Creation or Evolution. What do you believe?

[Bigwill]

Jillian:

I’m a bit confused by what you mean with the attempt to exclude “currently accepted theories” from your prior comment. After all, all theories are “currently accepted” at some point in time, and if “currently accepted theories” aren’t subject to Kuhnian paradigm shifts, then such shifts would never take place at all. It would be like being your own grandpa, I’d think.

Evolution is a theory currently-accepted by most scientists. It has yet to be disproven. It is almost certainly the best theory ever devised for the facts as we currently know them.

The cellestial sphere is not a theory currently-accepted by most scientists. There was a time when the best scientists in the world thought that there was a large globe surrounding this world, with every star somewhere on that globe. With the facts known to them, the cellestial sphere or globe was the best theory available. When new facts were discovered (that didn’t fit within the theory), the theory had to be discarded.

I believe that the same will happen with evolution. I think it probably has elements of truth, but that it is treated by most evolutionary biologists as law (or even as revealed truth), and I just think that’s inappropriate. The history of science has taught us, or at least should have, to take scientific theories for what they are. They are useful to explain the facts that we have, but we shouldn’t assume that we have all the facts.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Bigwill:

Evolution is a theory currently-accepted by most scientists. It has yet to be disproven. It is almost certainly the best theory ever devised for the facts as we currently know them.

The cellestial sphere is not a theory currently-accepted by most scientists. There was a time when the best scientists in the world thought that there was a large globe surrounding this world, with every star somewhere on that globe. With the facts known to them, the cellestial sphere or globe was the best theory available. When new facts were discovered (that didn’t fit within the theory), the theory had to be discarded.

I believe that the same will happen with evolution. I think it probably has elements of truth, but that it is treated by most evolutionary biologists as law (or even as revealed truth), and I just think that’s inappropriate. The history of science has taught us, or at least should have, to take scientific theories for what they are. They are useful to explain the facts that we have, but we shouldn’t assume that we have all the facts.

The comparison is entirely specious. First and foremost it is not readily clear how the “celestial sphere” by which one presumes you mean the Ptolemaic system was ever a theory in that I see little about it which fits the scientific definition of the word. What were the falsifiable predictions made by this theory, e.g.? It seems, and though I may be incorrect, that it would be far more accurate to say of this system that it was an attempt to define nature as opposed to describe it; ergo, it was a philosophical statement, not a scientific postulate. Moreover, while evolutionary biology might be overturned in the future by some new data, you conveniently ignore that over 150 years evolutionary biology has repeatedly been tested, and verified, by numerous independent lines of research in a degree of empirical verificiation that exceeds in its vigor that ever applied to Ptolemy’s philosophy.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

mfaber:

PART 2… The Light Question (Just what is Genesis describing)

This brings up another problem… It is quite obvious that the ancients did not have a clue about the nature of “light” and thought that “light” and “dark” were mutally exclusive, i. e., darkness was the “absence” of light. This is NOT true. Light has a specific definition:
Not all electromagnetic radiation is detectible by the human eye (infra-red, x-rays, radiowaves, gamma rays)

• *“Light” that the ancients understood would have been those wavelengths detectible by the eye ONLY. *
• There is actually “light” in the form or x-rays, radiowaves, infra-red in the “darkness” of outer space (“dark” to our eyes)===>This is why there is really no such thing as separation of “light” from “darkness”.
• ** “Darkness” is relative in that it a term defined by our inability to perceive certain spectra without the aid of special instrumentation.
• • In reality, there is no such thing as “darkness’” if one tries to define it as the absence of “light”.***

ALL light has a SOURCE:

The problems with Genesis with respect to “light” are these: (summing up)…

First, “light”(incandescent light) creating the day had to have a SOURCE. Where did the “light” mentioned Genesis come from for the “morning and evening” of the “days” (light sources NOT created until late in the game)

Second, Genesis says that God separated the “light” from the “darkness”. That is also erroneous because “darkness” is NOT the absence of light. “Darkness” is simply an term that illuminates the fact that we are blind (in the dark) to certain types of light.

