>SJ>There is no doubt that the Second Law of "thermodynamics poses a
>problem for the spontaneous origin of life". Only Intelligent
>Design can resolve that "problem".
PM>Two problems with that. 1) thermodynamics does NOT pose a problem
for the spontaneous origin of life, I thought that such anti-
scientific arguments had died out
SJ: How about some *evidence* Pim? I have cited evidence fron Thaxton et
al, that "thermodynamics" *does* "pose a problem for the spontaneous
origin of life:
No you have shown claims by these people, you have failed to show that
thermodynamics poses a problem. Why would it ? You are confusing an
argument from authority with scientific reasoning.
SJ: "Since the important macromolecules of living systems (DNA, protein,
etc.) are more energy rich than their precursors (amino acids,
heterocyclic bases, phosphates, and sugars), classical
thermodynamics would predict that such macromolecules will not
spontaneously form. Roger Caillois has recently drawn this
Of course perhaps equilibrium thermodynamics does not apply here as much
as far equilibrium thermodynamics.
SJ: conclusion in saying, "Clausius and Darwin cannot both be right."
(Caillois R., "Coherences Adventureuses", Paris: Gallimard, 1976).
This prediction of classical thermodynamics has, however, merely set
the stage for refined efforts to understand life's origin. Harold
Morowitz and others have suggested that the earth is not an isolated
system, since it is open to energy flow from the sun. Nevertheless,
one cannot imply dismiss the problem of the origin of organization
and complexity in biological systems by a vague appeal to
open-system, non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The mechanisms
responsible for the emergence and maintenance of coherent
(organized) states must be defined." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. &
Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992, pp116-117)
Thaxton is wrong. Open systems do allow for a local decrease in entropy
and far equilibrium thermodynamics does lead to increase in complexity.
That Thaxton does not believe this explains the origin of life does not
make good proof that this is actually the case. Perhaps you can tell us
which terms of the 2nd are violated by evolution ? After all the SLOT is
well defined in mathematical and physical terms.
SJ: It is up to you to supply counter-*evidence* to support your view.
It is up to you first to supply evidence that evolution violates the SLOT.
You made the claim, you provide the scientific evidence.
PM>2) the idea that only intelligent design can solve this is also
>faulty. Why would intelligence be able to violate a law of nature?
>Unless of course one assumes that the intelligence acts outside the
>laws of nature reducing it to an argument that cannot be tested in
>science.
SJ: Who said anything about "intelligence" *violating* "a law of nature"?
If Intelligent Design can resolve the "problem" that "thermodynamics
poses" for "the spontaneous origin of life", then that must be
included *inside* "the laws of nature".
That assumes a problem in the first place. If however nature cannot solve
the problem then the designer has to use acts outside the laws of nature
making it untestable.
PM>Either way the statement that the Second Law of thermodynamics
>poses a problem for the spontaneous origin of life in absence of an
>explanation remains an argument by assertion. Given the fact that
>from a scientific point of view there is no such problem this is not
>surprising.
SJ: Pim, *I* have cited *evidence* "from a scientific point of view" for
my claim that "the Second Law of thermodynamics poses a problem for
the spontaneous origin of life". *You* have cited no *evidence*, but
just have relied on "an argument by assertion"!
Steve, you have not cited evidence but cited an assertion without proof.
You merely quoted someone who is unsatisfied with the explanation given by
science. He did not show however that evolution violates the SLOT.
[...]
>SJ>Agreed. Once there is an intelligently designed "machine", then
>the "thermodynamics...barrier" can be overcome.
PM>That is one way of overcoming such a problem but there not the
>only one. The assumption that a machine is necessary as a third
>factor implies a 'designer' were there need not be one.
SJ: Fine. Show how a "machine" can be assembled without "a 'designer'".
Mutation and selective forces for instance.
>SJ>They have been trying to tell us "how" for 44 years - since the
>Miller-Urey experiment in 1953, and indeed long before tbat. The
>long delay indicates that they will *never* now come up with a
>plausible naturalistic explanation. As Cairns-Smith admits "we
>would know by now if there was some much easier way":
PM>Much has happened since the Miller-Urey experiments. I refer for
>example to the research by Fox, Prigogine etc. Your assumption that
>the delay indicates a 'never' merely ignores the significant
>advances made by science in addressing the how. As such science has
>made more progress than the needless assumption that an intelligent
>designer is required.
SJ: This is just naturalistic propaganda. Without unduly disparaging the
work of "Miller-Urey", "Fox, Prigogine etc", a naturalistic solution
to the mystery of life's origin is just as far away as it was in 1871
when Darwin speculated about life beginning in a "warm little pond".
Robert Shapiro admitted as much when he wrote regarding Thaxton, et.
al.'s book:
You are wrong on this. Much work has been performed since 1871 to increase
our understanding of the origin of life.
