Darwin in Trouble: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Law Office of 2nd Thermodynamics

Many evolutionists assume that adding energy (open system) will

overcome the second law of thermodynamics.   The following is an

excelent response to that position.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Answers to Critics

by Jonathan Sarfati

‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.

‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’
Answer 1:

The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

usable energy is running out

information tends to get scrambled

order tends towards disorder

a random jumble won’t organize itself

It also depends on the type of system:

An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.

A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.

An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.1

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

References and notes

1 John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics Institute for Creation Research, 1993.

Advertisements

REAL Scientists Who Believe in Creationism: Do They Exist?

There go them country bumpkins again!

One of the biggest fallacies promoted by devoted Darwinian evolutionists is that Intelligent Design is not real science, and that those who promote it are not real scientists. Creationists are portrayed as uneducated country bumpkins committed to taking the world back to horse and buggy days. Technology has fought God, and technology won. Man does not need God, because he controls his own destiny, so say Darwin’s disciples. Need further proof? Google Intelligent Design and click on the images link. The first three pages are primarily funny cartoons devoted to the ridicule of Intelligent Design and its followers. Powerfully funny, except also very false.
There are many scientists today that reject Darwinian evolution and embrace Intelligent Design. Additionally, there is a rich history of scientists who believed in a Creator. As a matter of fact, every major branch of science that we have today can trace its history back to founders that embraced the notion of a Creator. Indeed, history demonstrates that science has flourished the most in societies that believed in a Creator.
The following list contains many creationist scientists, but it is in no way exhaustive. You may notice the presence of many famous ones who were founders:

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)

Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)

Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)

Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)

Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)

Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)

Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)

Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)

Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

John Grebe (chemist)

Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

George F. Howe (botanist)

D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)

James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)

Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)

Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)

Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

Frank L. Marsh (biologist)

Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)

Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)

William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)

Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)

A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

For more information, click here:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

For even more extensive lists, click here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

That’s a lot of impressive credentials in my book.

Darwinian Evolution: A Religion in Disguise

 How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?

Two case studies

by Don Batten and Jonathan Sarfati
1) USA’s so-called ‘National Center for Science Education’

In NCSE Reports 15(2):9, 1995, the Executive director, Eugenie C. Scott, protests against Dr. John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research saying the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is ‘an offshoot of the American Humanist Association’. Scott claims confusion could possibly be due to NCSE’s journal, Creation/Evolution, being started by the American Humanist Association (AHA) and initially edited by the executive director of the AHA, Frederick Edwords (a philosopher, not a scientist). The journal ‘was later sold by AHA to NCSE’, says Scott.

Although humanism is an atheistic religious belief, Scott claims that NCSE was intended from the start to ‘be a religiously-neutral organization focusing on science and education’. Scott says that NCSE has members from all sorts of religious persuasions, including ‘conservative evangelical Christians’. NCSE is supposedly just interested in ‘science education’. However, it seems strange that the only ‘science education’ NCSE seems interested in is evolution; not chemistry, physics, astronomy, or even experimental biology. ‘Science’ seems to be a euphemism for ‘evolution’, certainly nothing to do with the operational science that put men on the moon, cured diseases, etc.

In NCSE Reports 16(1):7, 1996, readers are directed to an article ‘on our web site at http://www.csicop.org’. This is the Skeptics’ (USA) web site, the ‘Science and Reason Site’, as the Skeptics claim, which overtly espouses materialism (atheism) with direct links to the Council for Secular Humanism and other atheistic / anti-Christian sites. Not surprising, since the Skeptics and Council for Secular Humanism share the same headquarters, the Center for Inquiry, at Amherst, NY. There is nothing ‘religiously neutral’ about this web site. There are no links to Christian Answers Net, for example, or any other conservative Christian web site to give balance. And in NCSE Reports 17(2):25, 1997, they advertise a self-named ‘Internet Infidels’ site, run by a man who has edited and contributed to a book of people who have apostatised from Biblical Christianity. No, the NCSE and its bedfellows, the AHA and the Skeptics, have one agenda: materialism /secularism /atheism.

It is good tactics to recruit ‘religious’ people to the cause of spreading the word that ‘everything made itself’. Humanists know that if they succeed with their agenda of indoctrinating young people with the foundational beliefs of atheism (everything made itself by natural processes; there is no need for God) that rejection of Biblical Christianity will logically follow. That’s why the AHA started the Creation/Evolution journal—to promote evolution, because it is the basis of atheism. And the NCSE are carrying on the work under the guise of religious neutrality.

Atheists such as Eugenie Scott, who is the Executive Director of the NCSE, know that if a materialistic framework of thinking can be established in young people through the education system, then Christianity will not stand. No wonder the American Humanist Association recently presented Scott with a major award (see article).

Atheism has evolution (everything made itself) as its logical foundation. Christianity has creation as its logical foundation. Christianity with evolution as its foundation will collapse. Atheist Frank Zindler said,

‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.’ (Frank Zindler, in a debate with William Lane Craig, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996).

How then can indoctrination in evolution be ‘religiously-neutral’?

NCSE’s underlying attitude was undoubtedly summarised by Michael Shermer (himself a self-confessed apostate) of the Skeptics Society (USA):

‘It is important to note that Skeptics and scientists have no quarrel with genuinely religious people and their religious organisations who make no claims of scientific proof for their religious beliefs’ (in the preface to 25 creationists’ arguments and 25 evolutionists’ answers, The Skeptics Society, 1994).

In other words, you can ‘believe’ whatever you like, as long as you don’t claim your beliefs have any basis in objective reality—that there is tangible evidence for what you believe that can challenge others to believe also. As long as ‘religious’ people keep it in their churches and in their heads, the Skeptics and the NCSE will leave them alone, because such a faith will die with the next generation.

If NCSE openly opposed ‘religion’ (i.e. Christian faith), it would result in a public backlash against the NCSE and would thwart its aims—hence the pretence of ‘religious neutrality’. How can materialism / naturalism (God has nothing to do with the real world; there is no tangible evidence for his existence) be religiously neutral?

How can anything be ‘religiously neutral’ anyway? Jesus said we are either for Him or against Him—there is no ‘neutral’ position (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23). The NCSE is vehemently opposed to Christians who believe the Biblical account of history, from the beginning. Is that ‘religiously neutral’?

It would be interesting to know which ‘conservative evangelical Christians’ are members (and therefore financial supporters) of the NCSE, as Scott claims there are. Surely any person described as a ‘conservative evangelical Christian’ would believe that the Bible is the revealed Word of God? How could such a person be allied with atheists? The Bible itself says

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? (2 Cor 6:14–15)

The list of ‘Supporters’ of the NCSE (eg. NCSE Reports 16(4), back cover) almost reads like a ‘Who’s Who’ of American atheism—names such as Gould, Eldredge, Jukes, Johanson, Sagan and Dalrymple, for example. Also, a frequent contributor to the NCSE Reports is one Molleen Matsumara, ‘National Program Director’ of NCSE, who is a signatory to Humanist Manifesto 2000. This evolutionary indoctrination campaign is dear to the heart of atheists because it is proselytising for atheism! Surely any Christian would wonder about associating with these people in their passionate campaign to see people indoctrinated with evolution?
2) The Australian Skeptics

In the Australian Christian weekly newspaper New Life, Barry Williams of the Australian Skeptics took offence at the claim by the New Life columnist ‘O Nesimus’ that his organisation is anti-God. Like Scott, Williams claimed that there were many members who were Christians, so O Nesimus could not be right.

However, O Nesimus’ comments are understandable. The Skeptics’ membership lists from around the world read like a ‘Who’s Who’ of atheists and humanists. The original American organisation was founded by the aggressively atheistic philosopher Paul Kurtz. The link of the American Skeptics (or ‘Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal’—CSICOP) with the Council for Secular Humanism is so strong that they actually share headquarters, as shown above.

Ironically, a common false charge against the Australian-founded Answers in Genesis is that it is ‘American based’, yet the Australian Skeptics [sic] have adopted the American spelling, although the usual Australian spelling is ‘sceptic’. The Australian Skeptics have been at the forefront of promoting Richard Dawkins, who openly proclaims his evolutionism as an apologetic for atheism—see refutations of Dawkins’ books: The Blind Watchmaker, River out of Eden and Climbing Mount Improbable.

They also ardently promote the scurrilous and demonstrably false accusations against Bible-believing creationists by Ian Plimer, Australian Humanist of the Year (1995)—see Refutation by Independent Committee. His book lampooned Scripture, and claimed that belief in life after death is evidence that people have not been taught how to think. And despite the Skeptics’ professed support of good science, they were unable (or unwilling) to point out the crass scientific blunders in Plimer’s book—see Plimer’s Bloopers for a sample.

Their journal, The Skeptic, often has stridently anti-Christian articles. One of many examples is ‘Religion as a Health Hazard’, singling out Christianity for derision (Vol. 17, no. 3, 1997, p. 60) by one John Stear. Stear is well-known for stridently anti-Christian articles and spirited defenses of humanism, and is now the webmaster of a skeptical site named No Answers in Genesis, which again feigns neutrality towards religion. Or in the same issue of The Skeptic, ‘Biblical Cosmography’ (pp. 28–32) regurgitating the discredited canard that the Bible and most church fathers taught a flat earth—see Flat earth myth revisited for a refutation. In vol. 15 no. 4, 1995, pp. 16–21, H.L. Mencken’s diatribe against Christianity is cited at length, and with relish.

Williams himself points out that they are sceptical of paranormal claims, and if creation by God and the Resurrection of Christ are not paranormal, I don’t know what to call them! No, Williams has made it abundantly clear in his writings that he doesn’t mind Christians, as long as they don’t claim their belief has something to do with the real world. He doesn’t mind faith, as long as the faithful don’t claim it’s supported by any hard evidence.
Conclusion

The agenda of the NCSE and the Australian Skeptics is to see everyone taught that ‘evolution’ explains the origins of everything, so ‘God’ is unnecessary in this ‘scientific’ view. This totally contradicts the clear teaching of the Bible that God is clearly revealed in what He has created. The Bible says:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Rom 1:20).

God is made invisible by the teaching of evolution. That’s why atheists are so enthusiastic about evolution!

If there are any real (i.e. Bible-believing) Christians supporting the NCSE or Australian Skeptics, they should heed the command of God:

‘Therefore come out from them and be separate’, says the Lord (2 Cor 6:17).

Finally, the best antidote against occultism, superstition and charlatanism is not godless skepticism, but Biblical Christianity. A survey published in the Skeptical Enquirer (Summer 1980, pp. 18–31) showed that Bible believers were the ones:

‘who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today.’
This blog entry is brought to you by answersingenesis.org, an excellent website I highly recommend to everybody.  A link is fond in the blogroll.