We once again return to this series (see links at the end for the rest of the story) discussing the evolutionists’ alleged arguments against creation with
Scientific American’s point number 9 (out of 15…we are over half way done!):
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.
The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.
More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.
Sounds good, right? The creationists are really on the ropes this time, right? Well, you might want to hold off on your bets for evolution. Although not as obvious, Mr. Rennie has once again constructed a straw man by presenting this argument in a way no intelligent creationist would. In so doing, he is merely flailing his arms around in excitement all the while missing the point altogether. In his very first statement regarding snowflakes and the like, this anti-creationist confuses order (repetitive, low information) with complexity (nonrepetitive, high information). This is a critical distinction because it is the source of the information content that is the true issue. Information does not “just happen” in a vacuum, by chance, from nothing…unless you are an evolutionist.
His second paragraph reveals our protagonist’s imprecision with the language of physical chemistry, for it is more usual for those qualified in physical chemistry (Mr. Rennie has a bachelor’s degree in biology, whereas this blog author has a Ph.D. in chemistry majoring in biochemistry; this does not make me right, but it does indicate I might have a greater knowledge of what I’m talking about in this particular arena) to refer to this as an isolated system, and use the term closed system for one where energy but not matter can be exchanged with its surroundings. This might sound like picking at gnats, but it is the evolutionist’s tendency to criticize the creationist for just such faults while ignoring the same in his own arguments. Thus, if it is fair for him to do so us, it is fair for us to do so to him. Oh, and the second sentence in the second paragraph about the conversational use of the word entropy versus the technical meaning of the word, creationists agree with him there and often point it out, so this is not a point for evolution (and is one of the reasons this is a straw man argument – informed creationists simply don’t argue like this).
His third and final paragraph contains what he probably believes to be the coup de grace of his argument, but it contains a fundamental flaw that invalidates it completely. Simply put, energy input is necessary but not sufficient to create complexity from random disorder. Energy is the proverbial bull that, if placed in a china shop, generates a great deal of disorder. But harness that same bull to a plow and the energy is directed into useful work. Similarly, living organisms have machinery to direct the energy from sunlight or food into useful work. However, that machinery presupposes teleology (purpose), which means that the machinery must have had an intelligent source.
The bottomline is, this alleged argument against creationism falls flat on its face, having no validity whatsoever except perhaps in the minds of those already convinced otherwise who do not want to be disturbed by the facts.
First installment
Previous installment
Next installment