Continued from part 1
>>SJ>By definition *nothing* can "violate" a law of nature,
>>>otherwise it would not be a *law* of nature.
>DB>This is an interesting statement. It seems that you believe in either
>>the impossibility of miracles or in the absense of laws of nature.
SJ>As I have pointed out before, miracles *don't* "`violate' a law of nature":
<snip extensive SJ quote from C. S. Lewis' "Miracles: A Preliminary
Study," 1963, pp.63-64>
Lewis might claim this, but his argument and illustrations don't support
it in the quote given. Rather, they support the much weaker idea that
once a miracle takes place in some small region of space-time, the
modified situation fits seamlessly into the rest of nature. This is the
idea that the aftermaths of miracles are compatible with natural law
after the miracles occur. But this must certainly be the case if
miracles do indeed happen, since, if it were not the case, then any
occurance of a miracle would have its consequences continue to
supernaturally affect events in nature in an ever-expanding sphere of
causally connected relationships that violate natural law. Once
'ruptured', the laws of nature *must* 'heal' in order for the miracle to
be turned off. I think Lewis sees those miraculous interuptions as
happening in very small scale events, but whose natural consequences
after the miracle turns off as having quite widespread repercussions
compared to what would have happened if the miracle had not occurred. It
looks like he essentially relies on the 'butterfly effect' as amplifying
the natural consequences of a tiny super/extranatural intervention to
significant proportions. This, though, is not same as showing that those
small initial interventions themselves do not violate natural law. It
merely means that any such violations that do occur, if they occur, are
kept quite 'small' on some relevant scale of measure.
<snip discussion about using Giancoli's definition of entropy>
SJ>I rejected David's argument then and I reject it now. Giancoli is a qualified
>physicist like David (if not more qualified) and his textbook is taught at
>university level. His book that I quoted from was its third edition and it
>mentions 40 other physicists who had helped check it for errors. If
>David thinks Giancoli is wrong about the SLOT he should take it up with
>Giancoli.
It doesn't matter whether or not Giancoli is a well qualified physicist.
What matters is whether or not the definition given in a particular
freshman intro level text book is adequate for a reasoned discusion of
the subtle scientific issues involved. It simply happens to be the case
that the definition given in Giancoli's intro textbook is inadequate for
the job at hand. Using it will only create more confusion since it makes
unqualified associations between entropy and disorder without carefully
defining just what kind of disorder is meant. Defining a concept
(entropy) in terms of another undefined concept (disorder) is not much of
a definition. It is more unfortunate than usual in this case because the
unsuspecting person using this definition probably has some prior ideas
about the notion of 'disorder' that will mislead them to a very flawed
understanding of entropy and the 2nd law. This is not a trivial thing.
*Much* of the confusion many people have (especially at the popular
level) about entropy and the 2nd law is due to much too fuzzy and ill-
defined notions about the relevant concepts that lead to more confusion
and errant thinking. One simply ought not use intro-level concepts in an
argument that turns on subtlties that are not addressed or qualified by
those definitions.
I have no desire to correct Giancoli's discussion on this point in his
book. I expect that Giancoli would say that the cure is worse than the
disease since the purpose of the intro level book's discussion is to kind
of give a sort of hand-waving feel for what entropy is about to otherwise
ignorant students. It is not intended to give the hapless freshman
student a thorough understanding of the situation. Such a student is in
no position to to follow the subtlties involved. In physics we usually
tell the students 'lies' (caused by dumbing down the concepts) that they
*can* understand about the actual situation rather than the 'truth' (as
best as its known by practicing scientists) that they *cannot* understand
because they can't yet handle it. Once the students proceed to higher
levels of intellectual maturity and instruction the qualifications and
subtlties can be appreciated and the appropriate nuances and
generalizations can be given once they are capable of being processed by
the student. At each subsequent level we fix the more of 'lies' so the
students get an understanding closer to the 'truth'. A sage physicist
once said about explanations in physics, "Explanations are never
perfectly correct and perfectly clear at the same time. This is
unavoidable because clarity calls for simplifications, while
simplifications, by definition, impose limits on the truthfulness of what
is being explained." I only slightly disagree with this quote. I think
understandable explanations can be correct, but *only* for such phenomena
that are so intrinsically simple that no further simplification is
necessary for understandablity. But there are very few of these
exceptional cases in the real world, however.
SJ>Again, I reject David's claim above. When discussing the relationship
>between *evolution* and the second law of thermodynamics, that level of
>"Order to Disorder" definition is adequate.
No, it is not.
SJ>Here are some quotes from
>university level Biology textbooks which discuss the second law of
>thermodynamics in relation to evolution and use the terms "order" and/or
>"disorder":
<snip multiple SJ quotes of long definitions of entropy from various
intro biology text books>
So Stephen wants to support a definition of a subtle physics concept in
an intro level physics book with similar discussions in intro level
*biology* textbooks. Now, not only are you appealing to an inadequate
low-level physics definition, you are justifying it by an appeal to
authority from equally low-level textbooks whose purpose and focus is
quite outside the very field of physics itself. This is wrong-headed.
