Regarding Stephen Jones' request:
>AFAIK it has *never* been pointed out to me, by David or anyone else,
>that "*both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments are completely
>bogus".
>
>Perhaps David would post an excerpt from his, or anyone else's post, on
>this Reflector which pointed this out to me?
Ok. How about this one? On 11 AUG 97 you posted the message:
Subject: Re: Origin of life, thermodynamics 2/2 #2A
Creator: sejones@ibm.net
Message Id: 199708112211.WAA44370(a)out2.ibm.net
Create Date: 08/11/97 17:52:43 (EST)
Received Date: 08/11/97 18:10:36 (EST)
FROM: sejones@ibm.net
TO: evolution@calvin.edu
In this message you quoted from: Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of
Beginnings", 1996, pp91-92 (and made many other quotes by many other
authors as well).
(Unfortunately this post was made then the Calvin archiver was broken
and it never got properly archived, although its sequel: "Re: Origin of
life, thermodynamics 2/2 #2B" *did* get archived at the colostate.edu
archive.)
In my reply of 14 AUG 97 to this post:
Subject: Re: Origin of life, thermodynamics 2/2 #2A
Creator: dbowman@tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us
Message Id: 199708141418.KAA29970(a)tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us
Create Date: 08/14/97 10:18:46 (EST)
Received Date: 08/14/97 10:46:12 (EST)
FROM: dbowman@tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us
TO: evolution@calvin.edu
archived at:
<http://tallship.chm.colostate.edu/archive/evolution/199708/0020.html>
I answered the part about the Ratzsch quote with the following excerpt:
> ...
>
>Steve then quotes from Ratzsch's, "The Battle of Beginnings", which claims
>that some major creationist writers are misunderstood as to which meaning
>of the term 'evolution' they mean when they say that the SLOT precludes
>evolution. They sometimes mean it in a cosmic sense rather than as a
>particular biological theory. If Ratzsch is accurately assessing the
>interpretive situation for writings of major creationists like Morris (and
>I certainly have no reason to doubt him), then that assessment does not
>help the case for their claims any. They are still wrong. Even if the
>universe as a whole is taken as a closed system the SLOT *still* does not
>preclude various *subsystems* of the universe from increasing in
>macroscopic complexity and order *and* from even locally decreasing in
>thermodynamic entropy itself. The only requirement is that the overall
>total entropy increases. For example, stars and planetary systems
>organize themselves out of the gravitational collapse of clouds of gas and
>dust. The entropy of the collapsed state of a fully formed stellar system
>is lower than that of the gas cloud from which it formed. The reason that
>this is allowed is that as the cloud collapses under its own gravitation it
>(adiabatically) heats up and radiates EM radiation into (the lower
>temperature environment of) space. The EM energy radiated away cools the
>system and carrys away entropy with it as the system cools. This cooling
>reduces the entropy of the remaining gas and also allows it to continue to
>collapse. The entropy carried away by the radiation more than compensates
>the entropy decrease of the collapsing gas cloud. ...
Regarding Stephen Jones' other comments:
>The point of me "repeatedly bringing the quote up" include:
>
>1. Evolutionists from time to time repeat this misconstrual, and fail to at
>least distinguishing that there is in fact "*both* the cosmic *and* the
>Earth-based arguments".
The fact is that creationists have made *both* kinds of arguments. Just
because someone brings up one of these two wrong arguments to criticize
does not necessarily mean that that that person misconstrues the other
argument for the one brought up.
>2. I am unaware that anyone on this Reflector, including David, has ever
>pointed out to me that "*both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based
>arguments are completely bogus".
Apparently you forgot. BTW, why did you stipulate "anyone on this
Reflector"? Has this been possibly pointed out to you in some other
venue, too?
>3. Even if I had brought it up before, and David had pointed out to me that
>"*both* the cosmic *and* the Earth-based arguments are completely
>bogus", there are continually new people arriving on this Reflector who
>would not have heard David's `refutation'!
So you have been repeatedly bringing this up in the hopes that I would
repeat my refutation of it for the benefit of any newcomers? How was I
to know that you wanted the refutation repeated everytime you brought up
the Ratzsch quote?
>BTW, I am not a YEC and I do not necessarily agree with some of their
>more simplistic, unqualified assertions that "evolution violates the second
>law of thermodynamics".
Which "simplistic, unqualified assertions" asserting the incompatibility
of the 2nd law and evolution don't you agree with, the earth-based ones
or the cosmic ones?
> By definition *nothing* can "violate" a law of nature,
>otherwise it would not be a *law* of nature.
This is an interesting statement. It seems that you believe in either
the impossibility of miracles or in the absense of laws of nature.
>But before we go any further, I have learned through having long and
>fruitless discussions on this topic, that it is important to define my terms
>since there are many different ways of stating the SLOT:
>
>"We have seen several aspects of the second law of thermodynamics; and the
>different statements of it that we have discussed can be shown to be completely
>equivalent." (Giancoli D.C., "Physics: Principles with Applications," 1991,
>p.400).
As I had mentioned back in AUG 97 it isn't a good idea to rely on
Giancoli (or other elementary level books) in trying to make proper sense
of scientific issues as understood by scientists themselves.
>What *I* mean by "The second law of thermodynamics", is in its most general
>"Order to Disorder" form, as follows:
>
>"15-7 Order to Disorder The concept of entropy, as we have discussed it
>so far, may seem rather abstract. To get a feel for the concept of entropy,
>we can relate it to the concepts of order and disorder. In fact, the entropy
>of a system can be considered a measure of the disorder of the system.