Last, not least, you do know that there are Genesis has TWO creation stories and they conflict with each other?** (The “6-DAY” Priestly story versus the Yahwist “Adam/Eve” story?** ) How do you explain this?

You know light has a lot more meanings than just the literal, right?

Perceptually, darkness is the absence of light–to the spirit. We use light to perceive so it is a metaphor that has real spiritual significance. If you go about reading Scripture so mechanistically, I think you may be limiting yourself unnecessarily from the better parts of it, the parts that are more to the center of the meaning.

The same is true for Creation accounts.

peace

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Oolon,

I wish you were a Catholic apologist. Such persistence!
Have a nice weekend.

mike

 

[Happy_Wonderer]

Vindex Urvogel:

The comparison is entirely specious. First and foremost it is not readily clear how the “celestial sphere” by which one presumes you mean the Ptolemaic system was ever a theory in that I see little about it which fits the scientific definition of the word. What were the falsifiable predictions made by this theory, e.g.?

The geocentric theory is a good example of how religious beliefs interfered with science, Copernicus alludes to this:

Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions and, badly distorting some passages of Scripture to their purpose, will dare find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent as despising their criticism as unfounded.

The scientists of the time placed equal (or more) weight upon scripture and ancient writings than they did to observations; this is quite different than the science of today.

It is possible that future discoveries will radically change how we view evolution. I consider that to be as likely as future discoveries changing our opinions about how the planets orbit the sun. The discovery of DNA and our ability to decode it is equivalent to the Apollo and Mariner space missions.

Although there are open questions, they are equivalent to such astronomical questions as “is there another small planet outside of the orbit of Uranus?” or “is there water on mars?” The answers to those questions will be very interesting, but they don’t change planetary theory. There are undoubtably suprising answers in evolutionary biology awaiting us, but discovering that species X is more closely related to species Z than previously thought are unlikely to shake the foundations of the theory.

hw

 

[JJ_B]

I was watching Larry King Live the other night and he had Jeffrey Dauhmers (sp?) parents on. At one point, Larry King asked Mr. Dauhmer if he knew why Jeff killed all those people. Mr. Dauhmer replied something along the line of,
Well, that’s why we wanted Jeff to go to a mental institution…so psychologists could study his mind and figure out why he did such horrible things. However, he did tell me once that the reason he never felt like he was doing anything wrong was because he was an evolutionist. He believed people originated from some bacteria pool and therefore had no greater being to answer to. He felt his killing people meant nothing because people were pointless. Then, while in prison, I sent him some religious/Christian reading material and he eventually converted to Christianity and became a Creationist. That was the first time he realized that what he did was “wrong” and that he needed to repent.
I’m loosely paraphrasing but this is pretty much what Mr. Dauhmer said as far as I can remember. This certainly doesn’t imply that evolutionists have no morals and think murder is acceptable and likewise it doesn’t mean that Christians are all good people. I just found it interesting that Jeffrey Dauhmers only known excuse for these murders was due to his evolutionary ideals. Of course he also worshiped the devil and I’m willing to bet that had something to do with it.

As for myself, I really could care less how the earth was formed and how humans came to be. For me, the creation stories (plural on purpose) are pretty much metaphorical and only carry spiritual significance. I don’t believe Adam and Eve were real people and I don’t care how many days it took for God to create (or not) the earth. The important thing is that we are here now and need to pay attention to His message more than His science. If He wanted to give us a science book then I think we would have one.

If science can undoubtedly prove the THEORY of evolution then I will accept it like I accept 2+2=4. Either way, I will still have faith.

 

[Happy_Wonderer]

On the other hand, Gary Ridgeway (the “Green River killer”) was a Christian who brought his Bible to work and evangalized others. His ‘tableaux’ were laden with Christian symbols with bread and fish arranged around the bodies.

This certainly doesn’t imply that Christians have no morals and think murder is acceptable and likewise it doesn’t mean that all athiests are good people. I just found it interesting that Gary Ridgeway’s only known motive for the murders seemed to revolve around Christian symbols.

hw

 

[Lurker]

Not really wanting to get too in depth here. But I am still confused how people can think evolution goes against God. =/

Maybe it’s me. Anyways. I’m not a great orator/debater. But I do want to present my personal view on the situation.

