The Second Law: In Force Everywhere But Nowhere?

_{Barry Arrington

July 13, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I hope our materialist friends will help us with this one.

As I understand their argument, entropy is not an obstacle to blind watchmaker evolution, because entropy applies absolutely only in a “closed system,” and the earth is not a closed system because it receives electromagnetic radiation from space.

Fair enough. But it seems to me that under that definition of “closed system” only the universe as a whole is a closed system, because every particular place in the universe receives energy of some kind from some other place. And if that is so, it seems the materialists have painted themselves into a corner in which they must, to remain logically consistent, assert that entropy applies everywhere but no place in particular, which is absurd.

Now this seems like an obvious objection, and if it were valid the “closed system/open system” argument would have never gained any traction to begin with. So I hope someone will clue me in as to what I am missing.

Comments

I understand their argument, entropy is not an obstacle to blind watchmaker evolution, because entropy applies absolutely only in a “closed system,” and the earth is not a closed system because it receives electromagnetic radiation from space.
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics is not a obstacle to mindless OOL any more than 2nd law of motion by Newton. This was stated by a recognized pioneer of Intelligent Design, Walter Bradley:
“Strictly speaking, the earth is an open system, and thus the Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot be used to preclude a naturalistic origin of life.” Walter Bradley, Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life
But supposing for the sake of argument the 2nd law was a barrier to the Origin of Life in a closed system, the universe being a closed system does not preclude pockets of low entropy, especially in very cold locations. For example, when the universe burns out and the Earth is near absolute zero, its entropy will be correspondingly low. If I put a living rat in bath of liquid helium (near absolute zero), I'll be removing most of its thermodynamic entropy. It will have far less entropy than a living warm rat. Textbook thermodynamics says removing entropy can be lethal! Furthermore, for proteins to have stability, they must maximize their entropy by distributing their energy. The barrier to OOL is NOT reducing entropy, but having just the right fine-tuned amounts, just like fine-tuned temperatures. This subtlety seems lost on both sides of the debate. I'm appalled materialists (like Bill Nye the science guy) didn't understand this either! I've encouraged people who really want to delve into the 2nd law to review my analysis in the link below. I only made one substantial error in that I didn't specify a monoatomic inert gas like xenon, but mistakenly used water, but the basic ideas are correct: Entropy Examples connecting Cluasius, Boltzmann, Dembski From the math, one will note, in order to have an increase of CSI one needs to increase Entropy, not reduce it! And in the case of thermodynamics, a dying person in the cold needs to have his entropy raised (by having his temperature raised)so that he can live. His entropy must be raised, not lowered! There are many barriers to OOL, the 2nd law, imho isn't one of them. Others disagree, but the way I stated it is the way I'd expect chemistry, physics and engineering students who actually do entropy calculations in their homework and exams to analyze these questions. When I related Shannon, Dembski, Boltzmann and Clausius notions of entropy, I thought I demonstrated that entropy must necessarily increase for CSI to increase. Others are welcome to disagree, but those are my computations and I put them on the table for others to refute if my calculations are materially wrong (save my error of not using mono atomic elements, but even then, that is correctable, just use the appropriate constants for the material under consideration). The question for OOL is not lowering entropy, but having the right amounts. In that sense, if universal entropy is increasing, then there will be a finite window of time where life can emerge. That is a real challenge, but not as insurmountable as say evolving the DNA triplet code from random soup of chemicals or evolving homochirality. I criticize OOL, but I not because of the 2nd law. I prefer to argue rote probability just like 500 fair coins heads. It's clearer and unassailable.scordova_{July 13, 2014
July
07
Jul
13
13
2014
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Entropy is defined by mathematical equations. The local reduction in entropy is mathematically modeled by the theory of heat engines. The physicists are not at all confused by this. But sure, when you oversimplify, that can lead to confusion.Neil Rickert_{July 13, 2014
July
07
Jul
13
13
2014
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

And what explains the Sun? The Sun must, sensibly, be more organised (less entropic) than the energy it blasts at the earth ... How did it get that way when entropy works only in the other direction? Where did the "free energy" come from that organised the star? Not only into the massive sources of energy they are, but into the intricate and enormous (100s of millions of lightyears) structures in our universe? And how did the universe achieve this large-scale organisation and energy concentration (i.e. enormous negative entropy) when natural processes all work in the other direction? By definition, the universe is a closed system. The energy to organiseit cannot naturally come from within, nor can it come from without. As for this energy that is constantly being blasted at the earth by the Sun, the word we use for a massive injection of uncontrolled energy is "explosion". Such events, in all our actual experience (you know, that primitive superstition known as observation), are without exception destructive of complex delicate organisation. They do not produce more complex organisations from less, but they reduce complex organisations to less complex arrangements. Life is the most delicate, fragile, complex, arrangement of matter of which we are aware. But explosions, big bangs of uncontrolled energy, seem to be the answer to everything. Instead of the answer the atheist disfavors - "God did it" - is an answer he favors - "Explosions did it". Excuse me is I find this not particularly consistent, let alone unconvincing ...ScuzzaMan_{July 13, 2014
July
07
Jul
13
13
2014
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Natural evolution does not defy the 2nd law because the sun pumps a huge amount of energy into the system.
Or so you've been told. The same people who told you that would also insist that setting a cup of tea out into the sun and coming back in 5 minutes to find that all the tea had gone back into the teabag would not violate the 2nd law, for the same reason.cantor_{July 13, 2014
July
07
Jul
13
13
2014
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Cantor, the operative phrase is "comes close". Natural evolution does not defy the 2nd law because the sun pumps a huge amount of energy into the system.Acartia_bogart_{July 13, 2014
July
07
Jul
13
13
2014
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

the entire solar system comes close to being an isolated system
It's not isolated from cosmic rayscantor_{July 13, 2014
July
07
Jul
13
13
2014
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

the earth is not a closed system because it receives electromagnetic radiation from space
... and cosmic rayscantor_{July 13, 2014
July
07
Jul
13
13
2014
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

"As I understand their argument, entropy is not an obstacle to blind watchmaker evolution, because entropy applies absolutely only in a “closed system,” and the earth is not a closed system because it receives electromagnetic radiation from space." It is more accurate to say an "isolated system" rather than a closed system. The earth cannot be seen as an isolated system because of that fusion reactor that is only 8 light minutes away. But the entire solar system comes close to being an isolated system.Acartia_bogart_{July 13, 2014
July
07
Jul
13
13
2014
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply