I've been going round and round with an IDer who constantly brings this up. I have a working engineer's knowledge of thermodynamics as applied to the design of heat transfer systems like boilers and heat exchangers in a flue gas stream, not that of scientists like you and Myers. So while I'm comfortable creating computer models for CAD systems, I'm not up to the task of addressing fundamental theoretical issues. So with that preamble...
There is some work (http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/) by Charles B. Thaxton et al. that seems to be the basis for the ID position. Sources like the ones Myers points to rebut it, yet the IDers come right back with another set of arguments like the one at http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp. They seem to be a step or two ahead of Ranganathan.
Can you point to the flaw in their argument, or give me some direction on where to look? Or is it just a matter of me resurrecting the college physics I took decades ago?
"The natural (or spontaneous) tendency of matter and of all of energy is toward greater disorder -- not toward greater order or complexity as evolution would teach"
Somebody ought to explain to these people how babies are made. Now there's order out of chaos! It might be educational for them in more ways than one.....
I'm sure a lot of people find PZ's take on things amusing, but in my opinion he's doing more harm than good to the scientific community.
He's incredibly disrespectful and constantly condescending to the ID movement and related groups, hurling insults at them more often than he does reasoned arguments. For example, he calls the guy in this thermodynamics argument a "goddamned moron."
Whether or not they warrant respect is not the point -- in my opinion, *scientists* are in a unique position in the battle to keep intelligent design out of public school classrooms, and need to be more careful of what they say.
Anyone right of center who happens to stumble across his blog is reinforced in the (generally incorrect) stereotype that scientists are "elitists". For those who also happen to be Christian, you can add to that "elitist *atheists* who skew science in an effort to take down Christianity." His rhetoric also makes him a rather inattractive human being to anyone undecided on the ID issue, and generally speaking, insulting your opponent is a pretty bad way to win people over.
I'm not saying that he shouldn't respond to bad science. His frustration is understandable as well. I'm merely saying that I would hope that he would respond in a manner that doesn't give fuel to the fire of the arguments of the opposition.
I agree with Josh. I think it is even more a matter of respecting the reader than respecting the members of the ID movement. " One is not going to change a Babu Ranganathan and all the insults will merely confirm to himself his sense of being oppressed because he is a Christian. Nor will one change his confirmed followers. There is no point also in preaching to those that understand entropy and evolution. The real catch are the people who have read Babu Ranganathan, and want to see what the other side as to say. Moron, Moron, Idiot" don't read well. Any such who gets confused by the ID article and comes looking for a response from the scientists is bound to be turned off.
Thanks Arun, very well put, particularly "I think it is even more a matter of respecting the reader than respecting the members of the ID movement."
Needless to say I didn't get quite the same response when I raised the issue over at PZ's blog.
This is not the creationist view, but the scientific view:
Many people don't know the difference between thermodynamic entropy and logical entropy. That's what causes the problem. Perhaps logical entropy should be given a different name, so the confusion would be avoided. Many people misunderstand entropy and what it means. It's not the same as energy. That's another reason why confusion ensues. With regards to heat, the units of entropy are clear: Joules/K.
Feynman knew there is a difference between the two meanings of entropy. He discussed thermodynamic entropy in the section called "Entropy" of his Lectures on Physics published in 1963, using physical units, joules per degree, and over a dozen equations (vol I section 44-6). He discussed the second meaning of entropy
in a different section titled "Order and entropy" (vol I section 46-5). He
attaches no units to entropy in this second discussion. Another source of
confusion is trying to apply such units to logical entropy.
Evolution (if it occurs and by whatever mechanism is used) cannot and does not violate the 2nd law. But if you separate the concepts of thermodynaic entropy and logical entropy you will see clearly that any process whereby order arises
from disorder without an algorithm (guidance) is impossible. Such are the claims made for darwinian evolution by mutation and natural selection. We are asked to accept that complex structures and processes arose from a disorderly system by a process of trial and error. This is not possible without some kind of guidance.
No complex process or structure in the physical world (excluding living systems)ever arose by an unguided process. No building ever built itself, no machine ever assembled itself, no painting ever painted itself, nor has any book ever written
itself. Why should we think that living organisms, which are after all just biochemical machines, are capable of self creation?
