The Second Law of Thermodynamics
(686 total words in this text)
(1302 Reads)
by William MacPherson
One of Creationism's favorite canards is that Evolution can't be true
because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A full refutation
of this moonshine would have an extremely soporific effect on the general
reader and could even put a scientist to sleep. Within my understanding
of Thermodynamics, I will attempt to explain the argument in as straightforward
and intelligible a manner as possible. Most of the engineers I know, when
they first heard this argument, scratched their heads and said "Huh?
Evolution and thermodynamics don't have anything to do with each other"
And they don't, but you can judge for yourself.
In layman's terms, thermodynamics states that when a hot body is brought
into thermal contact with a cold body, the hot body cools and the cold body
warms up. The same is true of pressure. A gas will always migrate from an
area of high pressure to one of low pressure. (You can feel the effects
of that in Albuquerque when there is a high pressure system on the other
side of the mountains and a low to the west. The winds through the mountain
passes at these times are a marvel to behold.) The Second Law states that
whenever two systems are not in thermodynamic equilibrium, work can be produced.
If the systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium, no work can be done. The
Second Law tells us how to calculate the theoretical efficiency of a heat
engine. Finally, and this may seem obvious, but it is impossible to merely
extract heat from a source and produce work, you must have a reservoir that
is colder than the source into which to expel heat.
The Second Law leads us to the concept of entropy. Entropy is defined
as the amount of heat entering or leaving a body reversibly, divided by
the body's absolute temperature (Kelvin Scale.) If heat enters a body, entropy
is positive, if it leaves entropy is negative. It is the Creationist view
that entropy is always positive. Positive entropy equates to greater disorder
in a closed irreversible system. For instance, if salt is dropped into a
glass of water, the structure of the salt crystals will dissolve and the
salt molecules will become more disordered. No amount of waiting will suffice
to have the salt dissociate itself from the water. Therefore, say Creationists,
Evolution is impossible because it says that life forms have increased in
complexity over time when it is the natural order of things for complexity
to decrease and disorder to increase. The Creationists claim that before
the "Fall" God kept entropy at bay and disorder did not increase
with time. After the fall everything started to age. Rather imaginative,
don't you think?
This bit of pseudoscience is refuted by the facts. First of all entropy
only increases irreversibly in a closed system. The Universe as a whole
is a closed system for there is neither a source from which energy can be
introduced nor a sink into which energy can be expelled. The Earth, on the
other hand is an open system, and receives energy constantly from the sun
and produces abundant energy from its molten core. It likewise expels heat
out into space. Entropy is constantly being reversed all the time here on
Earth. The refrigeration cycle is a good example of negative entropy, a
tray of ice cubes is order itself, the formation of snowflakes is another.
While I'm not sure of the exact Thermodynamic processes involved in the
development of a single celled zygote into a human baby, you can be sure
that the end result is more complex than the starting point and represents
a definite decrease in entropy. If you put the above mentioned glass of
water in front of a window and let the Sun shine on it, the water would
eventually evaporate leaving the salt once more in a solid condition. If
this didn't happen rain would be salty.
Creationists are not satisfied that religion holds the preeminent spot
in the world in discussion of morals and ethics. For the Creationist the
Bible must be literally true if the moral message is true. This is very
unfortunate since it leads them to stretch scientific facts to the breaking
point and invent fanciful "Theories" to try to reconcile the Bible
with the real world. Most mainstream religions have come to the conclusion
long ago that the Bible stories are meant to convey lessons and are not
to be taken literally.
Home Page 
Member Stories 
Search CESE 
Message Board 
Comments
I’m 19 years old, so sorry if my comment doesn’t sound as educated as your article did. After reading your article, I feel the same way I did after I read “Angels and demons” by Dan Brown. I can understand your argument but I don’t agree. I would like to know, how you think the universe really did begin? If the Bible isn’t correct, what’s the answer? I think about how the earth is a perfect distance from the sun, we’re not too close or too far. The earth has a moon that is the perfect size and affects the earths tides just right. The odds that we got here any other way than how the Bible puts it are very unreasonable. Eternity is a big reason why people should get this topic straight. God is all about forgiveness and is more than willing to give people a second chance.
Highly improbable? What evidence and data do you base that assumption on? How do you know that life could not come about under different conditions than those found on earth? How do you know that life isn't possible without tides? Your arguments (which sound as though they are straight out of Privileged Planet) leave many questions that must be addressed for your conclusion of "How it's described in the Bible is how it is" to be supported. The arguments that you have put fourth are what we call a false dichotomy or a false dilemma. I have a problem accepting a book that has two distinct and conflicting stories on how the earth got here (Genesis I and II are two different stories) as anything other than allegory.
