Evolution Debate has NO theological significance

[jab1]

*Originally posted by jab1 *
the Sun’s entropy that is decreasing, not the Earth’s.

Change this to read: “…the Sun’s entropy is INcreasing…” BTW: When people say the Earth’s entropy is either decreasing or remaining more or less constant, they are usually referring to the Earth’s surface. The interior of the Earth is gaining entropy; i.e., it’s cooling off. And there is little we can do about it.

Libertarian: Living organisms stay alive (continue their existence) by taking in energy in the forms of food and oxygen or carbon dioxide. What form(s) of energy do immortal souls ingest to continue their existence? (If you say “Love,” I’m gonna scream. )

[JonF]

How does the earth, as a system, receive an increase in entropy? The sun? Is the sun enough? The sun does not cause a dead twig to come to life. Material possessions deteriorate and all living organisms return to dust, a state of disorder. All processes of nature have a tendency toward decay and disintegration, observable everywhere here on earth.

Sorry, incorrect. The process of crystallization that you mentioned later is an example.

Note that the common practice of equating order/disorder with thermodynamic entropy is absolutely correct in a few cases (ideal gases), plausible as a correlation in many cases, and incorrect in many cases.

Note also that entropy is a thermodynamic property, which is a technical term with an important but non-obvious component in its definition. The value of a property does not depend on the history of a system; that is, the entropy of a system does not depend on how that system got to its present state. There must be a path and mechanism connecting system states, but the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to say obout the nature of that path and mechanism.

How does the mere availability of energy insure the development of orderly structural growth?

It almost certainly doesn’t. As far as we can tell, available energy is necessary but not sufficient.

Probability, or intelligent design?

You appear to be eliding from “orderly structural growth” to “life”. That’s OK.

The choice is not between probability and intelligent design. The choice is between:

1. Probability plus the chemical and quantum mechanical rules/tendencies of the universe plus the powerful filter of selection.

2. Intelligent design.

3. Something else, of which perhaps we can conceive now and perhaps we can’t conceive now.

Note that the existence of #3 means that disproving of finding problems with #2 is not evidence for #1.

Do you think open systems are immune to the law of thermodynamics?

No systems are “immune” to the laws of thermodynamics.

As stated by this article, decreases in entropy can only be produced at the expense of a still greater increase in the external environment.

I haven’t read that article for some time, so I forget exactly what it says. However, a decrease in the total entropy of a system can only be produced at the expense of a greater increase in the external environment. However, entropy may be rearranged within a system so that entropy decreases in some portion of the system and increases (more) in some other part of the system, with no effect on the external environment. Note that this allows for the possibility that the Universe is a closed system (it may or may not be) and entropy is decreasing in one part of the system (that is, here) and increasing more somewhere else.

As for the examples of order from disorder: the crystalline symmetry of snowflakes and salt, are already programmed into the nature of the molecules; just ask a chemist. The growth of plants from seeds, and chicks from eggs, are already programmed in the DNA; just ask a biologist.

I don’t see a point there. All processes obey the second law of thermodynamics. The existence of life may be “programmed” into the universe. I put “programmed” in quotes to underscore the danger of anthropomorphizing; the existence of a “program” does not necessarily imply the existence of a programmer.

Remember that increased order is often not lower entropy, and decreased order is often not higher entropy.

Life on Earth - Flow of Energy and Entropy

The Second law of Thermodynamics"

Entropy and Evolution"

[Liberal]

Jab:

Living organisms stay alive (continue their existence) by taking in energy in the forms of food and oxygen or carbon dioxide. What form(s) of energy do immortal souls ingest to continue their existence? (If you say “Love,” I’m gonna scream.)

Souls are not organisms; they are “pieces” of God. And yes, they require His Love to live. Without it, they are dead. Frankly, I think evolution is wonderful.

[MEBuckner]

[The Theory of Evolution] tends to erode the belief that human beings are “special”–created in the image of God; with immortal souls, which no other living thing is supposed to have–in favor of the idea that human beings are animals.

