Pim
On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 18:02:18 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
PM>We agree that creationists are partially if not totally
>responsible for the 'misconception'.
SJ: No. We "agree that creationists are partially" (*not* "totally")
responsible for the 'misconception'". The other part of the
responsibility is with anti-creationists, who are only too ready to
see creationists in as worse a light as possible.
To a large extent creationists are to blame for this perception. The
highly visible ones like Morris and Gish for example have given scientific
creationism a 'bad rap'.
PM>Even now there are plenty of websites and 'creationists' who keep
>making the same mistaken claim through an inclusive use of the word
>evolution to imply that there is a problem for Darwinian evolution.
SJ: That is entirely possible. But one would have to examine what they
said on a case-by-case basis.
Indeed.
PM>Morris is not innocent of such confusing behavior himself for
>instance in "Scientific creationism" he is talking about solar
>energy reaching the earth to support evolution (p 44) and 'we are
>warranted then in concluding that the evolutionary process (the
>hypothetical principle of naturalistic inovation and intergration)
>is completely precluded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Again, this is the tail end of a long section concerning "the Second
Law of Thermodynamics" and "the evolution model", which starts
with:
"It seems obvious that the Second Law of Thermodynamics
constitutes a serious problem to the evolution model. Creationists are
puzzled as to why evolutionists give so little attention to this
problem. Most books promoting evolution never mention it at all, and
many competent evolutionary scientists have been inclined to dismiss
it as of no importance to the problem. When pressed, however, for
means of reconciling the entropy principle with evolution one of the
following answers is usually given:...." (Morris H.M., "Scientific
Creationism", 1985, p40)
There follows five points over five pages, which Morris then concludes
with your quote:
SJ: "Now the question again is, not whether there is enough energy
reaching the earth from the sun to support evolution, but rather how
this energy is converted into evolution? The evolutionary process,
if it exists, is by far the greatest growth process of all. If a
directing code and specific conversion mechanism are essential for
all lesser growth processes, then surely an infinitely more complex
code and more specific energy converter are required for the
evolutionary process" (Morris H.M., "Scientific Creationism", 1985,
pp44-45)
SJ: The whole section is about the overall "evolution model" of which
biological evolution is but a part.
Come on. Evolution was used here by Morris clearly limited to the
biological evolution process. And of course his suggestion that the SLOT
is a problem for evolution is completely wrong.
PM>But such vagueness is but a minor distraction from Morris' far
>worse flaws.
SJ: Possibly. We may not always see eye-to-eye on what constitures a
"flaw". But whether "Morris" has "far worse flaws" is irrelevant to
the question of what he means when he says that "evolution violates
the second law of thermodynamics".
He surely leaves the opinion that he is discussing evolution at the same
level at which evolution is defined. If Morris is confusing the issue by
using an alternate definition of evolution (which from his own comments he
freely mixes) then let him take the blame.
PM>But I am glad that we have resolved the issue of thermodynamics in
>that it is not violated by evolution in the Darwinian sense.
SJ: I did not say that either. If "evolution in the" cosmic evolution
model sense violates "thermodynamics" then it is inevitably a problem
for "evolution in the Darwinian sense". If there is no cosmic
Wrong. That a big bang might have violated the SLOT (assuming for the
moment that you are correct) does not make it necessarily a problem for
darwinism. Especially since Darwinism does not rely on the cosmic
evolution problem.
SJ: evolutionary principle of order from disorder, and there is a cosmic
physical principle of disorder from order (ie. the second law of
thermodynamics), then how did "evolution in the Darwinian sense" get
started?
How it got started need not be pointing to a problem for evolution. It
merely describes how it evolved. You seem to be under the false impression
that if SLOT is a problem for one aspect that it therefor is a problem for
a subset. This would mean that everything is violating the SLOT since in
the beginning it had to 'get started' Such an assumption is of course
anti-scientific and irrelevant.
>PB>Creationists often do use poor arguments in this area, but...
>thermodynamics does present a problem for chemical evolution.