SJ: Their point of view has been widely disseminated in texts and the
media, and to a large extent, has been accepted by the public. This
new work BRINGS TOGETHER THE MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS THAT
DEMONSTRATE THE INADEQUACY OF CURRENT THEORIES. Although I do not
share the final philosophical conclusion that the authors reach, I
welcome their contribution. It will help to clarify our thinking....
Shapiro merely admits that the current theories still are not complete.
Not that no progress is made.
>SJ>Yes. The only problem for naturalistic evolution is that
>"machinery" must assemble itself, when the Second Law says that
>matter, in the absence of "machinery", tends towards dis-assemble
>itself:
PM>Again this is based upon a simplistic and erroneous understanding
>of the second law of thermodynamics. After all we do know that
>increase in order and complexity is possible. Of course the
>'machinery' in that case is for instance the energy from the sun.
Sorry Pim, but "machinery" is not "energy" any more than a motor
vehicle is the petrol. Thaxton, et. al. use this as an example:
Again you are quoting an irrelevant remark. You claimed that the SLOT
states that in the absence of machinery, matter tends to dis-assemble
itself. Since I identified the machinery which provides entropy increase
and allows a local decrease in entropy and provides energy that the
argument does not hold. The SLOT does not state that the machinery has to
be a 'motor'.
SJ: In the case of living systems such a coupling mechanism channels the
energy along specific chemical pathways to accomplish a very specific type
of work. We therefore conclude that, given the availability of energy and
an appropriate
coupling mechanism, the maintenance of a living system far from
equilibrium presents no thermodynamic problems." (Thaxton C.B.,
Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992,
p124)
So there is no problem, the question remains, could these pathways have
evolved or not. At least there is no problem, so far so good.
>SJ>"The laws of physics-the laws of thermodynamics- also contradict
>evolutionary theory. For according to the experimental results on
>which these laws are based, matter alone tends toward chaos or
>increased entropy.
PM>Of course the matter alone is the reason why this argument fails
>to address the issue. Evolutionary theory 1) does not address
>origin
SJ: This is a common ploy, used by Gould:
SJ: "In an article correcting "Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding," Gould
tried to set the matter straight. Evolution, he wrote,"is not the
study of life's ultimate origin, as a path toward discerning its
deepest meaning." Even the purely scientific aspects of life's first
appearance on earth belong to other divisions of science,
because 'evolution" is merely the study of how life changes once it
is already in existence." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
pp102-103)
Quite correct.
SJ: But this argument is based on a play on words. What it really means
is that *biological* "evolution" does not address "life's ultimate
origin". But this is a truism. Before "life's ultimate origin"
there is by definition no biology. But *pre-biological* (aka
chemical) "Evolution" *is* "the study of life's ultimate origin":
You are incorrect as shown by Gould. Perhaps there was an ultimate origin
in a creator but evolution does not care about this one way or another, it
describes the observations and tries to explain them in a scientific frame.
SJ: "In fact, Justice Scalia used the general term "evolution" exactly as
scientists use it-to include not only biological evolution but also
prebiological or chemical evolution, which seeks to explain how life
first evolved from nonliving chemicals. Biological evolution is just
Argument from (non) authority. That Scalia confused the issue does not
mean that Gould's argument is wrong. On the contrary, evolution in biology
is limited to the evolution of life. That Scalia uses it in a wider
meaning of the word has no relevance.
SJ: one major part of a grand naturalistic project, which seeks to
explain the origin of everything from the Big Bang to the present
without allowing any role to a Creator. If Darwinists are to keep
the Creator out of the picture, they have to provide a naturalistic
explanation for the origin of life." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", 1993, p103)
Wrong. Science does not keep the creator out of the picture, it just
cannot include a creator in any scientific manner and can therefor not
exclude the existance of such. The assumption that darwinists want to keep
the creator out of the picture is based on scientific arguments that
inclusion of such a creator can not be done in a scientific manner. So, as
far as evolution is concerned there is no need for the presence of absence
of a creator. Nor is it required for 'evolutionists' to provide for an
answer to questions they cannot address or which fall outside the realm of
their science.
PM>2) is in no manner contradicted by the laws of thermodynamics.
SJ: In your own words, this is "an argument by assertion", Pim. Please
cite your *evidence*.
It is your turn first to show evidence that the SLOT is violated by
evolution. After all you made the assertion first. Care to try ?
SJ>It does not tend toward autoorganization, even if one irradiates
>it with photon energy.
PM>Again wrong.
SJ: Another "argument by assertion", Pim? Please state *why* it is
"wrong".
Because autoorganization has been observed in many instances under the
effect of purely naturalistic forces. for instance the auto-organization
of crystals but also auto-organization of chemicals when stirred and
heated.
>SJ>Only with the aid of teleonomic energy consuming machines, the
>construction of which require energy and planning, can entropy be
>reduced in matter and order and organization increased.