In addition, you'll often hear the argument (ad nauseum, I might add) that the 2nd law only applies to closed systems and the earth is not a closed system. The fact is, there is no such thing as a closed system anywhere in the universe. Only
the universe itself is a completely closed system (insofar as we know). Therefore, it is quite acceptable to apply the 2nd law to "almost closed systems" in which there is a balance between the heat flowing in and the heat flowing out. The earth is such a system.
Many people refuse to accept the connection between disorder and the
2nd law and refuse to acknowledge that the 2nd law says anything about
it. That's fine with me. Let's separate out the isssue of order and
disorder and allow it to stand alone. That's why I proposed that it be
referred to as Nelson's Law. (for a more complete description of this
law, do a google on it and my old posts will fill you in). Feynman
follows the same logic, discussing it separate from thermodynamics and
without the complicated math, except the understanding that the
logarithm of the number of ways the insides can be arranged and still
look the same from the outside is the entropy. Perhaps to avoid still
more confusion, we should continue to refer to entropy in terms of
deltaQ/T and use another word to refer to disorder. Perhaps the word
"disorder" would suffice. :-)
At any rate, we observe an increase in biological organization
starting from the first primitive cells and progressing up to the
present state of the biosphere. Nelson's Law clearly states that this
kind of increase in organization cannot occur without intelligent
input or guidance from the outside. Darwinism proposes that such an
increase in organization can occur merely through the application of
random processes and accidental occurrences, under the filtering
control of natural selection. Nelson's Law rejects this as an unproven
assumption. We have strong observational evidence that this is so
because no highly organized systems, systems in which means are
adapted to ends, systems in which structure is related to function and
systems in which functions are related to purpose, have ever bootstrapped themselves into existence from the raw materials in their environment without the benefit of intelligent guidance. In the neo-darwinian evolutionary account, this is the violation. A decrease in disorder, (or an increase in order) must happen continuously for
this hypothesis to be valid. Since Nelson's Law forbids such an
occurrence, the conclusion must be that darwinism is not the mechanism
of evolution.
Evolutionists simply ignore this staggering problem, or try to
explain it away by invoking the confusion between the terms entropy,
order, etc. or contantly trying to link it back to thermodynamics.
Rather than focusing on the 2nd law aspects, they would be better
served to try to explain better how, in their paradigm, order and
meaning can arise from disorder without intelligent guidance.
AndyS: Good explanations of entropy i've seen are: i.) The 2nd Law (p.w. atkins) ii.) The World of the Cell (Wayne Becker et al, ). These texts, albeit from a chem/bio background, go right to the point the ID/creationist folks complain about. As you probably know, the tendency of oil droplets to coalesce in water (uh-oh! apparently creating order and violating the 2nd law) is none other than the hydrophobic effect which is perfectly consistent w/our notion of thermodynamic entropy and the 2nd law. And to cope w/this open versus closed system stuff, one often instead uses a free energy (Gibbs or Helmholtz) to account for both enthalpic/energetic and entropic changes to a non-isolated system like a cell. The above explanations are perhaps too basic, but they do address some of the Creationist objections raised above.
For myself, I was first trained in thermo via Carnot cycles, blocks of metal,endless pistons/cylinders, Ising models etc.....it was only after trying to understand how it can be consistent w/life that I got more interested in the subject. I guess according to the ID world, I should've realized thermo is just plain wrong. Well, that's one less subject to teach...
jepe wrote:
"I guess according to the ID world, I should've realized thermo is just plain wrong."
No, thermo is absolutely correct. It's darwinism that's wrong. That's the whole point. _If_ evolution had occurred the way Darwin said it did, it _would_ violate 2LT. The conclusion is that since no process violates 2LT, then it must be Darwin who was wrong.
Josh has a blog, Charlie. I suggest you discuss "Nelson's law" with him in a pleasant and supportive environment.
While I can sympathize with the use of "disorder" as a shorthand for entropy (I'm neither a physicist nor a chemist, so I've managed to avoid most of the detailed rigor of thermodynamics), the number one annoyance for me in the creationist position is the idea that intelligence is a way to escape the law. You can see it in Ranganathan's and Wagner's arguments. Entropy is unavoidable except if you've got a clever designer. That all by itself speaks volumes about their comprehension of the concept.