>SJ>...Indeed it "presents a problem" for any "evolution" before
>there are living systems which have the energy conversion systems
>and coded programs that can convert raw energy into organised
>complexity.
PM>Wrong again. Check your local sky around noon and observe the
>source of the energy. Chemical evolution benifits strongly from its
>presence in our sky.
SJ: The question is not whether there is "energy" but whether there are
"energy conversion systems and coded programs that can convert raw
energy into organised complexity". At present, the photosynthetic
Do there have to be coded programs for this to happen ? Of course not.
Cnversion of raw energy into organised complexity can happen
naturalistically.
SJ: reaction centre, a fantastically complicated system that converts
photons into electrons and then into sugar, is the only mechanism
that can do this. I saw a recent news clip on TV where an
Only if you define organised complexity as living. But you are limiting
yourself to the photons of the sun, ignoring how initially solar energy
could have contributed to increase in complexity of chemicals leading to
this 'fantastically complicated mechanism' of photosynthesis
SJ: electronics engineer had duplicated that with a solar cell and
electronic circuitry. Of course his best effort was probably a
million times bigger than nature's masterpiece. The fact is that no
one has ever published an account of how the photosynthetic reaction
center developed:
That also is incorrect but such accounts leave necessarily for a lot of
speculation. And furthermore you ignore completely once again that the sun
does provide the energy and that photosynthesis is not the only way to
increase complexity.
>SJ>At this highest universal level, the very opposite to "evolution"
>is represented by the second law of thermodynamics in which the true
>"one-way process in time, unitary; continuous; irreversible" is
>*self-destructing*, not "self-transforming".
PM>True but this does not preclude local movements in the opposite
>direction. A common misunderstanding in creationism.
SJ: No. Creationists understand perfectly well that there can be "local
movements in the opposite direction" of the second law of
thermodynamics:
Some do, some don't. If they understand that there can be local motions in
the opposite direction then claims that slot is violated by evolution (in
the common sense of the word) is mistaken.
SJ: "When discussion turns to evolution in the more restricted sense-
biological evolution on the earth-then obviously it is highly
Of course the strawman is to use the word evolution to imply more than
it's common meaning.
SJ: relevant to point out that the earth is not a closed system and that
thus the Second Law by itself does not directly preclude evolution.
But Morris, Gish, Wysong and others admit that, and have for decades,
although not always in a terribly clear manner." (Ratzsch D.L., "The
Battle of Beginnings, 1996, p92)
That's an understatement if any.
PM>And since natural laws as we know them came into existance after
>the big bang and we do not have knowledge about time before it is
>inappropiate to apply these laws to the origin of the cosmos.
SJ: Sorry, but if there is no God, then the "natural laws" must have
existed in some form *before* "the big bang":
that is an assumption which requires more than just an assertion.
>SJ>Evolutionists must claim evolution operates at this highest level
>if evolution is to function for them as a substitute for God.
PM>Evolution and god can coexist peacefully, each in its own realm.
SJ: The fact that you must de-capitalise "God" argues against your
own claim. And since God's "realm" is the entire cosmos, "Evolution"
*is* part of God's "own realm".
Why ? My god prefers to be refered to in lower-case characters. And she
co-exists quite peacefully in her own realm. Sure but in science, god is
not part of the equation and will never be. Nor is any explanation which
requires an active participation of god in the stages of evolution an
explanation which has scientific merrits.
PM>So your assertion what evolutionists must claim is erroneous and
>founded in an incorrect definition of evolution rather than in a
>real problem.
SJ: Granted there are some "evolutionists" (ie. theistic evolutionists)
who do not "claim evolution operates at this highest level" and
therefore "evolution" does not "function for them as a substitute for
God". But otherwise, for non-theistic "Evolutionists", who "claim
evolution operates at this highest level", "for them", "evolution
functions "as a substitute for God".
Assuming that they need a substitute for god. For many evolution is not a
god but a mere naturalistic fact of life.
>SJ>But the second law denies them evolution as an explanatory
>principle at this highest level. That's why evolutionists must
>shift the argument down to lower levels.
