Thermodynamics and Intelligent Design

_{William Dembski

March 3, 2006

Intelligent Design}

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

Check out the following online lecture/tutorial by Granville Sewell (Texas A&M) on the connection between thermodynamics and ID: www.math.tamu.edu/~sewell/odes_pdes/thermo.html

Comments

After reading 21 previous comments (mine own included), I have this observation: The arguments against Sewell's arguments seem always to revolve around semantics: --"A highly improbable event would be for energetic water molecules to start sticking to each other in an ordered, symmetric way." (The formation of ice is not improbable.) --"So it sounds like his argument has little to do with thermodynamics, but is rather just a restatement of ID beliefs...." (Thermodynamics and ID theory are not mutually exclusive.) --"Then how would one explain order w/out violating the 2nd Law?" (Big Bang?) --"Now, of course it applies to the entire universe- it is a law, after all. But it refers to closed systems." (Of course!) --"I was sloppy in my last post and used the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“closedÃ¢â‚¬Â when I should have used Ã¢â‚¬Å“isolatedÃ¢â‚¬Â." (Or not.) --"If Sewell is serious about order Ã¢â‚¬Å“walking in through the doorÃ¢â‚¬Â then he displays little understanding of the issues he discusses. Order is produced, not transmitted." (*Sewell* displays little understanding???) --"I thought nobody took the argument of the 2nd law seriously anymore." (Anybody who DOES is *by definition* "nobody", of course.) The opposition to Sewell's demonstration appears to have one foot nailed to the floor, so to speak, which results in a sort of flopping, circular motion.Red Reader_{March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

I don't really get the point of this discussion. I thought nobody took the argument of the 2nd law seriously anymore. Is the idea that the Designer suspends the 2nd law sometimes to allow life to appear? But then it can hardly be called a "law", can it? Apart from that, the 2nd law is a bit weird as a PHYSICAL law anyway in the sense that it doesn't rely at all on properties of matter. I'm not a physicist, but it seems to be it's the mathematical law of large numbers in disguise, a limit theorem. Because it is a limit theorem, there's nothing to prevent finite systems to behave otherwise. Does this make any sense?hanseconomist_{March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

I presented a simple counter-example to this tautology, way back on comment #5, and it still has not been addressed. As heat leaves the boundary of an open system of water molecules, order will increase in the form of ice-crystals. This is an undisputed effect that we have all seen with our own eyes. Yet, it directly contradicts Sewell's "order has to come across the boundary" idea.danb_{March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

An audio/Macromedia Flash video on this by Sewell can be viewed at: http://www.math.tamu.edu/~sewell/odes_pdes/thermo.htmlsahendric_{March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

Eric: The 2nd Law does, in fact, refer to closed (thermodynamically isolated) systems. Denying it won't make it untrue; read my links. Now, it can be applied to the whole universe because it can be regarded a closed system as a whole, but not to everything in it: The Universe is not thermally homogenous- not yet. :) In fact, in the real world, every system other than the whole universe itself can be regarded as an open system. That does not mean that entropy in an open system always decreases, far from it- but it means it can decrease, under a sustained flow of energy. j: If Sewell is serious about order "walking in through the door" then he displays little understanding of the issues he discusses. Order is produced, not transmitted. There is no "orderone", no order-inducing wave or particle; it is that flows in a system. And the self-organizing principles of matter under a transfer of energy are well observed and documented (and the subject of much scientific debate and research) in both Physics and Chemistry.Phed_{March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

The PDF of Sewell's "A Second Look at the Second Law" is located at: http://www.math.tamu.edu/~sewell/odes_pdes/article.pdfj_{March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

valerie: "The sunÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s radiation allows living things on Earth to create pockets of reduced entropy. This is only possible because living things are not isolated systems. The entropy reduction brought about by a growing living thing is more than offset by the increase of entropy in its surroundings." Sewell anticipates this objection: "Anyone who has made [a thermodynamic telic] argument is familiar with the standard reply: the Earth is an open system, and order can increase in an open system, as long as it is 'compensated' somehow by a comparable or greater decrease outside the system... if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable. ...order can increase in an open system, not because the laws of probability are suspended when the door is open, but simply because order may walk in through the door... if all we see entering is radiation and meteorite fragments, it seems clear that what is entering through the boundary cannot explain the increase in order observed here.Ã¢â‚¬Â ___________ A particularly important part of Sewell's overall presentation: "A closer look at equation (5), which holds not only for thermal entropy, but for the 'entropy' associated with any other substance that diffuses, shows that this argument, which goes unchallenged in the scientific literature, is based on a misunderstanding of the second law. ...According to (4), the thermal order in a system can decrease in two different ways, it can be converted to disorder (first integral term) or it can be exported through the boundary (boundary integral term). It can increase in only one way: by importation through the boundary. Similarly, the increase in 'carbon order' in an open system cannot be greater than the carbon order imported through the boundary, and the increase in 'chromium order' cannot be greater than the chromium order imported through the boundary, and so on." This reminded me of the following from Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee (p. 245): "The mix of nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor [in the Earth's atmosphere] is chemically unstable and would never arise on a dead planet. Without life, nitrogen and oxygen in the presence of water would combine to form nitric acid and become a dilute acidic component of the ocean. Earth's peculiar atmosphere is not in chemical equilibrium, and it succeeds in disobeying natural chemical laws only because of the presence of life. The most peculiar aspect of the atmosphere is the abundance of oxygen... It is a highly reactive gas that would exist only at trace levels in the atmosphere of a terrestrial planet devoid of life... The source of atmospheric oxygen is photosynthesis, the miraculous biological process..."j_{March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