For me, the concept of evolution being the tool that God used to help create humanity merely shows how wonderfully complex He is! The fact that we were created with methods so incredibly comlpex that we’re just now scratching the surface of understanding fills me with awe and joy. It makes me feel like a unique piece of art in the universe. I wasn’t simply thrown together with a bit of water and dirt, I was shaped and arrived here via a process that God had planned for me for billions of years!

Now, there are those who wonder how we can believe that evolution was the method used by God when it involves death being in the world before Adam and Eve. I obviously can’t speak for everyone else who holds similar views, so this is my understanding.

There’s DEATH, and there’s death. Kinda similar to how Catholics have Tradition, and tradition. My view is that before Adam and Eve, there was death. Which in itself was a wonderful gift from the Lord. It was a passageway into the next world that He’d prepared for us. Then along comes the fallen one. He tempts Eve and introduces sin into the world. And with that, he corrupted the world. With that corruption, death stopped being just a gift, it was no longer simply another step on our journey of existance. It was corrupted, another path opened up via death. The passage of DEATH. Not mere physical death, but spiritual Death. The sin of Adam and Eve meant that we as humans were not instantly assured of joining our Lord in Heaven.

So, that’s my view. And it’s how I can feel comfortable believing in evolution and still also belieiving in a Creator.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

MichaelTDoyle:

Oolon,

I wish you were a Catholic apologist. Such persistence!
Have a nice weekend.

Cheers Mike, you too (belatedly)!

Heh, persistence… my other online name is Darwin’s Terrier…

You know, it’s really strange. The poll in this thread says that about 60% of the people here believe in creation as opposed to evolution (ie that the two are not compatible). Yet none of these folks seems willing or able to answer my straightforward question.

Come on, you ~60%. Defend yourselves. The missing links are still missing, right? Then tell me why KNM-WT 1500 isn’t one.

Oolon

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Oolon Colluphid:

You know, it’s really strange. The poll in this thread says that about 60% of the people here believe in creation as opposed to evolution (ie that the two are not compatible). Yet none of these folks seems willing or able to answer my straightforward question.

Come on, you ~60%. Defend yourselves. The missing links are still missing, right? Then tell me why KNM-WT 1500 isn’t one.

Oolon

Too right you are! Or perhaps they would like to explain why BMNH 37001 is not a transitional, or JM 2257, or HMN 1880, or why IVPP V10895 or IVPP V11303 or IVPP V 12811 aren’t…

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Happy_Wonderer]

Evolution poses a problem for Christians because it is fairly difficult to reconcile Genisis and evolution. It does not pose a problem for a general belief in God, although it does take away some of the arguments for why a God must be necessary.

The problem is that the Bible makes some extraordinary claims. Were it simply The life and philosophy of Jesus, with some historical background then the parts of the Bible that contradict what we now know about science would be no big deal. The Genisis myth is a nice little creation myth that had been around for a long time; it was a reasonable hypothesis when scientific data was lacking. The fact that it is shown to be a myth takes nothing away from the philosophy of Jesus; “love thy neighbor as thyself” is still good (if difficult) advice no matter what other parts of the Bible say.

Speculations on the nature of the divine are still as interesting and thought provoking even when stories such as the story of Job are recognized to be an allegory and not fact. In fact the story of Job is more interesting as allegory, as history it is just a story of one unfortunate man, an egomainaical God, and a smart-aleck Devil. As allegory it is much deeper. Aesop has no lessons if he is just telling the history of some talking animals.

Unfortunately the Bible goes further and claims that Jesus is God by basis of many miracles that he performed and his resurrection from the dead. If those miracle parts are just allegory then Christianity as it is today has some serious problems. Since the only evidence for the miracles is the Bible itself, and the Bible is known to contain untrue statements, then the evidence that Jesus is God is not very strong.