>Then the second law of thermodynamics can be stated simply as: Natural
>processes tend to move toward a state of greater disorder. Second law of
>thermodynamics (general statement)" (Giancoli D.C., "Physics: Principles
>with Applications," [1991, p.402).
This view is unfortunately much too misleading and simplistic for a
reasoned discussion of the issues.
>My personal position on the second law of thermodynamics (as defined
>above) is that:
>
>1. I regard it as a major problem for evolution at the highest "cosmic (not
>cosmological) evolution" level as stated by Julian Huxley and Teilhard de
>Chardin":
>
>"From the condensation of nebulae to the development of the infant in the
>womb, from the formation of the earth as a planet to the making of a
>political decision, they are all processes in time; and they are all interrelated
>as partial processes within the single universal process of reality. All reality,
>in fact, is evolution, in the perfectly proper sense that it is a one-way
>process in time, unitary; continuous; irreversible; self-transforming; and
>generating variety and novelty during its transformations."(Huxley J.,
>"Evolution in Action," [1963,, p.12)
How does pointing out that evolutionary processes are irreversible
violate or be a "major problem" regarding the 2nd law? The 2nd law
itself *is* the law of irreversibility.
>"Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a
>general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must
>bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable
>and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines
>must follow."(Teilhard de Chardin P., "The Phenomenon of Man," 1967,
>p.241)
This is merely Teilhard's overblown hot air. It has no bearing on the
issue of whether or not the 2nd law is compatible with evolution.
>That is, evolutionists cannot appeal to some higher cosmic law of disorder
>to order as some of them have tried to do. The higher cosmic law is from
>order to disorder.
This shows a mistaken view of the 2nd law that is encouraged by sloppy
definitions like those found in Giancoli. This is what happens when
sloppy conceptual connections between entropy and disorder are wrongly
made.
>2. I also regard it as a major problem for the origin of life. Life can only
>temporarily `circumvent' the second law of thermodynamics by some
>special conditions, including "specifications", i.e. "information on how to
>proceed":
"Temporarily circumvent"? What are you saying? The 2nd law is *not*
circumvented by natural processes. The origin of life is not the same
thing as evolution. I, too, think that finding a purely naturalistic
mechanism for OOL is a very hard nut to crack. It seems to me that
the probability for it happening on its own is much too small. But what
does this unsolved problem have to do with it being an actual problem for
the 2nd law though? Just because something happens to have a probability
which is too small for it to happen on its own is no reason to conclude
that its happening is necesarily a violation of the 2nd law.
>"We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the
>biologist by the fact of life's complex organization. We have seen that
>organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest
>for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the
>simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain
>order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor
>maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow
>specifications; it requires information on how to proceed." (Simpson G.G.
>& Beck W.S., "Life: An Introduction to Biology", [1957], 1965, p.467)
This is true. So what does this have to do with the possibility of
biological processes violating of the 2nd law?
>Such special conditions are embodied in the photosynthetic reaction centre
>of plant chloroplasts, and the ATP synthase proton pump. According to Behe,
>there is no detailed explanation in the scientific literature of how the complex
>machinery of the photosynthetic reaction centre could be produced solely
>by unintelligent natural processes:
>
>"In fact, none of the papers published in JME over the entire course of its
>life as a journal has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex
>biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, step-by-step
>Darwinian fashion. Although many scientists ask how sequences can
>change or how chemicals necessary for life might be produced in the
>absence of cells, no one has ever asked in the pages of JME such questions
>as the following: How did the photosynthetic reaction center
>develop?..."(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," 1996, p.176).
So just because Behe and others can't seem to find a Darwinian scenario
for the development of the 'photosynthetic reaction center' you conclude
that evolution violates the 2nd law? This is a non sequitur.
I claim that it is beyond the powers of natural processes to *originate*
"specifications" i.e., "information on how to proceed".
You can claim this if you want. Dembski makes similar claims. I'm not
convinced by such claims. But even granting them though, what does this
have to do with the 2nd law?
>It is therefore my
>scientific hypothesis, subject to falsification, that such special conditions
>which life uses to temporarily `circumvent' the second law of thermodynamics
>(including "specifications", i.e., "information on how to proceed"), had
>to be originally brought into being supernaturally (possibly through natural
>processes and existing materials), by an Intelligent Designer.
Life does *not* "temporarily `circumvent' the second law of
thermodynamics". Where did you get the idea that it did? Life processes
*obey* the 2nd law just as much as nonliving processes do. The issue of
whether or not some complicated thing might form by purely natural
processes, or whether it requires a supernatural assembly by an
Intelligent Designer is not necessarily the same issue as whether or not
its assembly by natural means would constitute a violation of the 2nd
law.
Maybe you would find some of my previous posts to this reflector about
entropy and the 2nd law helpful. Some of these are at:
http://tallship.chm.colostate.edu/archive/evolution/199708/0001.html
http://tallship.chm.colostate.edu/archive/evolution/199708/0020.html
http://tallship.chm.colostate.edu/archive/evolution/199708/0021.html
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199801/0114.html
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199801/0120.html
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199802/0026.html
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199908/0177.html
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199911/0329.html
David Bowman
David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 22 2000 - 00:18:50 EST