PM>On the contrary, evolution is well defined and only creationists
>seem to obfuscate the issue by defining it to mean something it
>isn't.
SJ: I would appreciate then you positng your "well defined" meaning of
"evolution".
Fact of evolution:
Organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors.
Theory of evolution:
Changes have been brought about by a combination of mutations and natural
selection.
SJ: The "correct scientific sense" of the word "evolution" includes
"evolution in a wide sense":
SJ: "Although this article is concerned with biological evolution, it
should be recognized that the concept of evolution is much
broader.... There is also cosmic or inorganic, evolution, and
evolution of human culture. One of the theories advanced by
cosmologists sets the beginning of cosmic evolution between 5 and 10
billion years ago. The origin of life, which started biological
evolution, took place 3 or 4 billion years ago." ( Dobzhansky T.,
Evolution, in 10 Encyclopedia Americana, 1982, p734)
That there are other forms of evolution is not the issue. However in
biology, paleaontology and in common usage alike, evolution has a very
well-defined meaning. Attempts to increase confusion by discussing
evolution in its wider realm and then imply that this shows problems for
evolution (biological) of course are both misleading and incorrect.
PM>Actually it is hardly a problem for the origin of life and neither
>is it a problem for the snowflake. But the latter one is at a
>thermodynamical equilibrium, far from such equilibrium complexity
>and order can increase spontaneously as shown by Prigogine.
SJ: Sorry, Pim, but there is no comparison between the kind of order
found in a "snowflake" and that of a living thing:
Of course not but it shows that order can increase without violating the
SLOT.
As I pointed out however, for evolutionary processes which take place at
far equilibrium, increase in complexity is almost inevitable.
SJL " No nonliving things (except DNA and protein in
living things, human artifacts and written language) have specified
complexity."
I am confused about specified complexity. How does one specify the
complexity ?
And furthermore how does this apply to the SLOT and thermodynamics ? After
all the snowflake example merely shows that the simplistic arguments that
order always decreases is wrong. Of course the example is simplistic since
the processes of interest to evolution do not take place at thermodynamic
equilibrium.
>SJ>"There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success
>in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize
>protein and DNA.
PM>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So this problem
>could be merely temporal. Hardly a brilliant analysis.
SJ: Sorry Pim, "Absence of evidence" *is* "evidence of absence".
Otherwise, what would be "evidence of absence"? The true statement
is: "Absence of evidence is not" *necessarily* "evidence of
absence".
Nit picking.
SJ: But in this particular case, the "merely temporal" "problem"
of "Absence of evidence" has existed for at least 44 years (since the
Miller-Urey experiment of 1953), despite determined efforts by
brilliant minds, using the best technology and enormous resources.
Wow, 44 years... And that is somehow relevant ? How long did it take to
solve the equations of motions close to the speed of light for instance.
Insisting that 44 years somehow is proof is not very convincing.
SJ: Even if science does eventually figure out how life began, it is
unlikely after all this time, to be a simple solution, as
origin-of-life specialist Cairns-Smith points out:
Who is claiming that it will be a simple solution.
SJ: It will therefore turn out to be better evidence for creation than
evolution! This is yet another version of the atheist's nightmare,
that the agnostic astronomer Jastrow considers possible:
Your conclusion is mistaken. There is no such evidence of supernatural
creation within a scientific arena.
SJ: "A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our
Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the
explanation is. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the
Perhaps science cannot find out how the birth of the universe took place
but this does not mean it cannot explain what happened since then.
SJ: moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development,
unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the
word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth...
At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise
the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has
Such however is not proof of the existance or absence of creation. Science
has nothing to say about such creation since it falls far outside the
realm of science.
>SJ>We believe the reason is the large difference in the magnitude
of the configurational entropy work required. Amino acids
PM>So perhaps there are more intermediate steps?
SJ: How exactly would having "more intermediate steps" solve the
"configurational entropy work" problem?
Small steps can take place far more easier than one giant leap. This is
the difference between the probability of specifying one giant leap from a
mix of amino acids to a protein of length 500 for instance and getting the
same protein through intermediate steps.
Regards
Pim