All of the Bible has to be true in order to accept the extraordinary claims. If I hand you the “diary of Saddam Hussein” and you find that the entry on July 25 could not have been written by Saddam then all of the rest of the diary is suspect no matter how many pages it has or how old it is.

The story of our origins is one of the most interesting question to mankind. If the Bible cannot be trusted to tell the truth there, then where can it be true? It doesn’t follow that all of the rest is false – some of the Hussain diary might be genuiune, but with nothing else to validate against it is all suspect.

Now as for me, the Bible would have been a lot more credible as a holy book by a creator who cares about his creation if it happened to have contained hints about how to prevent and deal with Bubonic plague and Cholera.

hw

 

[usherMike]

Ok Oolon, I"ll see if I can do this. I dont know much about bones but the skull looks ape,the sholders and ribs and backbone look human the hips are female. Now that I look the fool, could you ,with your vast amount of knowledge tell me what ape did humans evolve from? The things I told you before is knowledge I’ve picked up over a ten year period ,I didnt keep the writings because it really doesnt matter to me. I realize the information I gave you is just my opinion, just like the information you gave us is some one elses opinion, so I do apologize. I gota go my kids are trying to start a bush on fire.

 

[PhilVaz]

BMNH 37001 = Adam
JM 2257 = Eve
HMN 1880 = Moses
IVPP V10895 = Abraham
IVPP V11303 = Cornelius
IVPP V23829 = Roddy McDowall
IVPP X86939 = Kim Hunter
IVPP V12811 = Charlton Heston

There satisfied?

Phil P

 

[mfaber]

MichaelTDoyle:

You know light has a lot more meanings than just the literal, right?

Perceptually, darkness is the absence of light–to the spirit. We use light to perceive so it is a metaphor that has real spiritual significance. If you go about reading Scripture so mechanistically, I think you may be limiting yourself unnecessarily from the better parts of it, the parts that are more to the center of the meaning.

The same is true for Creation accounts.

peace

**I wasn’t taking about any possible metaphorical interpretation of the word “light”. ** My questions were creationists (usually the YEC variety) who try to claim that Genesis is a factual scientific account (the “mechanics” are correct as per their “literal” interpretation) of creation.

I was asking how YECs who take Genesis as “literal” (their particular version) scientific fact could explain how one can have a literal 24 hour day without the sun (NO such thing without the sun because that is how a day is reckoned).

Light (the physical phenomenon) is also another scientific problem because IF one takes such statements as God “separated the light from the darkness” as a literal scientific fact, then the Bible would be be presenting us with erroneous information (IF one hues to a “literal” interpretation). That is because there is no such thing as the absence of light or “darkness”. Light, in it’s commonly assumed form, is simply a name for a range of electromagnetic radiation that can be detected by the human eye. “Darkness” is relative in that it a term defined by our inability to perceive certain spectra without the aid of special instrumentation. ** In reality, there is no such thing as “darkness’” if one tries to define it as the absence of “light”** (the way the Bronze Age Hebrews thought of it). How could God do something like separate the “light from the darkness” when there is really no such thing as “darkness” (speaking of the physical phenomenon know as light)?

**Back to the what is meant by the word “day”…light has to have a source (Ex. Incandescent source like the sun or luminescent source such a certain chemical reactions). **How can one have “light” without some kind of source (there was no sun until 4th day)? Again, how could God have separated the “light from the darkess” when there was no source available to create the light (ignoring the fact that “darkness” is really based on the ancients not understanding what “light” really was as a PHYSICAL phenomenon).

**The above was not any kind on comment on any other possible interpretations of the what was meant by “light”. ** If you want to interpret the word metaphorically (light = spirit), fine with me. Realize that IMO, Genesis is nothing more than a creation myth belonging to a particular group of Bronze Age, Middle-Eastern nomads, no better nor no worse than many other creation myths that attempted to make sense of the world full of unknowns at that time. The human mind is a pattern seeking machine and will attempt to create an explanation even if there is no real foundation for that explanation in an attempt to fill in an information vacuum. My objections are not necessarily to the theology but to attempts to claim that such a tale is scientifically accurate.