Nah. The gestalt that is man is a beautiful piece of engineering despite whatever mechanism God has employed to achieve it. Just because it took a long time in our reference frame doesn’t mean anything of consequence.

I’d just like to point out that I was responding to the question “Why is evolution more or less singled out by the creationists?”, and that my original reply said “Also, evolution is probably especially upsetting to fundamentalists because it tends to erode the belief that human beings are “special”–created in the image of God; with immortal souls, which no other living thing is supposed to have–in favor of the idea that human beings are animals.” (emphasis added) To fundamentalist Christians, the idea that human beings are “just” animals is quite upsetting, and it’s very important to them to make the distinction that humans are created “in the image of God” (which “image” even to fundamentalist Christians I think has more to do with being a rational and moral being than with having two arms and two legs and a nose and so forth).

[Freyr]

**ImNotMad wrote:

The only reason the theory of evolution is still alive is because atheists need a reason to deny the existence of God.**

Can you give us one example of a person who is a professional in the fields of biology or anthropology who has stated that the Theory of Evolution disproves the existience of (the Judeo/Christian/Islamic) God?

Thus, this scientifically infeasible theory is nothing more than a bad religion.

Exactly how is evolution a religion? Where exactly does it mention the Gods?

And I’m still waiting for answers to the questions I posed to you regarding cosmology, planetology, biology, etc. I’m most especially interested in hearing your answer to my question regarding epistimology.

[Phobos]

*Originally posted by ImNotMad *
Phobos:
Thanks for the links.

You’re welcome. Thanks for reading them. I know it’s a lot to go through.

*Originally posted by ImNotMad *
Regarding your link on thermodynamics:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

A basic summary is that with enough increase of entropy of a system’s surroundings (work), the entropy of the system can be decreased, even though the overall entropy of the system and surroundings receives an irreversible increase in entropy (as defined by the law of thermodynamics).

Entropy can be locally reduced, but the entropy of the overall system must increase. In other words, order can be created in one area at the expense of creating more disorder in another related area.

Here are some questions I have regarding this article:
How does the earth, as a system, receive an increase in entropy? The sun? Is the sun enough?

All life on Earth derives it’s physical energy from the sun. The sun produces more than enough energy to support life on Earth. Plants capture a small fraction of the sun’s energy to support their growth. That process is not 100% efficient and there is even some heat loss there (increase of entropy). Animals eat the plants to support their growth. That process is not 100% efficient. Our metabolism which our bodies operating properly breaks food down into some energy which is used and some which is lost as heat (increase of entropy).

Life around hydrothermal vents might not derive its energy from the sun, but I’m not so sure there is a 100% disconnect. Anyway, even that life derives its physical energy from an overall system which produces more entropy than order (the vents give off lots of heat kind of like the sun, the metabolisms of the organisms, etc.).

The sun does not cause a dead twig to come to life.

True, simply applying energy does not create order or bring things to life. There has to be a working mechanism in place. A live branch has a mechanism in place (leaves, chlorophyll) to capture and convert the sun’s energy into a useful form for that organisms. Those mechanisms have ceased to work in a dead branch.

Before you ask, it is not scientifically explained how the first organisms came to life (‘abiogenesis’). But it is scientifically conceiveable that a series of natural chemical reactions resulted in self-replicating molecules. Not full-blown plants or animals or even bacteria, but just simple self-replicating molecules. Then in steps evolution.

Material possessions deteriorate and all living organisms return to dust, a state of disorder. All processes of nature have a tendency toward decay and disintegration, observable everywhere here on earth.

As before, local entropy can be reduced as long as the entropy of the system increases. I think we can all agree that it’s not permanent.

How does the mere availability of energy insure the development of orderly structural growth?

See above re: branch.

Probability, or intelligent design?

That is scientifically unknown. But so far, there is no scientific evidence that necessitates invoking the intelligent design conclusion. So far, that still requires a leap of faith. Which is fine. I think we’re just debating the scientific points you brought up.

Do you think open systems are immune to the law of thermodynamics?