PM>Again wrong. Prigogine has shown that no 'planning' is required
>for order and organization to increase.
SJ: Please cite *where* "Prigogine has shown" this, *in the context of
the origin of life*, which is what Wilder-Smith is claiming.
What makes the origin of life have a special place in science ? But
perhaps you should read "Aspects of chemical evolution, G. Nicolis,
Advance in chemical physics volume LV, John Wiley & Sons NY 1984)
PM>I wonder why such anti-scientific arguments are still being used.
>The abuse of the second law of thermodynamics to support one's
>arguments either against evolution or in favour of creation indicate
>a lack of real arguments. Is the intent of the 'abusers' to
>encourage total abandonment of their ideas by abuse of science?
SJ: No one is "abusing of the second law of thermodynamics", Pim. And as
for "a lack of real arguments", to date this has characterised *your*
messages on this topic. You cite *no* scientific references, but
just rely on "argument by assertion".
You forget that you have yet to show that evolution violates the SLOT.
Then we can talk about your arguments. Uptil now I am providing as much
evidence for my assertions as you have. But since you made the original
assertion it is up to you to first make a scientific case for your
argument.
>SJ>...Today energy and know-how (information, concept, logos) are
always added.-
PM>Know-how is not required for the miller-urey experiment to
>represent a possible first step in the origin of life. Know-how is
>only required in reconstructing this event and analyzing its
>results. The idea that science adds know-how to a process is
>misleading.
SJ: If "Know-how is...required in reconstructing this event", then there
is no way of showing that "Know-how is" not "required in" the
*original "event". All successful origin-of-life `simulation'
experiements depend for their success on the "crucial but
illegitimate role of the investigator":
Incorrect. They only rely on the role of the investigator to try to
re-create the original circumstances. In their limited experiment they
showed that under certain conditions, amino acids can form from simple
chemicals. That later evidence shows support for their findings is
remarkable given the limited experiments.
You are now claiming that science cannot investigate since it would
interfere and therefor add information to the experiment. This of course
is not true. If the same conditions had existed on a pre-biotic earth the
same would have happened as was observed in the laboratory. In a sense
presence of the investigators decreased the information since it was
limited in its extent to a few chemicals and physical processes. That they
succeeded is remarkable.
>SJ> Why should it have been different at biogenesis if the laws
>governing the autoorganization of matter today have remained
>constant since the origin of matter? Why should matter plus energy
>plus chance have been vital at biogenesis, whereas today matter and
>energy plus know-how are required under the same laws?...Where in
>the history of experimental science does one
PM>No know how is required for biogenesis to happen today, just
>similar circumstances to those existing billion of years ago.
SJ: Every conceivable "similar circumstances to those existing billion
of years ago" has been tried, yet "biogenesis" *does not* "happen
today", except where an intelligent designer intervenes. This means
that all successful abiogenesis experiments are proving Supernatural
Creation, not Naturalistic Chemical Evolution:
There is no evidence in a scientific manner to support supernatural
creation. A failure of experiments to recreate one out of the
billions**billions of possible circumstances does not mean that science
will fail. Your assumption that every conceivable similar circumstance has
been tried is incorrect.
SJ: "The scientific materialists are bending all their efforts to
demonstrate that, if a reaction leading up to life can take place
now, in laboratory reaction vessels, without supernatural aid, then
proof positive has been effectively delivered that no supernatural
agency was needed to produce life at the beginning, at
archebiopoesis. Thus any synthetic, laboratory production of life
Which does not mean that there was no such power, just that it was not
needed.
That is all science can do.
SJ: For all the efforts of the scientific naturalists to prove their
point by the above mentioned method only serve, in fact, to verify
the correctness of the supernaturalist position. For, is it not
true that the scientific materialists are, in their experiment,
applying intelligence and thought to the ordering of matter? Under
the influence of intelligence they are hoping to produce living
matter from its nonliving base. This is precisely the
supernaturalist point of view." (Wilder-Smith, A.E., "The Creation
of Life", 1988, pp.xix-xx)
And this view is incorrect. At most it could show that intelligence could
be needed not that it is necessary and certainly it does not show any need
for supernatural intelligence.
>SJ>Neodarwinism postulates the development through chance and
>autoorganization of the most refined coding system for a machine
>(the cell) ever seen. This cell machine is far more complex than
>any machine ever invented by man.
PM>The argument that DNA is far more complex that any machine
>invented by man is 1) based on subjective arguments
SJ: Wilder-Smith does not say "DNA" but "the cell". Leaving aside
"DNA" for the moment, do you deny that "the cell...is far more
complex than any machine ever invented by man"?
As I said that is a poor scientific argument since it relies on my view
not on objective arguments. Even if this were true this does not show
anything more than our present inability to design.