 

[marciadietrich]

I am (or at least was) a theistic evolutionist - maybe a tad of intelligent design belief. But here is my hang up on reconciling evolution and Catholic beliefs. The Catholic requirement in this freedom to accept evolution is that Adam and Eve were literal people, our first parents even if the genetic material orginated in a natural process and that original sin is the result of Adam’s real act which is passed on from him to all humanity (all humanity therefore are descendents of Adam).

I have read Glen Morton’s theory on Adam maybe being a very early human anscestor and perhaps having been ‘created’ from the material of a dead hominid. Thus from ‘dust’ of a preexisting creature that had died. It is interesting. Still even if we went back that far, evolution is in population shifts (lots of microevolution) and it seems to me at the point we say Adam and Eve were literal and parents to all who live today that somehow they were seperated out of the populations to never breed back into that hominid population their genetic materials derive from. And from there those other human-like creatures had to die and only Adam and Eve’s children, who would have to have married brother to sister, survived.

The idea of Cain in Nod marrying into a previously existing population of other humanoids outside of his family (compatible with evolution) seems to conflict with the necessity of original sin passing from Adam downward. Unless all in Nod were Adam’s children some of those people existing at that time could not have directly inherited original sin.

I am hung up on Adam and Eve being literal parents to all passing on original sin because it seems incompatible with evolution. When I look literally I tend to see Eve as a female clone of Adam. That would really restrict the gene pool in that sense. That would be very incompatible with evolution and changes in populations being the force of evolution. It would require working which are significant, for what I understand, to get us from one couple to all the people now and reconcile to what science indicates.

I used to be able to think of Adam and Eve either as not literal, or if literal definately not the first humans and more like the first people who gave birth to the line of Abraham. I considered our tendency to sin just our attempts to leave behind our animal instincts more than original sin viewpoint of inheriting sinfulness due to a literal act of disobedience.

Any help there would be appreciated.

Marcia

 

[marciadietrich]

**404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

That being an example in Catholic teaching which seems to me indicates it is doctrinal to say original sin is passed to only descendents of Adam, not across an already existing population.

 

[PhilVaz]

marcia << I am hung up on Adam and Eve being literal parents to all passing on original sin because it seems incompatible with evolution. >>

It is a good theological objection, the two difficult points as I see them are (1) evolution tends to work in “populations” rather than individuals so positing two original people (Adam/Eve) that we trace ourselves back to is a bit unscientific, and (2) the original bodily immortality of Adam/Eve before the Fall would also go against evolution since death would be a “natural” part of life. There was no original bodily immortality of any creature in an evolutionary context. Animal death before the Fall can be explained by stating Romans 5:12 applies to human beings, not to all plant/bug/animal life.

Anyway, those are the two points I need to work on…

The way these Protestant scholars answer the theological difficulties is to deny the Adam/Eve of Genesis were in any sense literal (with the exception of Mark Noll who is more “evangelical” than the rest).

See this PBS “Evolution” series panel discussion

I’m wondering how the experts like Fr. Stanley Jaki reconciles this. Need to find his books. Or even JPII or Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on Genesis.

Phil P

 

[vrummage]

I think I posted on this thread a few days ago and I hope that I can positively contribute to the discussion. Unfortunately, I have not been able to keep up with the dialogue and it appears as though several volumes have been written since my last post. I hope therefore that this is not too far off the topic at hand as this thread has become so lengthy that I have not had time to read every single post. I am writing this one primarily in response to Oolon who took it upon himself (or herself? - forgive me if you clarified this already) to critique my previous post. I am going to deal this time with the entropy issue which Oolon commented on. Allow me to set this up for those who may not be familiar with the concepts.

Entropy refers to (among other things) the amount of unusable energy in the universe. Its significance has been deduced from the laws of thermodynamics, which deal with relationships involved in the conversion of heat and other forms of energy into work. The first and second laws of thermodynamics have been experimentally tested many times and are universally accepted as established laws of nature. The first law is the statement of the principle of conservation of energy; it declares that no matter or energy is now either being created or completely destroyed. The second system states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching a state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work.

