. If the creationists were to put forth an actual, testable scientific theory to rival the current evolutionary model, there is little doubt the professional scientific community would, as it always does, embrace the opportunity to challenge and improve upon its own tenets. Thus far, the "creation science" movement, judging from the arguments of its leading practitioner, has abysmally failed to do so.

1 Edwards v Aguillard (1987) U.S. Supreme Court; Citation: 482 U.S. 578 (1987)
Docket # 85-1513
<a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=482&invol=578" target="_blank">http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=482&invol=578</a>

2 Flank, Lenny, Creation “Science”: A Legal History
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/legal.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/legal.htm</a>

3 Unsigned article
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4351news7-26-2000.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4351news7-26-2000.asp</a>

4 Moore, James, article, The Creationist Cosmos of Protestant Fundamentalism
The Fundamentalism Project – Vol. 2 – Fundamentalisms and Society
Pages 46-47
Marty, Martin E. and Appleby, R. Scott, Editors (1993) The University of Chicago Press
ISBN 0-226-50880-3

5 Fuller, Robert, Naming The Antichrist – The History of an American Obsession
Pages 116-117
(1995) Oxford University Press
ISBN 0-19-508244-3

6 Moore, Page 47

7 Isaacs, Alan, editor, A Dictionary of Physics
Page 427
(1996) Oxford University Press
ISBN 0-19-280030-2

8 Isaacs, Alan, editor, A Dictionary of Physics
Page 130

9 Lahav, Noam, Biogenesis – Theories of Life’s Origin
Page 78
(1999) Oxford University Press
ISBN 0-19-511755-7

10 Isaacs, Alan, editor, A Dictionary of Physics
Page 428

11 Morris, Henry M., quoted by
Lenny Flank, (1995) What Are The Real Aims Of The Creation Scientists?
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/aims.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/aims.htm</a>

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Morris, Henry M., The Troubled Waters Of Evolution
Page 112
(1982 – Second Edition) Creation-Life Publishers
ISBN 0-89051-087-3

15 Ibid. Page 112

16 Ibid. Page 114

17 Ibid. Page 116

18 Ibid. Page 116

19 Ibid. Page 122

20 Ibid. Page 123

21 Ibid. Page 123

22 Ibid. Page 123

23 Ibid. Pages. 140-141

24 Heylighen, Francis, Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems
<a href="http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/indexASC.html" target="_blank">http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/indexASC.html</a>

25 Lahav, Page 82

26 Turner, D.H., and Bevilacqua, P.C., (1993) Thermodynamic considerations for evolution by RNA
The RNA World
Pages 447-464
Gesteland, R.F., and Atkins, J.F., editors
New York: Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
Cited in Lahav

27 Jou, D, and Llebot, J.E., Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Biological Processes
Pages 21-22
(1990 – Translation) Prentice Hall Advanced Reference Series
ISBN 0-13-502881-7

28 Blumenfeld, Lev A., and Tikhonov, Alexander N., Biophysical Thermodynamics of Intracellular Processes
Page 39
(1994) Springer-Verlag New York
ISBN 0-387-94179-7

29 Ibid. Page 6

Asha'man

Well written and explained. Very nice. I may have to borrow some of this.

Morat

Good article. Talk.origins always needs new material.

wdog

nice paper hez,

do you find it as amazing as i that some creationists will still bring up the second law fallacy as if they have stumbled onto something that 'dumb' scientists have overlooked? we should not have to even mention it anymore, and I'm not sure if they are just too lazy to read the scientific literature or they are too dense to understand it.

hezekiah jones

Thanks folks!

Yeah the main point seems to be how they can derive all those other implications from what really is a narrowly defined set of circumstances, like Morris defining "entropy" by reading Strong's Concordance. That is laughable.

All the "creation scientists" have to do is offer some evidence that thermodynamic principles really do forbid biological evolution, or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, for that matter, and they would be done. Obviously they can't, which is why they need to continue on with all the rest of their bullshit.

