In response to thread by Mark:
Robert wrote:
> Also, the claim "entropy LOCAL decreases as evolution progresses"
> is ill-defined, and as such, may or may not be true in some
> circumstance depending on just *which* entropy is being considered.
> But overall, biological processes (including those that result in
> evolution) are irreversably dissipative, and as such they generate
> net entropy.
I used to wonder why no one ever took Henry Morris aside and
*explained* thermodynamics to him. But from his book _What is
Creation Science?_, it's apparent that someone *has*, and he
still doesn't understand it. Ron Numbers, in _The Creationists_,
notes that even among creationists there is dispute about the
importance of thermodynamics arguments (see p. 235 and note 47 on
pp. 407-408, be sure to read the entire note).
In _What is Creation Science?_, on. p. 5, Morris states:
"Evolutionists commonly attempt to sidestep this question by
asserting that the second law applies only to isolated systems.
But this is wrong!
[indent quote] '...the quantity of entropy generated locally
cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated
or not' (Arnold Sommerfeld, 1956)."
Morris is quoting from p. 155 of Arnold Sommerfeld's
_Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics_. This sentence comes
from a 4-page discussion of entropy. Read the whole section
carefully and work through each of the equations. The section
supports the opposite of what Morris intended. If a person had
read and *understood* the whole section, it wouldn't even have
*occurred* to him to misuse this sentence in this manner. It
looks like prooftexting on the part of Morris, or of the research
assistant who found this reference for him.
In addition to Allan's excellent article that he referred us to,
there is good historical background on broader issues in the
article "The uses and abuses of thermodynamics in religion," by
Erwin Hiebert, _Daedalus_, vol. 95, pp. 1046-1080 (1966). This
doesn't specifically address points that your friends may have
been asking you about, but it's good background and an enjoyable
read.
For a helpful perspective by a teacher who has dealt with these
questions, see the article "Creation Science: A Challenge in the
Physics Classroom," by Gary Kessler in _The Physics Teacher_,
vol. 31, no. 5, May 1993, pp. 300-304.
Mark, these references should be available in your college
library, or through interlibrary loan. But if you have any
trouble locating any of them, e-mail me privately and I'll be
happy to send you copies of these pages. I'm pessimistic about
your chances of persuading anyone, but if you do succeed, I'd
sure like hear about it.
Best,
Carol Regehr
-- cregehr@phys.ksu.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 20 2001 - 09:54:11 EDT