You need to look at the deeper level physics literature. I would suggest
any good book on statistical mechanics for starters (maybe Robertson,
Huang, Pathria, Reichel, etc.) for understanding thermodynamic entropy.
I would suggest many of the works of E. T. Jaynes for an understanding of
how thermodynamic entropy relates to other kinds of entropy such as the
Shannonesque info-theory definitions found in the more general area of
Bayesian probability theory, and how the 2nd law fits in.
<snip SJ quote by Huxley>
DB>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.
SJ>Huxley's words convey the impression that "All reality" is "generating
>variety and novelty", ie. generative.
So what? As long as that "all reality" only involved the matter in the
universe, and as long as the "variety", and "novelty", generated occurs
at the macroscopic level then there is no problem with the 2nd law. I
suspect he didn't mean to suggest that the Cosmic microwave background's
entropy was decreasing as the novelties are generated. Not being a
physicist, he probably didn't even think of such a possibility when he
used the term "all reality".
<snip SJ quote by Teilhard>
DB>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.
SJ>Nevertheless, Teilhard de Chardin was a leading evolutionary thinker, who
>was endorsed enthusiastically by two of the co-founders of the neo-
>Darwinian Modern Synthesis, namely Dobzhansky and Julian Huxley.
>
>And it has a "bearing on the issue of whether or not the 2nd law is
>compatible with evolution" at this "at the highest `cosmic (not
>cosmological) evolution' level".
No. Teilhard's quote does not have any bearing on the 2nd law at *any*
level. It's just hot air about some general evolution principle that he
seems to have dreamed up, or at least, be enamored with. It has no
bearing on the 2nd law.
<snip more stuff>
>Second, it is simply a *fact* that in our universe, the universal *general
>direction* is "from order to disorder". This observation, at its most general
>level, is termed "the second law of thermodynamics". That physicists might
>have a more technical defintion of it, does not change that general
>observation.
The technical definition *is* the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the
general direction implied by that law is *not* from "order to disorder"
where these notions are used in an otherwise unqualified sense. Rather,
its a trend that increases the randomness of the distribution of all
possible microscopic states of the universe consistent with its
macroscopic state. Whether "order" or "disorder" goes one way or the
other at the macroscopic level is not a part of or concern of it. In
fact, because of a subtle incompatibility of gravitation (due to its long
range nature, universal attractiveness and nonlinearity) with
thermodynamic equilibrium (because of a lack of a well-defined
thermodynamic limit), the universe as a whole has continued to increase
the macroscopic complexity of its matter as time has gone on. This is
neither a violation, nor a "problem" for the 2nd law. What it is *is* a
problem only for those who wish to imagine the approach to equilibrium
for a system which is as complicated as the universe as a whole in the
same uncomplicated conceptual terms that are relevant when a typical
thermodynamic system of uniform simple molecules (interacting via short-
ranged forces) equilibrates from a state which is not too far from the
equilibrium state (when that equilbrium state is not at a critical
point).
<snip more stuff>
SJ>David removed my quotes around `circumvent'. They were there to
>indicate that of I agree that life does not *really* circumvent the second
>law of thermodynamics but only *appears* to, temporarily.
I didn't notice the quotes. (My later usage of the phrase only had them
because in that case I did a cut & past job on the actual phrase.) So
does this mean that this 2nd law objection of yours is merely based on
appearances rather than what you admit is the actual case? If so, why
are you wasting our time with it? Illusions of problems are not problems.
Actual problems are problems.
> ...
>
SJ>The whole problem with this second law of thermodynamics/evolution
>debate is that evolutionists like David don't try to understand what the
>other side is saying. This is a difficult subject to put into words, and it is
>easy to jump on every apparent inexactitude.
That's another reason to be very careful in your argumentation and for
using precisely defined terms.
What makes you think I'm an evolutionist? I do not consider myself one
if being one means being convinced of all aspects of evolutionary theory
in evolution and abiogenesis. I'm personally *undecided* between the
normal evolutionary theory tied to a theistic Christian theology and
some version of a progressive creationist scenario--not all that unlike
your so-called mediate creationist model. My main problem with the
standard theory is that it seems that there are some organizational and
developmental jumps that seem to have a probability which is much too low
to imagine them happening naturalistically. My problem with it is not
theological. I don't mind imagining God creating things via all the
normal natural processes. In fact, I kind of prefer it intellectually.
Howard van Till's theological argument for it is quite appealing. But
that doesn't make the hard-to-bridge jumps any more imaginable via the
natural processes we know about (e.g. RM&NS among some others). Of
course, not being a biologist, maybe my indecision is an artifact of my
ignorance of the detailed nature of those biological processes, and a
naive physicist's attitude/prejudice that real scientific theories need
to be mathematically formulated with detailed risky quantitative
predictions that fit the facts before they can be thought of as
compelling theories.
What makes you think that I or maybe some others that you call
evolutionists "don't try to understand what the other side is saying"?
I thought I tried to understand it. Maybe you can explain it better if
you think I misunderstand these 2nd law objections. I doubt that you
will be *able* to clearly explain the arguments if you insist on using
imprecise, muddled definitions though.