That Henry Morris appears at the top of the heap of <a href="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html" target="_blank">ICR experts</a> is really an embarrassment. His son John has a little radio spot called Back to Genesis I hear every now and then. The last three times I've heard it he's been introduced as "scientist," then "geologist," then "paleontologist." In fact he's a geological engineer, and his C.V. at ICR hasn't been updated since 1984. Everything he's done since then has consisted of lying his ass off, I suppose.

&lt;code&gt;

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

Richiyaado

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>

theyeti

Hey Richi, good to see you again. I read that thread and was pretty unimpressed by Jeptha. What I was impressed by though was Jesse's and Art's explanation of the SLOT and how it applies to biological systems; sometimes something useful comes from the nonsense. I'm normally inclined to see a SLOT argument coming from a creationist and just skip that thread.

theyeti

E_muse

My reply is actually to all. I am most certainly not an expert and am open to learning and gaining further knowledge.

No, I don't think people are too dumb or too lazy, they just don't know what they're arguing against. I would suggest that most people on the street who say that they 'believe in evolution' are doing just that. They're belief is belief - not based on observation or a full working knowledge of scientific disciplines.

Many people will accept the authority of a scientist as they would a priest. They find many of the arguements perplexing or beyond their academic ability and will settle with statements such as 'well, they're the experts - they must know what they're talking about.'

Consequently most people will adopt beliefs which enable them to function on a day to day basis.

My point is that the reasons that the layman in the street accepts evolution is not on the same basis that the scientist does. The layman will accept it from authority, the scientist will only accept it on the grounds of observation and continued testing.

The fact that someone uses 'bad science' to defend a belief does not necessarily disprove the object of the belief. It merely proves their own lack of scientific skill. Not many people on the street would be able to defend their belief in evolution using sound scientific arguement and could probably be easily pulled apart by a more informed creationist.

Lastly on this point - the lack of integrity demonstrated by some creationists is often paraded on these boards. Whilst I'm not suggesting that these accusations are groundless, I would be very surprised if the same lack of integrity were not found in certain areas of the scientific community and the same desire to make the observations fit the theory.

Atrocities have been committed in the name of humanism and of God because of human nature. People are fuelled by all kinds of pride, various ambitions and most of all the desire to be proved right in any arguement or debate.

Science is no more free from the influences of human nature than theology.

However - on to the second law.

I have no problem in accepting that the second law does not present a problem to the evolutionary process. Within living matter we find the necessary mechanisms for converting available energy into something useful - there is what is referred to as a teleonomic machine. There is a mechanism by which life can evolve. This is emphasised by Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker as he seeks to emulate the evolutionary process utilizing a computer program.

In a critique of Manfred Eigen, Wilder-Smith made the following comment:

The greatest problem presented to the evolutionary theory by the second law appears to me to be with regard to abiogenesis rather than the process itself.

Comments please....

Morat

The mechanisms for energy transfer exist for abiogenesis, as well. It's called chemistry. Happens all the time with snowflakes and crystals.

Life is just chemistry, after all.

wdog

sure there are biases in science and it's history has it's fair share of shady people. the beauty of it is though that there is an underlying reality that can't be cheated forever. you can get away with fraud temporarily, but eventually if anyone wants to check, bad results get weeded and we are left with fairly reliable results which tend to be as free from bias as you can get, otherwise our whole technological infrastructure would not work. what I have a real problem with is creationists who are not well versed will make scientific claims based on their religion and then simply not accept the criticism that results when they try and represent these claims as scientific. religious imperative is the ultimate bias since the person cannot be swayed even with the best results of science. normally when someone has a fradulant result and it gets debunked, the world moves on (polywater, cold fusion, ect...), but these people will not go away since they think their religion is the ultimate truth and it sidesteps the normal processs of scientific inquiry. and to top it off, many of them are simply ignorant of the science they claim is incorrect.