Creationsts (of my own stripe) sometimes make the mistake of saying the the 2nd law (”entropy law,” as it were)”disproves” evolution. This is not true, because an evolutionist can always make some sort of rescue dodge. For example, they might perhaps suggest that entropy has gone up and down in the past, cyclically. The problem is, evolutionary dogma is so plastic it cannot explain anything.
Yes, the earth is an open system; but simple raw, “unintelligent” energy will not assemble life, just as an energetic bull will not stack dishes by expending that energy willy-nilly in a china shop. Energy can bring order only if there is some sort of conversion device, and the conversion device itself would be very complicated.
It would be correct,however, to say that the 2nd Law does, at least, present tremendous problems for one who is defending the evolutionary position
Did you read this section of the article?
“Entropy is not a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics ... Entropy is much broader than the second law of thermodynamics.”
That’s very interesting. To the modern Christian the opposite of creation is nothingness, but in Genesis it reads that God created the world from some pre-existing matter.
For the ancient Near East mastering chaos, a malevolent force, was the height of power. God, creating order, did just that, no?
The 2nd law has little specific applicability to the evolution of life on earth, but plenty to the evolution of any and all matter in the universe. It took a *huge* violation of the 2nd law to create atoms, or even subatomic particles in the first place. Any subsequent violations were just tiny drops in the great universal bucket.
[It would be correct,however, to say that the 2nd Law does, at least, present tremendous problems for one who is defending the evolutionary position]
No it doesn’t.
That's an interesting point. And the device is always more complex or more ordered than the order it creates, isn't it? It's like order has to flow downhill.
I'm trying to think of an example that doesn't follow this rule but I'm coming up blank. For example, I'm more complex than the machine I build, and the machine is more complex than the part it stamps out. And the part can't build the machine and the machine can't build me.
This is a hopelessly vague proviso. "Some sort of conversion device" could be anything, e.g. just the laws of physics.
For example the grains of sand on most beaches are highly ordered. Larger sand grains are found low on the beach, grading to progressively smaller grains up the beach. Why? Waves lose energy as they move up the beach, and the less energy in the wave the smaller the sand grains they are able to transport.
Is the order of graded sand grains created by channeling energy through "a conversion device"? Only if you call waves and gravity "a conversion device." But then, like I say, anything (or, rather, nothing but the laws of nature) can be a "conversion device."
Oh, and btw, the "conversion devices" which make energy available to drive biological evolution are "very complicated." Those devices are living organisms.