Furthermore, we have already discovered a planet circling around another star in what would be the right distance for liquid water to exist, just as the Earth. The premise of "We're special, so Genesis is how it happened" is flawed because of this.
Unfortunately, Elijah's comments highlight the poor level of science education we have here in the U.S. His questions are good ones, and he can certainly find adequate answers to them through reading, but he's forced to do this himself, with religion providing only obstacles. But at least he's asking; that's more than the vast majority of our youth do today.
Ok so even if the earth is a closed system the 2nd law still makes continual existence of the universe impossible. If something has been here forever then it must maintain a constant state. If it were to exhibit changes such as losing USABLE energy therefore it must have a beginning and an end or it wouldn't have any energy left. Therefore for evolution to be true science must rid itself of the first law of thermodynamics which roughly states that energy cannot be made. So if there has to be a start then the first law isn't true. So you are left with a universe that had a start, but it didn't have a creator. Therefore something had to come out of nothing. Out of darkness came light and out of non-life arose life. Evolutionists have an extrordinary amount of faith, I would commend them for this yet theirs is a blind faith. "Without truth, there is only manipulation." - Os Guiness
Wow! No one has replied or put up a comment in a long time. So I decided to add what I've learned. This is what I've heard of one way of explaining the 2nd law of thermodynamics so people would understand it better and why the universe can not be infinite or eternal.
You put a cup of ice water on a table and with time it will melt. You put a cup of hot water on a table and with time it will cool down. Both will eventually be at the same temperature. If I saw either one on a table and depending on how long they've been sitting there I will know if it's been a long time or a short time but I may not have an exact number of how long it's been sitting there. Just either short or long. How it relates to the universe is this. The cup of ice water; comets. They're just a ball of ice. The cup of hot water; stars. They're just balls of fire. So in the same way with time comets and stars will eventually disenigrate (i don't think i spelled this write). Be no more. Stars will cease to burn and comets will cease to be solid, melt. The universe can not be infinite or eternal because we still have stars and comets out there. Even if the universe is millions or billions of years old it still flawed cause stars and comets won't take that long to fade. I don't recall exactly how long it'll take for them for fade away, but studies on them by scientists show they will fade and it doesn't take billons of years. There should be no more stars and comets out there if the universe has always existed.
Here's something else to think about. "Some atheists claim that if God can be infinite, then the universe can also be without beginning. The illogical presumption here is that "the universe has an intelligence in and of itself," because intelligence is required to carry out the order we call creation. If that is correct, the only logical conclusion would be that the universe somehow has the ability to think and to create from nothing...but then we would be describing God. So, in essence, atheists are presuming the universe is God. That can only cause us to conclude the obvious: they are quite willing to accept that there is some kind of "God" (creative intelligence), but just don't like the God of the Bible-or any God who has a moral code and condemns those who violate it." -How to Know God Exists Scientific Proof of God by Ray Comfort.
Here's another one. Atheist -Someone who believes nothing made everything. A scientific impossibility!
Hope all this makes sense.
Wow! No one has replied or put up a comment in a long time. So I decided to add what I've learned. This is what I've heard of one way of explaining the 2nd law of thermodynamics so people would understand it better and why the universe can not be infinite or eternal.
You put a cup of ice water on a table and with time it will melt. You put a cup of hot water on a table and with time it will cool down. Both will eventually be at the same temperature. If I saw either one on a table and depending on how long they've been sitting there I will know if it's been a long time or a short time but I may not have an exact number of how long it's been sitting there. Just either short or long. How it relates to the universe is this. The cup of ice water; comets. They're just a ball of ice. The cup of hot water; stars. They're just balls of fire. So in the same way with time comets and stars will eventually disenigrate (i don't think i spelled this write). Be no more. Stars will cease to burn and comets will cease to be solid, melt. The universe can not be infinite or eternal because we still have stars and comets out there. Even if the universe is millions or billions of years old it still flawed cause stars and comets won't take that long to fade. I don't recall exactly how long it'll take for them for fade away, but studies on them by scientists show they will fade and it doesn't take billons of years. There should be no more stars and comets out there if the universe has always existed.
Here's something else to think about. "Some atheists claim that if God can be infinite, then the universe can also be without beginning. The illogical presumption here is that "the universe has an intelligence in and of itself," because intelligence is required to carry out the order we call creation. If that is correct, the only logical conclusion would be that the universe somehow has the ability to think and to create from nothing...but then we would be describing God. So, in essence, atheists are presuming the universe is God. That can only cause us to conclude the obvious: they are quite willing to accept that there is some kind of "God" (creative intelligence), but just don't like the God of the Bible-or any God who has a moral code and condemns those who violate it." -How to Know God Exists Scientific Proof of God by Ray Comfort.
Here's another one. Atheist -Someone who believes nothing made everything. A scientific impossibility!
Hope all this makes sense.