Been thinking about our last. It seems you pointed to two main problems, out of your original list of 11 items: (1) Evolution is anti-Biblical (refining your statement down to first principles here); and (2) The Second Law of Thermodynamics absolutely falsifies evolution. Taken together, the claim here is that, on both Biblical and scientific grounds, evolution is a total fiction. I agree with neither assertion, nor with the conclusion towards which they point.
In the first place, it should be obvious to any observer that evolution is the main tendency of life, be it personal or imagined in more collective (special, as in “species”), environemnatl and/or cultural contexts. But if that sounds too high-fallutin’, then jeepers, all we have to point out here is that even the periodic table of the elements is an evolutionary production, according to the very best science we have these days. And that’s pretty good science, if you were to ask me.
I am certainly aware that there are doctrinal confessions within the Christian church that tend to take a dim view of evolutionary theory in principle. Such confessions of Christ tend to be devoted to the “sola scriptura theory.” This theory states that only the sacred language of the Sciptures can be trusted as a source of reliable and effectual Truth. The tradition is one of great honor, dignity, and persistence, resonating with millions of our fellow citizens in the present day. At a certain level of the problem, it is crystal clear to me that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the insight that the Holy Scriptures can ever be depended upon to shed abundant light on each and every problem that confronts the human person, in this life, in its connections with ever wider communities of nature; and also in the life of the beyond of this world.
While honoring this tradition, it seems to me that God gave us, not one great book, but two of them. The first is the Holy Scriptures themselves; and the second is the Book of Nature.
I’ve lived in the world for a while now, and on my observation (FWIW) have noticed along the way that Book 1 and Book 2 seem never to be out of sorts with each other, do not contradict each other, ever. Indeed, it is uncanny to me how the two finally resonate, revealing the “hidden meanings” in each other.
But I’m sure I’m boring you to tears by now, dear WT. So let me try to buy a point. Summarizing disparities among Christian thinkers, certain confessions of Reformed Church Christianity abominate the theory of evolution. Other confessions – e.g., the Roman Catholic Church – embrace and expound it as solid, scientifically-validated theory. Thus (surprise! surprise!) we have a difference of opinion among human beings, in the public square….
Regarding the second question, whether the second law of thermodynamics “falsifies” evolution, I need to ask: which theory of the second law did you have in mind? In Newton’s own time, nobody knew quite what to make of it, including Newton. He had simply documented, analyzed, and elucidated what seemed to him (most astutely it seems in retrospect) the results of certain seminal experimental conditions he was observing. There was no “philosophy” at stake here.
And yet subsequent reinterpreters of Newton’s Second Law seem to have qualified the law according to more well-defined (constrained) terms than Newton did. Boltzmann (late 19th century) for instance, did so. And what he came up with is the most elegant, that is truthful description of the thermodynamic behavior of the “classical gas” imaginable. It was a work of extraordinary beauty. In his own time, it was so little appreciated that I understand Boltzmann ended up by committing suicide, out of sheer despair.
So, if the “banned” Christian commentator could rest his/her argument on the “Boltzmannian regime” stipulation of the thermodynamical argument re: perfect gasses, then he/she could justify the conclusions he/she reached.
However it would seem the main point about living systems is that they do not behave thermodynamically in the manner of “perfect gasses” for, among other reasons, there is the very simple one that they are not “perfect gasses.” They are comparatively enormously “rich,” complex systems seemingly connected to an informative principle. Thus they could be expected to respond to a different thermodynamic “translation,” which as of now seems to have been but imperfectly recognized, let alone elucidated.
Anyhoot, the point is, the Christian commentator who objected that the second law precluded evolution was exactly right – but only on the condition that we are to assume that the Boltzmannian regime is in total power, and therefore all configurations of living nature are to be understood as “perfect gasses.” Somehow, I feel reasonably sure that this “human self-understanding” is not quite what God has in mind for us….
Well, that’s all I can manage at the moment, WildTurkey. Must run away and get some sleep. I have a really bad cold right now.
Good night! God bless! And thank you for speaking/writing with/to me.
Betty, you need either to stick to philosophizing, or get up to date (or at least into the 20th century) in statistical mechanics. The range of thermodynamic laws has long since been extended beyond Botzmann's ideal gases to chemical systems in general. The second law applies to everything; and the statistical interpretation of the second law applies to everything.
You lost me right about here:
"And yet subsequent reinterpreters of Newton’s Second Law seem to have qualified the law according to more well-defined (constrained) terms than Newton did."
One more thing. In Newton's own time, certainly nobody knew what to make of the second law, since Newton died about a century before Carnot and Clausius formulated it.
Newton's second law: F = ma. Nothing to do with thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics; Delta S >0 for irreversible processes
The above paragraph is complete b.s., in other words.