I think I'm moderately intelligent, but I'm under no illusions that my actions can reverse the net flow of entropy.
According to the the argument above, the formation of snowflakes and crystals in general is impossible too, as crystalline forms are more ordered than their initial ingredients.
PZ wrote:
"I think I'm moderately intelligent, but I'm under no illusions that my actions can reverse the net flow of entropy."
I don't want to bring our disagreements to Sean's blog but you task me.
You're absolutely right, you cannot reverse the NET flow of entropy. The entropy of the UNIVERSE increases in all processes.
But you can use intelligence to decrease the local entropy of a system. You can take a bag of red and black marbles and sort them into two groups. The point is that this cannot be accomplished with random, accidental or non-intelligent processes. You cannot get organization without a guiding algorithm. That's what Nelson's Law says. You're welcome to provide an example (which I will quickly debunk) to prove that I'm wrong. Here, Ill help you get started...snowflakes. (or maybe you prefer tornadoes?)
aphysicist wrote:
"According to the argument above, the formation of snowflakes and crystals in general is impossible too, as crystalline forms are more ordered than their initial ingredients."
Crystalline forms are more ordered than their initial ingredients, but the guiding algorithm resides in the physical forces between the atoms and the molecules and how they behave when heat or solvent is removed. In seeds, the guiding algorithm is in the sequence of bases in the DNA. In evolution, mutation and selection are not algorithmic processes, so they cannot function as the guuiding algorithm. On the other hand, perhaps what you call evolution is the unfolding of a yet to be detected algorithm that was present in the DNA from the very beginning and most likely came to earth from elsewhere.
Despite having a PhD in physics, I don't recall encountering any mention of intelligence in thermodynamics, much less intelligence being a special ability to decrease entropy.
I also don't recall any physical principle called Nelson's law. Googling Nelson's Law returns "The better the four-wheel drive, the further away you'll be when you get stuck."
As for algorithms, I don't see the connection with thermodynamics there either, but in any case, selection and mutation is as much an algorithmic process as embryonic development is. Projects like Avida clearly demonstrate that fact.
"But you can use intelligence to decrease the local entropy of a system. You can take a bag of red and black marbles and sort them into two groups."
Charlie, is it your position then that the total entropy of the "person-marble" system -- which is basically closed and hence governed by the 2nd law -- has *decreased*?
More examples: spontaneous formation of a lipid bilayer (cell membrane) protein and RNA folding....the machines of life. These are also situations where you have the spontaneous formation of structures while being consistent w/the 2nd law. This is in fact an on-going area of research for folks interested in the so-called molecular driving forces governing biology. Given the above, however, I take it that electrostatics and the hydrophobic effect is evidence of 'intelligence'? I.e. the basic molecular forces demonstrated to be critical for proper structure formation of bilayers, proteins, RNA, etc (which we and drug-resistant bugs mutate all the time) are all manifestations of Nelson's Law? (the above-mentioned algorithm)
Well, if we are to accept the ID apologists critique, such as those at Tech Central, then their own points need to be examined under their own system. Thus, when they propose the following premise as a substantive example of their argument, they must admit to its complete and utter failure.
"As Mount Rushmore compels an observer to conclude that an intelligent cause was at work there, the "specified complexity" of life points to an intelligent designer."
As an alloted member of the Lakota tribe, i can, with some degree of certainty, state unequivocably, that Mount Rushmore in no way whatsoever represents any intelligent design. Given this, there is no such thing as "specified complexity" and no such thing as an "intelligent designer." As one friend of mine stated after seeing Rushmore for the first time while visiting me, "How can anything so famous be so boring?"
If one knows any history of this particular descration of the sacred hills, they would know how the "intelligent designer" was associated with the KKK, with racist agendas, with demonstrating the conquest of indigenous north america by Europeans, and so forth.
I suppose this sort of criticism of the insensibilities of ID proponents might cast me as a secular liberal or worse. But they are wrong on so many accounts, and this is just another nail to hammer into their coffin.