No. I was just pointing out that the 2nd law states that entropy increases or stays the same for a closed system. So thermodynamics still apply to an open system, but the entropy equation of the 2nd law does not apply.

As stated by this article, decreases in entropy can only be produced at the expense of a still greater increase in the external environment. Such processes are temporary and eventually succumb to the second law.

As noted above, temporary order of a fraction of a closed system does not violate the 2nd law. No one here is arguing that the order is permanent. Dust to dust.

[xenophon41]

Originally posted by Nisan:

As one who asserts that Evolution theory
stands on firmer ground than Creation theory,
I offer some suggestions to those of you arguing
in favor of Evolution:

<snip>

Have a great weekend!

Some of the lines in your poem were fairly clever, but overall it just doesn’t scan very well. I’d stay away from free verse in the future… (hint: avoid hard returns unless you’re starting a new paragraph)

Unfortunately, creationists are immune to “Proof by Contradiction” (run a search on “microevolution” and “macroevolution” in this forum, any date); your suggestion assumes an intellectual curiosity that the anti-evolution theorists do not typically bring to a debate (witness the lack of response to Freyr’s question regarding epistemology and the scientific method).

[Testy]

FWIW, I agree with you. Indisputable proof of evolution (A time machine? S)would only move the debate to a different level, ie. “Did God direct/cause evolution or did it happen of it’s own?” A proof WOULD squash the 4004 BC literalists though.

Regards.

Testy.
IAmNotMad.
Thanks for bringing up your point of view, I learned quite a few interesting things, all from your opponents.

Testy.

[Nisan]

Thanks for the tip(s), xenophon41-

It’s often frustrating to watch as debate about evolution mutates into debate about the entire universe. Invariably, such digression occurs when creationists refer to the most general laws of the physical universe and apply these concepts to the most specific questions that humans have the capacity to ask.

Until a creationist puts in the time to culture and feed cells,(usually some strain of E.coli), on a schedule, design experiments with sound and valid controls, perform digestions, extract, isolate and purify DNA, run specs and gels on the samples and insert target genes into a batch of fresh cells, it will be difficult for me to believe that creationists truly understand the forces at work in any cell at any given moment.

Certainly, anyone can read a survey of breaking news in the field of genetics and walk away with a solid understanding of the latest developments. This, however, cannot be substituted for an intimate knowledge of what the experiments truly mean.

Basing an argument against evolution on information gathered from books like ‘Darwin’s Black Box’ or the latest articles appearing in Time Magazine, The New York Times, or Popular Science would therefore be a serious mistake.

In my experience, creationists tend to argue against any kind of evolution, whether micro or macro.
There ARE clear examples of microevolution.

If you need proof, go to http://www.google.com and search PubMed, or Idealibrary, (or any other host for online downloadable full-text journal articles), for “microevolution”. Be prepared to read some very technical, very boring articles.

Once you have found a refereed article demonstrating microevoltion, (likely in some form of microbial life, since we can study many generations in relatively little time), you have effectively gathered evidence to fuel your “Proof by Contradiction”.

Since most creationists would argue against evolution of ANY kind, a proof of microevolution will be a sufficient start.
Finally:

To the creationists out there: how can you possibly argue against evolution without having read and understood the PRIMARY research?

I am sure that I would be ridiculed if I claimed to be a theological expert when all of my views are based on Cliff’s Notes of The Bible, The Torah, The Koran and other holy texts.

[Nisan]

…not to say that my views are based on Cliff’s Notes, just hypothetically speaking.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**Jab: What form(s) of energy do immortal souls ingest to continue their existence? (If you say “Love,” I’m gonna scream.)

Souls are not organisms; they are “pieces” of God. And yes, they require His Love to live. Without it, they are dead. **
[/QUOTE]
AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!

But seriously…

Why would one piece of God argue with another piece of God?
Why would one piece of God try to rob another piece of God?
Why would one piece of God try to kill another piece of God?
Why do we not know that we are pieces of God? Why do we need someone like you to tell us?

[hardcore]

*Originally posted by jab1 *
AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!

Believe me, I feel your pain.