<snip SJ quote from Simpson & Beck's biology book>
DB>This is true. So what does this have to do with the possibility of
>biological processes violating of the 2nd law?
SJ>See above. I did not say that "biological processes...violat[e]... the 2nd
>law". In fact I said the exact *opposite*.
Then why waste our time with the biology book quote?
SJ>It is clear that David is doing exactly what Ratzsch pointed out in his
>chapter "Creationist Theory: Popular Evolutionist Misunderstandings" was
>"Perhaps the most prevalent of the misconstruals of creationism" (Ratzsch,
>1996, pp.91-92).
>
>That is, David is still working from within his strawman stereotype and
>does not understand (or maybe does not *want* to understand) what
>creationists like me are saying on this subject.
I *have* tried to understand what you are saying. But you do not explain
yourself. You make some claims that might be interpreted in more than
one way and then waste our time with voluminous quotes of dubious
relevance. If you want to be understood, then *carefully* *explain*
*yourself*. Stop hiding behind all those quotes (many of which I think
you may sometimes self-servingly misinterpret). What "strawman
stereotype" do you think I have set up and attacked, and how does it
differ from what you think is your real argument?
>Then having set up his
>strawman and demolished it, David will no doubt proudly announce that he
>has made a "refutation" of my "bogus" argument! :-(
No, I won't. If my arguments do not actually refute your anti-2nd-law-
arguments, and yours are not bogus, I would like to be set straight. I
don't like pseudo-refutations of strawman arguments any more than I think
you do. (Otherwise, anyway rather than publically gloat, I'd rather just
go back to lurking so won't have deal with more such exhausting posts.)
<snip SJ comment and quote from Behe's DBB about the 'photosynthetic
reaction center'>
DB>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.
SJ>See above re David's strawman claim that I "conclude that evolution
>violates the 2nd law". I actually say the *exact opposite*.
So you say you are really arguing that evolution is compatible with the
2nd law? If so, why are you raising these objections and bringing up
the Behe quote, Ratzsch quote, all those other quotes, etc.? Why are you
wasting our time? Just what *are* you arguing? Please be very clear
and specific. And please explain why you didn't just say that in the
first place instead bringing up all the distractions, smoke, mirrors, and
obfuscations.
SJ>I claim that it is beyond the powers of natural processes to *originate*
>"specifications" i.e., "information on how to proceed".
DB>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?
SJ>I thank David for graciously permitting me to "claim this if" I "want"! I
>assure him that until it is shown that "natural processes" can "originate
>`specifications' i.e., `information on how to proceed'" I will continue to
>assume that they can't.
I don't care what you wish to assume. I want to know what you think
this has to do with the 2nd law. If it doesn't have anything to do with
it why are you wasting our time with all this discussion and quotes about
it? It appears that you are just changing the subject. If you are
really just claiming that you wish to assume that natural processes can't
"originate 'specifications'", then why have you again brought in the
thermo arguments and the Ratzsch quote about the misconstruals of the
earth-based arguments (which happen to be bogus) for what actually are
cosmic arguments (which also happen to be bogus).
Anyway, why would you *want* to assume that "natural processes" can't
"originate `specifications'" unless proved otherwise to you? Why make
any assumptions one way or the other? In any event, this is a completely
different topic that ought to have its own thread if it was to be
pursued.
SJ>And because intelligent causes can "originate `specifications' i.e.,
>`information on how to proceed'", I will continue to assume that such
>things were the product of an Intelligent Designer.
Fine. But why can't things be a product of an Intelligent Designer *via*
natural processes? What is so wrong with natural processes "originating
'specifications'" according to the designs of such a Designer that
endowed those processes with those capabilities? I don't follow your
reasoning: 1. You wish to assume that natural laws are not violated--
by definition, no less. 2. You wish to claim that processes working
according to those laws can't "originate `specifications'". 3. (I think)
you believe that such 'specifications' indeed exist. How did they get
here then? Natural processes can't do it (you say), and those processes
are not violated (you say), then how does the Intelligent Designer insert
them into our world? You seem to have closed off all the avenues for the
Designer to act in the natural world. In any case such concerns are far
afield of the scope of our 2nd law discussion here.
<snip some more somewhat repetitious stuff>
SJ>But while David continues to misperceive my creationist position as
>claiming that "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics", I
>consider it as a waste of time trying to discuss it with him.
If you think I "misperceive" your "creationist position", please
straighten me out about what your "creationist position" *is* on the
matter. If you don't think that "evolution violates the second law of
thermodynamics" in either the earth-based or cosmic venues, then why,
pray tell, did you bring up the quotes and bogus arguments, that you now
seem to maybe agree are bogus?
Do you just like to argue for the sake of argument? I have better things
to do with my time than play these games.
>I suggest David read Ratzsch's book on the subject and try to understand
>what creationists are saying on this point.
I'm asking you, Stephen, to coherently explain what *your* position is on
this point (without all the quotes). Your comments seem to get more
muddled with each post on this thread.
David Bowman
David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 29 2000 - 21:48:37 EST