_001.jpg)
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is accepted as one
of the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all systems
left on their own tend to become disordered, dispersed, and corrupted in direct
relation to the amount of time that passes. Everything, whether living or
not, wears out, deteriorates, decays, disintegrates, and is destroyed.
This is the absolute end that all beings will face one way or another, and
according to the law, the process cannot be avoided.
This is something that all of us have observed. For
example if you take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly
expect to find it in a better condition when you came back years later.
On the contrary, you would see that its tires had gone flat, its windows had
been broken, its chassis had rusted, and its engine had stopped working.
The same inevitable process holds true for living things.
The second law of thermodynamics is the means by which this
natural process is defined, with physical equations and calculations.
This famous law of physics is also known as the “law of
entropy.” In physics, entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system.
A system’s entropy increases as it moves from an ordered, organized, and
planned state towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned one.
The more disorder there is in a system, the higher its entropy is. The
law of entropy holds that the entire universe is unavoidably proceeding towards
a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganized state.
The truth of the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of
entropy, has been experimentally and theoretically established. All
foremost scientists agree that the law of entropy will remain the principle
paradigm for the foreseeable future. Albert Einstein, the greatest
scientist of our age, described it as the “premier law of all of science.”
Sir Arthur Eddington also referred to it as the “supreme metaphysical law
of the entire universe:”[1]
Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of
physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the
second law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and
lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a
particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA,
and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex
structures gradually emerged. According to the theory of evolution, this
supposed process—which yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and
more organized structure at each stage—was formed all by itself under natural
conditions. The law of entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural
process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.
Evolutionist scientists are also aware of this fact.
J. H. Rush states:
In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a
remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible
progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually
higher levels of order.[2]
The evolutionist author Roger Lewin expresses the
thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an article in Science:
One problem biologists have faced is the apparent
contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems
should decay through time, giving less, not more, order.[3]
Another defender of the theory of evolution, George
Stravropoulos, states the thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous
formation of life and the impossibility of explaining the existence of complex
living mechanisms by natural laws in the well-known evolutionist journal
American Scientist:
Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule
can ever form spontaneously, but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with
the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will
be, and the more assured, sooner or later, its disintegration.
Photosynthesis and all life processes, and even life itself, cannot yet be
understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science, despite the
use of confused or deliberately confusing language.[4]
As we have seen, the evolution claim is completely at odds
with the laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics constitutes an
insurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution, in terms of both science
and logic. Unable to offer any scientific and consistent explanation to
overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only do so in their
imagination. For instance, the well-known evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin
notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a “magical
power”:
The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall
available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the
exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates
greater overall value and order on earth.[5]
These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic
belief rather than a scientific thesis.
The Misconception About Open Systems
Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument
that the second law of thermodynamics holds true only for “closed systems,” and
that “open systems” are beyond the scope of this law. This claim goes no
further than being an attempt by some evolutionists to distort scientific facts
that invalidate their theory. In fact, a large number of scientists
openly state that this claim is invalid, and violates thermodynamics. One
of these is the Harvard scientist John Ross, who also holds evolutionist
views. He explains that these unrealistic claims contain an important
scientific error in the following remarks in Chemical and Engineering News:
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 phenomena 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.[6]
An “open system” is a thermodynamic system in which energy
and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open
system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun; that the
law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered,
complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate
structures.
However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact
that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system
ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional.
For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control
mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an
energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored in
petrol.
The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It
is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy
can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy
conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the
digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live
without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion
system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns,
parches, or melts.
As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy
conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open
or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms
could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth.
Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how
complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which
cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on
their own.
The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to
bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the
temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered
sequences. Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the
much more complex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins form the much
more complex and organized structures of cell organelles.
Footnotes:
[3] vol. 217, 24 September, 1982, p.
1239.
[4] George P. Stravropoulos, "The
Frontiers and Limits of Science,” American Scientist, vol. 65, November-December
1977, p. 674.
[6] John Ross, Chemical and Engineering
News, 27 July, 1980, p. 40.
No comments:
Post a Comment