[...]
>A scientist wrote to Phillip E. Johnson:
>
>>I have heard many times from creationists that evolution necessarily
violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is absolutely incorrect.
Perhaps I am telling something you know already; if so, you should correct
people like [two well-known creationists] so that they stop making this
incorrect assertion. I feel that creationists who are expounding this
falsehood are doing a real disservice, not only to their cause, but to the
community to whom they are preaching by dumbing down science understanding in
this country.
>
>Prof. Johnson replied:
>
>Thanks for your comments. I would say that references to the Second Law in
this context should be understood as a colloquial way of speaking about a
genuine issue, certainly not a "falsehood." People who invoke the Second Law
are making a rational point, even if they do not express it in a precisely
accurate manner.
>>Richard Wein: If creationist/ID references to the Second Law are a
colloquial way of speaking about a genuine issue, then what's the genuine
issue? Is there not one creationist/IDer who is capable of expressing the
argument in a precisely accurate manner?
DNAunion: I think the following, from a taped interview, is pretty accurate.
[quote]“I think that the second law of thermodynamics does have some
relevancy to the origin of life problem. But I do think that you have to be
very careful in describing the way in which it is relevant to the origin of
life. The Second Law says that an isolated physical system, one that is not
exchanging matter or energy with its outside surroundings, will in every
change that it undergoes, tend to go to a state of greater disorder (or
greater entropy) and at the same time the free energy (or the useable energy)
is declining. The chemical evolution hypothesis about the origin of life on
the surface of the primitive Earth, when you first look at it, seems to be
sharply against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, going from a relatively
chaotic state of the primitive gasses in the primitive atmosphere to these
highly organized and complex molecular systems that are living cells. But
you can point out, though, that the surface of the Earth is an open system
and it is receiving high grade energy from t
he Sun. So you could maintain that just so long as the decrease in entropy
on the surface of the Earth is compensated for by an equal or greater
increase in entropy in the total system – Earth plus Sun – that
it is conceivable that chemical evolution does not “violate” the
Second Law of thermodynamics. The problem I have with that is that we have
no empirical indication as to how an energy capture system (i.e., a primitive
photosynthesis mechanism) could have originated by purely natural means: and
then, of course, we have no indication in the experimental data as to how a
genetic system, a gene which would direct chemistry against the tendency that
the Second Law imposes on matter toward greater disorder [could have arisen
by purely natural means]. In the absence of those two lines of evidence, I
am going to suspend judgment about whether or not the origin of life
“violates” the Second Law.” (Focus on the Origin of Life,
An Interview with Dean H. Kenyon, Profess
or of Biology, San Francisco State University, 1994, VHS Tape from Access
Research Network, http://www.arn.org)
This is closer to my position relating to entropy. Neither the maintenance
of preexisting life nor the evolution of preexisting life are the real
issues: these can be explained by relying on the highly-complex preexisting
biochemistry of cells (but *still* require the continual struggle against the
natural tendency of entropy to increase, and for reactions to reach
equilibrium).
The origin of life is different, as there were then no preexisting closed
metabolic cycles, no specified complex information as found in genomes, and
no complex enzymes. How did pools of simple, random, organic molecules,
operated upon by undirected and uncontrollable energy sources only, become so
ordered, complex, and *organized* to produce the first cells?
Experience shows us that the natural tendency IS away from the complex and
organized state associated with cells.
First, let's start from the building blocks and see if we get life. Take a
single bacterium and rupture its cell wall and plasma membrabe so that its
contents leak out, but remain confined to the area immediately surrounding
the bacterium. Those INTACT, PREEXISTING ENZYMES, DNA, RIBOSOMES,
MITOCHONDRIA, ETC will *NOT* reform a functioning cell. And the starting
point just mentioned is far, far above the level of organization that OOL
researchers have achieved (no prebiotically plausible mechanisms for the
generation of enzymes, DNA, ribosomes, mitochondria, etc.).
Second, let's start with life and see what happens. Take a fully-functioning
bacterium and take away its food source. The natural tendency for disorder
(entropy) to increase - no longer being opposed by the bacterium due to no
more flow of matter and energy through the cell - will cause its
highly-organized state to disintegrate.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 27 2000 - 11:53:56 EDT