 There are several ways to describe the second law, each of them equivalent and interchangeable. In physical systems the second law has been expressed in three ways:

1.  As a measure of the increasing unavailability of the energy of the system for useful work. (classical thermodynamics)

2.  As a measure of increasing disorder, randomness or probability of the components of the system (statistical thermodynamics).

3.  As a measure of the increasingly confused information of the coded message through a system (informational thermodynamics).

In each case, entropy is a measure of the lost usefulness of the system. In classical thermodynamics, the useful energy is measured which has had to be converted into non-usable heat energy to overcome friction and keep the system running. In statistical thermodynamics, the probability of the structured arrangement of the system is measured, with a state of complete disorganization being most probable. In informational thermodynamics, the amount of garbled information that accompanies the transmission of information by the system is measured. The same mathematical equations can be shown to apply to all three types of situations, so that all three are equivalent to each other.

 The behavioral tendency of matter is always in a downward direction, never upward in the absence of any preprogramming (e.g. coded machinery such as characterizes living things). Without such preprogramming, matter does not transform itself into higher and higher levels of organization. For example, buildings and machinery will always have a tendency to fall apart unless something outside the system (such as a carpenter, stonemason, mechanic, etc.) reintroduces order by way of maintenance. Another example, heat will only flow from a hot object to a cold one, until temperature equilibrium is achieved in both.  

 Thus, entropy is a measure of the tendency toward decreasing arrangement or decreasing complexity in the Universe. All observed systems display such tendencies toward disorder. As bodies such as stars dissipate their energy, the entropy of the universe slowly increases which points to a future state of equilibrium – one of maximum entropy. The concept can be extended further: in biological systems, the phenomena of sickness, death, and extinction represent applications of the second law. Far from being limited to say, the workings of the 426 hemi under the hood of  that ’69 Plymouth Roadrunner you’ve been dreaming of acquiring, the laws of thermodynamics illustrate broad categories of phenomena which affect man.

 

[vrummage]

Vrummage:

Macroevolutionary models are also directly contradicted by the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) which states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching a state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work.

cough splutter You really have swallowed creationist propaganda whole, haven’t you?

Propaganda? Perhaps if you are using the word according to its primary sense and not in the dispariging way that it is often used now. At any rate, it goes down better than whatever you must have been drinking at the time. The process of evolution requires energy in various forms, and thermodynamics is the study of energy movement and transformation. The two fields share this relation. Scientific laws that govern thermodynamics must also govern evolution. According to evolution theory, matter transformed itself on Earth from simple gases, through spontaneous natural processes, into an extremely complex living cell. Evolution is also held to be an irreversible process which necessarily leads to greater variety and increasing complexity of organization. But this goes against the observable tendency of matter.

 The reality of entropy suggests that the universe must have had a beginning. As the differences of energy levels throughout it are being gradually ironed out, there will eventually come a time when a dead level of energy will have been produced and the process of change will end. The universe has been likened to a clock which is running down and not being rewound. Such a clock must have been wound up at some point in time at a measurable distance from that at which it runs down; hence I can conclude it must have had a beginning.

 Thus the second law requires the Universe to have had a beginning and yet the first law precludes it from having started itself. It would seem likely that it came into existence through the work of a transcendent cause outside the system (this is where Rush Limbaugh would say “that’s God for those of you in Rio Linda”). We can also observe nothing within the present space-mass-time framework which is an adequate cause. Therefore the cause must be either an evolutionary process beyond observable space or prior to observable time, OR else a transcendent Creative Force which brought space and matter and time into existence concurrently. Science cannot prove wither of these things to be the cause of the universe. Therefore, one can choose to have dare I say it FAITH either in the random chance operations of matter that somehow came into existence in and of themselves OR in an Entity who is not of the system but is its Creator and Lord.
 But what of life on Earth- does this not contradict the process of entropy with respect to the possibility for evolution to occur?

Oolon seems to think so:
Oolon Colluphid:

The key point being “system left to its own devices”. That big hot thing in the sky is a bit of a giveaway really. As the sun gains entropy, the earth loses some.