Mr Anderson "The whole Ã¢â‚¬Å“Earth is an open systemÃ¢â‚¬Â is a weak (and rather unsophisticated) attempt to sidestep what is in fact a very interesting question: Why is it that life offers a temporary rebuke to the second law, and whence that capability?" I think that a rock that is hot in the sun also is rebuking the second law. Life is just better at it. All I have questions about Intelligent Design theory if you will talk to me about it. If I hear right, ID says that a small part of a sample space can not be found with chance. I think though that if you make the sample space big you will think that a likely event even is impossible. Is this a good question or does everyone know the answer? I think I have found a solution but if it is a silly question then that is not very important. Thank you!worldsoyster_{March 4, 2006
March
03
Mar
4
04
2006
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

Hi Valerie, You wrote, "It is true that there is an infinitesimal chance that the entropy in an isolated system will spontaneously decrease by a noticeable amount, but in systems consisting of large numbers of atoms (cells, animals, continents, planets certainly all qualify) the probability is so tiny that it can be neglected, just as ID supporters correctly disregard the probability of a specified large protein forming spontaneously from a soup of amino acids." (emphasis mine) This is off-topic, but I've been under the impression that you do not support ID. By this statement, however, you seem to suggest that you entertain IDist thoughts concerning abiogenesis. Is this true? I don't want this thread to go off on a tangent; I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind offering a simple clarification of your position in this regard.crandaddy_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

I was sloppy in my last post and used the word "closed" when I should have used "isolated". They have different meanings in the lingo of thermodynamics. An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. A closed system exchanges energy with its surroundings, but not matter. I'm not merely being pedantic -- he distinction is actually crucial in addresssing Eric's response. The second law says that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, but that the entropy of an open or closed system may decrease if the decrease is offset by an equal or greater increase of entropy in the surroundings. The important distinction is between isolated and non-isolated systems, as far as the second law is concerned. Eric Anderson wrote: "Unfortunately, the supposed open-system/closed-system distinction is largely one of arbitrary semantics and definition. To use our favorite example: the earth is supposedly an open system, so the canned argument goes." Eric, Considering the enormous amount of solar radiation received by Earth, and the enormous amount radiated back into space, the Earth is definitely not an isolated system. "Yet one can just as easily play the other side of the semantic game and argue that we should really be considering the Earth-Sun system, which is a closed system..." The Earth-Sun system is not isolated either. The Sun radiates much more energy into space than it receives from other stars and galaxies. "Here is the crux of the matter: The second law doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say that entropy cannot decrease in particular system, open or closed." It does say that entropy cannot decrease in an isolated system. "Rather the second law indicates that entropy will *tend* toward a maximum..." It is true that there is an infinitesimal chance that the entropy in an isolated system will spontaneously decrease by a noticeable amount, but in systems consisting of large numbers of atoms (cells, animals, continents, planets certainly all qualify) the probability is so tiny that it can be neglected, just as ID supporters correctly disregard the probability of a specified large protein forming spontaneously from a soup of amino acids. "or put another way, unless there is a countervailing influence that checks or reduces the entropy. What we see in life around us is a countervailing influence." The sun's radiation allows living things on Earth to create pockets of reduced entropy. This is only possible because living things are not isolated systems. The entropy reduction brought about by a growing living thing is more than offset by the increase of entropy in its surroundings. "In terms of simple heat, averaged out across the entire space of our supposedly open system, it may be simple enough to inject more heat so that the average goes up in the so-called open system." I'm not sure what you're trying to say in that sentence. "You can define the Earth as an open system receiving energy from the Sun, or you can define the Earth-Sun system as closed. You get exactly the same result. The SunÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s energy (or cosmic rays or whatever else one wishes to invoke) hasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the slightest capability of producing the kind of results that are of interest here." Again, both systems are non-isolated. Regarding the Sun's energy, you may believe that it is not capable of causing entropy reduction on Earth, but the second law does not corroborate your belief. By the way, are you the Eric Anderson whose essay on Avida we discussed in the following thread? https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/802 Regards, Valerievalerie_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