As a lay reader, it seems to me you can't add an Intelligent Designer to the system without violating the whole entropy thing. Unless, of course, we're actually looking at the "intelligent designer" and just don't realize it. Maybe the so-called 'dark matter' or 'dense stuff' that's theorized. Who knows, maybe the walls really do have ears.
aphysicist wrote:
"Despite having a PhD in physics, I don't recall encountering any mention of intelligence in thermodynamics, much less intelligence being a special ability to decrease entropy."
It's self-evident.
Feynman says:
"So we now have to talk about what we mean by disorder and what we mean by order. ... Suppose we divide the space into little volume elements. If we have black and white molecules, how many ways could we distribute them among the volume elements so that white is on one side and black is on the other? On the other hand, how many ways could we distribute them with no restriction on which goes where? Clearly, there are many more ways to arrange them in the latter case. We measure "disorder" by the number of ways that the insides can be arranged, so that from the outside it looks the same. The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy. The number of ways in the separated case is less, so the entropy is less, or the "disorder" is less."
"I also don't recall any physical principle called Nelson's law."
I am Nelson and it's my law.
http://tinyurl.com/cea7d
"...selection and mutation is as much an algorithmic process as embryonic development is. Projects like Avida clearly demonstrate that fact."
Yes, if the algorithms are written, seeded and their output evaluated by intelligent humans.
Can we send Charlie to wherever we sent Quantoken?
Josh wrote:
"Charlie, is it your position then that the total entropy of the "person-marble" system -- which is basically closed and hence governed by the 2nd law -- has *decreased*?"
No. A lot depends on which entropy you're talking about and how you define the system. The disorder of the marbles alone has decreased, but the entropy of the universe has increased due to the energy expended by the person. I guess if you throw Boltzmann's constant into the equation dS = k ln(W) you could probably figure it out. My guess would be that the increase in thermodynamic entropy would be much greater than the decrease in logical entropy (disorder)since it is required that net entropy increases.
"Can we send Charlie to wherever we sent Quantoken?"
If the owner of this blog so requests, I will not post here again. It's that simple.
What say, Sean?
Going back a bit, I think that Josh's point is a bit misguided. Yes, it's important to provide a proper run down of why things like the idea of intelligence influencing entropy are wrong from a scientific standpoint, but I think you're mistaken if you think that that sort of argument alone is going to be broadly effective. Obviously, people like Charlie and Ranganathan are beyond any persuasion (I know, because I've tried with Charlie in the past), but for the bystanders I think you've gotta make it clear right from the word "go" that these people don't have a clue. Once that's been done, then you can go through the math and demonstrate your point. If you don't make that point at the outset, then you're stuck playing defense. Pop 'em in the mouth and you're the one setting the parameters of the discussion.
At the heart of it, this isn't a scientific debate (that was settled a long time ago); it's more along the lines of a court room trial without a judge. The sooner scientists realize that, the better off we'll be.
For more on the author of the Tech Central Station piece, Mustafa Akyol, see this article.
By the way, the organization with which Akyol is associated, Bilim Arastirma Vakfi ("Science Research Foundation"), has apparently also published tracts that claim to debunk accounts of Turkey's genocide against the Armenians in 1915.
I should have said "starting in 1915." See this FAQ for a more detailed chronology.
Second law- Kelvin-Planck Statement: A transformation whose only final result is to transform into work heat extracted from a source that is at the same temperature throughout is impossible.
Clearly Wagner is a dolt. Or cannot read.
As Sean mentioned the sun is a the heat source and thus the energy source for work to be done - that energy is stored and can be later released to drive biological processes -else we would nto be here and I could not have lifted those heavy weights this afternoon. Nor could my son have caught a cold again the other day - because the virus could not have evolved intoa new form in another host nor could it be transfered to him, etc, etc,
George: Yes, for those that don't subscribe to evolution, there's nothing like the threat of disease from bugs or viruses to encourage them re-examine their convictions. We work w/bacteria routinely and have to worry about this, whether it appeals to our tastes or not. And certainly, the increase of bugs evolving drug-resistance, if unchecked, will hunt many of us down, whether we choose to subscribe to evolution or not.
