_001.jpg)
The Myth of the “Self-Organization of Matter”
Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders
evolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative
attempts to square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim
that evolution is possible.
The two most important theories that emerged as a result of
that aim were the theory of “self-organization” and the related theory of
“dissipative structures.” The first of these maintains that simple
molecules can organize together to form complex living systems; the second claims
that ordered, complex systems can emerge in unordered, high-entropy systems.
If we look carefully at all the evolutionist literature on
this issue, we can see that they have fallen into a very important trap. In
order to make evolution fit in with thermodynamics, evolutionists are
constantly trying to prove that a given order can emerge from open systems.
Their problem lies in the — sometimes deliberate — confusing
of two distinct concepts: “ordered” and “organized.”
We can make this clear with an example. Imagine a completely
flat beach on the seashore. When a strong wave hits the beach, mounds of sand,
large and small, form bumps on the surface of the sand.
This is a process of “ordering.” The seashore is an open
system, and the energy flow (the wave) that enters it can form simple patterns
in the sand, which look completely regular. From the thermodynamic point of
view, order can be set up where before there was none. But we must make it
clear that those same waves cannot build a castle on the beach. If we see a
castle there, we are in no doubt that someone has constructed it, because the
castle is an “organized” system. In other words, it possesses a clear design
and information. Every part of it has been made by a conscious entity in a
planned manner.
The difference between the sand and the castle is that the
former is an organized complexity, whereas the latter possesses only order,
brought about by simple repetitions. The order formed from repetitions is as if
an object (in other words the flow of energy entering the system) had fallen on
the letter “a” on a typewriter keyboard, writing “aaaaaaaa” hundreds of times.
But the string of “a”s in an order repeated in this manner contains no
information, and no complexity. In order to write a complex chain of letters
actually containing information (in other words a meaningful sentence,
paragraph or book), the presence of intelligence is essential.
The same thing applies when a gust of wind blows into a
dusty room. When the wind blows in, the dust which had been lying in an even
layer may gather in one corner of the room. This is also a more ordered
situation than that which existed before, in the thermodynamic sense, but the
individual specks of dust cannot form a portrait of someone on the floor in an
organized manner.
This means that complex, organized systems can never come
about as the result of natural processes. Although simple examples of order can
happen from time to time, these cannot go beyond certain limits.
But evolutionists point to this self-ordering which emerges
through natural processes as a most important proof of evolution, portray such
cases as examples of “self-organization.” As a result of this confusion of
concepts, they propose that living systems could develop of their own accord
from occurrences in nature and chemical reactions. The methods and studies
employed by Prigogine and his followers, which we considered above, are based
on this deceptive logic.
However, as we made clear at the outset, organized systems
are completely different structures from ordered ones. While ordered systems
contain structures formed of simple repetitions, organized systems contain
highly complex structures and processes, one often embedded inside the other.
In order for such structures to come into existence, there is a need for
consciousness, knowledge, and planning. Jeffrey Wicken, an evolutionist
scientist, describes the important difference between these two concepts in
this way:
‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from
‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered
systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack
complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to
an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . Organization,
then, is functional complexity and carries information.[1]
Ilya Prigogine—maybe as a result of evolutionist wishful
thinking— resorted to a confusion of these two concepts, and advertised
examples of molecules which ordered themselves under the influence of energy
inflows as “self-organization.”
The American scientists Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L.
Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, in their book titled The Mystery of Life’s Origin,
explain this fact as follows:
In each case random movements of molecules in a fluid are
spontaneously replaced by a highly ordered behaviour. Prigogine, Eigen, and
others have suggested that a similar sort of self-organization may be intrinsic
in organic chemistry and can potentially account for the highly complex
macromolecules essential for living systems. But such analogies have scant
relevance to the origin-of-life question. A major reason is that they fail to
distinguish between order and complexity... Regularity or order cannot serve to
store the large amount of information required by living systems. A highly
irregular, but specified, structure is required rather than an ordered structure.
This is a serious flaw in the analogy offered. There is no apparent connection
between the kind of spontaneous ordering that occurs from energy flow through
such systems and the work required to build aperiodic information-intensive
macromolecules like DNA and protein.[2]
And this is how the same scientists explain the logical
shallowness and distortion of claiming that water turning into ice is an
example of how biological order can spontaneously emerge:
It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing
to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as
protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however… The atomic
bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the
thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by
lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining
at all at any temperature however, much less some orderly arrangement.[3]
Ilya Prigogine, one of the most famous proponents of
self-organization, devoted his whole career to reconciling evolution and
thermodynamics, but even he admitted that there was no resemblance between the
crystallization of water and the emergence of complex biological structures:
The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a
possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently
low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of
ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase
transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of
biological structures.[4]
In short, no chemical or physical effect can explain the
origin of life, and the concept of “the self-organization of matter” will
remain a fantasy.
Self-Organization: A Materialist Dogma
So why do evolutionists continue to believe in scenarios
such as the “self-organisation of matter,” which have no scientific foundation?
Why are they so determined to reject the consciousness and planning that can so
clearly be seen in living systems?
The answer to these questions lies hidden in the materialist
philosophy that the theory of evolution is fundamentally constructed on.
Materialist philosophy believes that only matter exists, for which reason
living things need to be accounted for in a manner based on matter. It was this
difficulty which gave birth to the theory of evolution, and no matter how much
it conflicts with the scientific evidence, it is defended for just that reason.
A professor of chemistry from New
York University
Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take
us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first
effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or
demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution
and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for
granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin
of life by Alexander Oparin.[5]
The truths that we have been examining here clearly
demonstrate the impossibility of evolution in the face of the second law of
thermodynamics. The concept of “self-organization” is another dogma that
evolutionist scientists are trying to keep alive despite all the scientific
evidence.
Footnotes:
[1] Jeffrey
S. Wicken, “The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and
Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 77,
April 1979, p. 349.
[2] Charles
B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley & Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s
Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, 4th edition, Dallas, 1992, p. 151.
[3] C.
B. Thaxton, W. L. Bradley, and R. L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, Texas, 1992, p. 120.
[4] I.
Prigogine, G. Nicolis ve A. Babloyants, “Thermodynamics of Evolution,” Physics
Today, November 1972, vol. 25, p. 23.
[5] Robert
Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New
York , 1986, p. 207.
No comments:
Post a Comment