Oh, no problem.
Sounds like you’re talking about arguments that sound like “evolution results in more information, which violates the 2nd Law”. In fact, these arguments have it exactly backwards.
We know that the entropy of a thermodynamic system is given by S = k[sub]B[/sub] lnΩ, where Ω is the number of available microstates corresponding to the macrostate. The Second Law states that for every real process, dS >/= 0, which necessarily means that the number of microstates available to the system has increased.
S is also equal to -k[sub]B[/sub] ∑(ρ[sub]i[/sub] lnρ[sub]i[/sub] ), in which, in information theory, the term -∑(ρ[sub]i[/sub] lnρ[sub]i[/sub] ) is called the information function and the symbol ρ denotes the probability of each microstate i.
You can see, then, that lnΩ = -∑(ρ[sub]i[/sub] lnρ[sub]i[/sub] ), in which case for every real process the information function of the system increases.
So when they say that evolution results in an increase in information, they are conceding that it does not violate the 2nd Law.
I wasn’t aware of the isomorphism between the information function and the number of micro states in the thermodynamic system, although I have used the information function in a different context, namely the estimation of joint probability functions of default events in financial markets!!! How’s that possible, hum?! Anyway, since, when lnΩ increases, -∑(ρ[sub]i[/sub] lnρ[sub]i[/sub]) increases by the same amount, that doesn’t say much about how the increase is attained. It isn’t through the extensive margin because there are more parcels; so it must be through the intensive margin (the rhos). Now, it is not clear why it can’t be the case that a certain micro state likelihood increases a lot (say, rho1 goes up), and this is compensated by a decrease of all other, now more numerous, micro states. In fact, an intelligent designer (as we humans) seems to do just that: when I sort out my son’s room, I consume energy, burn some brain cells and probably oxidate some of my cells in order to counter the natural process of my son’s keeping his room ever more untidy. So, although naturally the number of states would increase, that is, without intervention the possible combinations of yet more unordered objects in the room is always increasing, my intervention increases the odds that one of them actually occurs (the room is tidy) at the expense of the smaller odds that the unwanted states (the room is untidy in different, ever increasing ways) are observed. My intervention in the room is certainly not violating the 2nd law (because I paid a price when I sorted out the room), but the fact is the room is now tidy!
When the ID people contend, I presume (and I am not a expert on their reasoning), that the local order that we observe in biological systems is impossible because it violates the 2nd law, they seem to be wrong; but it is clear that we now have to take into account the odds of such events happening by pure chance. It is difficult to say they are small or large, given the possibility of the cosmos being actually much larger than what we think it is. In our own universe they are almost surely incredibly small. But not necessarily in one of trillions of trillions of … of parallel universes, all coming into existence at the same time, all with random laws. If it is true that our universe has a beginning (and most knowledgeable people think it has) and is unique (which is also the case), then, in my view, a Creator is absolutely needed. But even if there are many parallel universes, the question arises: how do they come into existence? It seems that meta-laws are needed to govern the random laws governing each universe, and one of them is certainly the meta-law that those laws (at least in our particular universe) should be permanent. If there wasn’t such law, Science would be hopeless, for instance. So, when do these meta-laws come into existence? They should be preexisting, but there’s a beginning - a contradiction. In my view, the only way to reconcile the absence of a Creator with our view of the cosmos is the possibility that time is unbounded backwards. While it is not counter the existence of a Creator (because it doesn’t seem conceptually very different the Creator creating a time line unbounded in both sides rather than, as when there is a beginning, bounded to the left and unbounded to the right), it solves at least the uncaused cause problem: you don’t need one because backward recursion never ceases. If there’s a beginning - be it a unique universe like most people think is ours or a cross-section of universes, all with a common beginning governed by random laws - then a Creator (not necessarily the Christian one) is needed.
The absence of a beginning, on the other hand, poses its own problems and seems today discarded. But who knows what happens next?