Valerie wrote: "ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just that the second law allows entropy to decrease in open systems, but not in closed systems." Unfortunately, the supposed open-system/closed-system distinction is largely one of arbitrary semantics and definition. To use our favorite example: the earth is supposedly an open system, so the canned argument goes. But with reference to what? Why, with reference to the Sun, of course. Yet one can just as easily play the other side of the semantic game and argue that we should really be considering the Earth-Sun system, which is a closed system (and yes, of course, if you take it all the way, you get to the whole universe). Here is the crux of the matter: The second law doesn't say that entropy cannot decrease in particular system, open or closed. Rather the second law indicates that entropy will *tend* toward a maximum, all things being equal, or put another way, unless there is a countervailing influence that checks or reduces the entropy. What we see in life around us is a countervailing influence. In terms of simple heat, averaged out across the entire space of our supposedly open system, it may be simple enough to inject more heat so that the average goes up in the so-called open system. In terms of order, and what we are really interested in here -- complex specified order, however, it makes no difference whether we talk about the Earth being open or closed. You can define the Earth as an open system receiving energy from the Sun, or you can define the Earth-Sun system as closed. You get exactly the same result. The Sun's energy (or cosmic rays or whatever else one wishes to invoke) hasn't the slightest capability of producing the kind of results that are of interest here. The whole "Earth is an open system" is a weak (and rather unsophisticated) attempt to sidestep what is in fact a very interesting question: Why is it that life offers a temporary rebuke to the second law, and whence that capability?Eric Anderson_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

Eric: "What are those classic failings? The principal and oft-repeated assertion I have seen is the assertion that the second law does not apply to open systems, which is nonsense." Er... Not really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics And it's been this way since Clausius first gave its two definitions: http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynamics/a/WhatisThermodyn.htm Now, of course it applies to the entire universe- it is a law, after all. But it refers to closed systems. Interesting irrelevant point: There is a 4th Law, actually. It's called Zeroth Law for some reason.Phed_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Eric, It's not that the second law doesn't apply to open systems. It does. It's just that the second law allows entropy to decrease in open systems, but not in closed systems.valerie_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Nonsense???? Then how would one explain order w/out violating the 2nd Law?ftrp11_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

ftrp11 wrote: "I think the probability angle makes for the best 2nd Law argument that I have heard, but it really does not address the classic failings of such arguments." What are those classic failings? The principal and oft-repeated assertion I have seen is the assertion that the second law does not apply to open systems, which is nonsense. I would be interested to hear about specific failings of 2nd law arguments.Eric Anderson_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

ftrp11 wrote: "According to his line of reasoning I would have to conclude that the formation of everything from the initial atoms to galaxies, stars, and planetary systems is equally a concievable violation of the 2nd Law." --This is an EXCELLENT OBSERVATION and exactly correct. --That the existence of the material universe is a violation of the 2nd Law is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the logical inference we make from what we have learned from the development of the Big Bang theory--the origens of the material universe cannot have had a material origin. Bingo, ftrp11! "Everywhere we look in the universe we see thermal order that, by the argument's reasoning, should not be there."Red Reader_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

So it sounds like his argument has little to do with thermodynamics, but is rather just a restatement of ID beliefs---that NS+RM is extremely unlikely to have produced the complexity and diversity we see. There certainly doesn't seem to be a claim that any physical laws are violated.physicist_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

It's presented well, but it is a fallacious tautology he presents. Here is a simple counter-example: A highly improbable event would be for energetic water molecules to start sticking to each other in an ordered, symmetric way. Yet, it is made more probable by simply reducing the temperature of the system. (Frost in your fridge.) Heat leaving the boundry of this open system is how this is possible. How does his tautology explain such an event? By the way: what is the 4th Law of Thermo?danb_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Pretty impressive. Usually I don't care for that argument, but he presented it well.Teddy_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

According to his line of reasoning I would have to conclude that the formation of everything from the initial atoms to galaxies, stars, and planetary systems is equally a concievable violation of the 2nd Law. Granted that the information in life is more complex and potentially less probable, but the principle is the same. Everywhere we look in the universe we see thermal order that, by the arguments reasoning, should not be there. I think the probability angle makes for the best 2nd Law argument that I have heard, but it really does not address the classic failings of such arguments.ftrp11_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Wow! Great example of the beauty of simplicity!jacktone_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

The article is extremely informative. Sewell points out IDists are on the whole uncomforatable with the old creationist arguments from the 2nd law. I certainly am. Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen used an innovative approach by combining thermal entropy with configurational entropy to make a 2nd law-like argument, but I found it rather inelegant. I think the idea of a 4th law clarifies the issue better.... Sewell makes the point there is an underlying principle to the 2nd law (probability). I do feel comfortable with that. I think (and I could be wrong), that the laws of probability underlie both the 2nd and 4th law. Thus his point (as I see it) is evolution is in violation of principles even more fundamental than the second law. All in all, a wonderful link! Salvadorscordova_{March 3, 2006
March
03
Mar
3
03
2006
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply