Intelligent Design thermodynamics and information

Article by David Snoke: Spontaneous Appearance of Life and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Spread the love
BioCosmos's Cover Image

Dr. Snoke’s recent article, published in Biocosmos, dives into the important topic of the link between the 2nd law of thermodynamics, information theory, and living systems. He explores the notion of physical law, similar to the 2nd law, that applies to information, and concludes that “there is a fundamental entropy problem with the origin of life.”

It is natural to define information as an extensive physical property similar to heat and entropy. This approach has been used in the physics community for many decades, following the work of Szilard, Landauer, and others.

Information can be defined as the elimination of possibilities. The more possibilities that are eliminated, the more information that is gained.

The Second Law tells us that entropy cannot decrease. Is there an equivalent law for information? Dembski has proposed, as an axiomatic assertion, that information can never spontaneously increase. Can we do better, to create an information principle based on the Second Law?

Living systems are to all intents and purposes equivalent to Maxwell’s demons, in that they are information processors that perform selection processes. We may therefore conclude that there is a fundamental entropy problem with the origin of life.

Article available at Sciendo

6 Replies to “Article by David Snoke: Spontaneous Appearance of Life and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Welcome Eric.

    I enjoyed your recent talk

    Canceled Science: Scientific Discoveries Some Atheists Don’t Want You To See
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA4QutvxX88

  2. 2
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    At the risk of being a nit picker, what was written here is false
    Here is is:

    “The Second Law tells us that entropy cannot decrease.”
    A corollary is: Heat will never flow spontaneously from cold to hot.
    Both statements are untrue.

    First, take gas molecules. Hot ones are moving fast. Cold ones are moving slow.
    Now take a tank of gas, filled with molecules whizzing around, at different speeds, bumpoing into each other. They get all mixed up so everywhere in the tank you got both fast and slow ones, the tank is at the same temperature everywhere.

    But it if you wait long enough, one day the fast ones will be mostly down one end. It will be hot. The slow ones will be down the other end, it will be cold.

    The chances of this happening? If you only got hundreds of molecues, you will get a significant temperature difference seral times a day. If you got a billion molecules, its a zillion years. But not never. If you wait long enough, it will happen.

    Seconds, empirical evidence, deemed credible by billions of people, has shown entropy decreasing. some systems. e.g John 2: 1-12 This is critical, because currently the only credible theory that explains the origin of life and the origin and structure of the universe.

    These two groups of facts give rise to the Second law of Creationist Thermodynamics.
    “Absent Divine intervention, it is hopelessly improbable that a measureable amount of heat will spontaneously flow from cold to hot. ”

    It is my view that, as an example to our Atheist friends, us Creationists should be very precise in our scientific claims. Especially nowadays when we’re in the catbird seat.

    Relevant to this article, one should say:
    It is possible, (although hopelssly improbable) that a significant amount of imformation will spontaneously assemble in the absence of divine intervention.

  3. 3
    EDTA says:

    Read Snoke’s article a few weeks ago. There is one thing that needs to be explained: In his example of the two-chamber system with a trap-door between them, the trap door can work on many different size populations of gas particles. If that is the case, then which population size is used to calculate the upper bound on the probability of the trap door existing?

  4. 4
    EDTA says:

    Frankly, I’m skeptical that the probability of a machine putting a system into a particular state is related to the probability of the machine existing. What I do think he shows is that various machines could be ranked/measured by their abilities to put systems into otherwise low-probability states.

  5. 5
    Nonlin.org says:

    Tlh@2,
    Actually no. Entropy decreasing is never happening. 2nd law is in fact not a statistical law as believed. Abiogenesis is therefore not even possible, however long one wishes to wait.
    See https://nonlin.org/entropy/

  6. 6
    relatd says:

    “spontaneous appearance of life”? Seriously?

    Tell me how it’s done.

Leave a Reply