You might like to read the following page. And I mean you might actually like to, because the chap who’s written it states at the start:

“I have a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering (UC-Berkeley, 1988), specializing in “Molecular Thermodynamics,” which combines classical and statistical thermodynamics to describe the thermophysical properties of fluids. I then did two years of postdoctoral work, more or less in Chemical Physics, followed by four years in private industry. I am now with the Physical and Chemical Properties Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado. …] I do not consider myself a specialist specifically in the second law, but my overall expertise in thermodynamics is sufficient to shed light on the relevant issues.”

And

“My main purpose here is to dissuade my fellow followers of Christ from pursuing incorrect arguments based on a lack of understanding of the second law.”

 

[vrummage]

Well Oolon, I took your advice and read this page. Dr. Harvey also says the following which I believe is the crux of the matter:

It is only in isolated

systems that entropy must increase. Systems that can exchange energy with their surroundings have no such restriction. For example, water can freeze into ice (becoming more ordered and decreasing its entropy) by giving up heat to its surroundings (this increases the entropy of the surroundings, of course). In the case of the Earth, the Sun is a major source of energy, and the Earth also radiates energy into space. One consequence of thermodynamics is that, when energy comes from a “hot” source (like the Sun) and is output to a “cold” reservoir (like space), it can be used to do work, which means that “complexity” or “order” can be produced. The main point is that, for a non-isolated system, an increase in “complexity” (to the extent one can connect that concept with the thermodynamic entropy, which is far from straightforward for living creatures) does not necessarily indicate a violation of the 2nd law.

This is the classic evolutionist argument that the Earth is an open system, and that the energy of the sun would be sufficient to offset any losses through entropy. Perhaps this should be known as the doctrine of “Sola Solara?” I don’t think any respectable creationist would deny that the sun’s energy is a vital factor for the perpetuation of life on earth but as Scripture alone is insufficient as the sole rule of faith, solar power alone is insufficient to overcome the thermodynamic barrier to the origin of complex chemicals and complex systems on Earth. A programmed conversion mechanism such as photosynthesis is also required to direct the energy. Further, the influx of indiscriminant energy is more likely to increase the tendency toward disorder and to work AGIANST the evolutionary processes. This process is illustrated by the oxygen-ozone discussion in Dr. Emmett Williams’ (PhD in Metallurgical Engineering from Clemson University) Thermodynamics and the Development of Order:

“If the layer of ozone that surrounds the Earth were removed, allowing all radiant energy from the Sun to reach the surface of the Earth, all life, from micro-organisms to man, would rapidly be snuffed out. This is because the shortwave, highly energetic, highly destructive portion of the radiant energy from the sun is absorbed by ozone. The removal of this protective shield of ozone would allow this deadly energy to reach Earth and destroy all living things.

 According to the evolutionary scenario that must be suggested by evolutionists, there could be no protective shield of ozone in the hypothetical primordial atmosphere. Ozone is composed of tri-atomic oxygen. Ultraviolet light from the sun converts ordinary diatomic molecular oxygen into ozone. If there were no oxygen in the primordial atmosphere, then there could be no ozone. Evolutionists must, of necessity, exclude oxygen from their primitive Earth scenario, however. If oxygen were present, all organic substances, such as amino acids, sugars, etc would be oxidized to carbon dioxide, water, and other oxidized substances.

 Oxygen is thus incompatible with an evolutionary scenario, but then so is its absence! No oxygen, no ozone. No ozone, no protection from the deadly, destructive shortwave ultraviolet light that is rapidly fatal for the existence of amino acids, proteins, DNA, and RNA. Again the evolutionist is caught between the horns of a dilemma.”

Vrummage:

Evolution theory requires a universal principle of upward change

Oolon Colluphid:

False. Only local change.

True. Universal principle of upward change. If it did require only local change, this could be only after a system was put in place to sustain organic compounds (let alone actual life forms) from being deep fried by the sun. What you must assert, if you deny Creative design is that matter acted at a point in time after the creation of the universe contrary to its nature to organize itself into increasing levels of complexity. That matter did here on Earth what matter has not been shown to do anywhere else.