Andy S asked for a simple example of a core fallacy in true.origins. Here's one.
to - The “order” found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy (i.e., reduced entropy).
Actually it has precisely to do with decreased entropy. How much the entropy of an ice crystal is decreased by isothermally freezing it is a simple calculation in Freshman level thermodynamics. These people simply spout words - they don't appear to have any real notion of what entropy is, how it's measured, or how it's calculated. It hardly needs to be added that they don't know what they are talking about.
Charlie W - In evolution, mutation and selection are not algorithmic processes, so they cannot function as the guuiding algorithm.
Shooting fish in a barrel is not my thing, so I will content myself by noting that algorithms for mutation and selection are easy to come by. Together they form the basis of the so called "genetic algorithms" now widely used for many kinds of calculations.
I guess the part that amazes me is that you guys can emit this word salad without your brains apparently having any logical connection to the words you say.
A (hopefully final) question for our ID friends. So if the second law says life can't exist, what exactly is it that you are claiming? That life doesn't exist? Or that the second law is wrong? Those possibilities look exhaustive to me.
In case you can't follow that logical dichotomy, let me be plainer. Are you claiming that God violates the second law? If so, then it's not really always true, is it? You are just saying OK the second law usually works, but when it doesn't, God's tampering with his Universe.
Jepe,
Evolution by any other name is evolution. Virus or drug resistant bacteria evolve - sorry to disappoint you. I doubt that you can not subscribe to it and thus not get sick - but I duess you can deny it
Ryan Scranton wrote:
"Obviously, people like Charlie and Ranganathan are beyond any persuasion (I know, because I've tried with Charlie in the past), but for the bystanders I think you've gotta make it clear right from the word "go" that these people don't have a clue."
Hi! Ryan...
I hope you're well and happy.
First of all, PLEASE don't put me in the same catagory as that other person. There's only one of me and I'm unique so please don't lump me with others with whom I do not belong.
That having been said, in response to your statement above, I would like nothing better than for you to prove me wrong. The strength of my convictions on this matter, in the true spirit of the scientific method, get stronger when people are unable or unwilling to answer my challenge effectively.
I remember George Smoot's work. While I don't neessarily agree with everything he claims, I respect his integrity and devotion to the scientific method. He challenged everyone to prove him wrong about those anisotropies, and ONLY when they couldn't find any errors was he convinced.
If anything I've said is incorrect, it is incumbent upon my detractors to provide empirical evidence, rather than resort to name calling, as one poster did above.
All you have to do is show me a system that arose without intelligent guidance which contains multiple structures with multiple processes in which the structures and processes are integrated in such a way that they support the functions of each other and the function of the system, and you will NEVER hear another word from me on the subject AND I'll buy you dinner at the Cafe Allegro the next time I'm in Pittsburgh!
George: not disagreeing w/you. Perhaps my above post was unclear. I certainly know and agree that viruses/bacteria evolve. In fact, our work counts on bacteria/viruses evolving (in particular, under drug pressure), and addresses the resulting health consequences at the molecular level. I was merely pointing out that ID and 'evolution' people will suffer from these consequences the same. And ideally, this should be a great case to present as supporting evidece for evolution. But, apparently, it is not.
"If anything I've said is incorrect, it is incumbent upon my detractors to provide empirical evidence, rather than resort to name calling, as one poster did above."
BS. The onus of proof is always on the claimant. If you are claiming this so-called Nelson's law, then you need to prove this law yourself. Concepts such as:
'Multiple structures'
'Function of a system'
'Intelligence'
have not even been _defined_ in an objective manner. You are splicing together physical concepts with things that have zero physical meaning, so that your entire argument breaks down into a set of tautologies and circular fallacies.
anonymous wrote:
"BS. The onus of proof is always on the claimant."
Darwinian evolutionists take note.
Evolution assumes heredity, mutations, and selection. These can be shown to exist. These are well-defined, objective concepts. Evolution shows that in the absence of additional laws to prevent things, then everything can be achieved.
There is no evidence in favour of ID.
A further note.
I have observed that, all too often, discussions of ID-related topics – including especially the thermodynamics of the origin of living systems at molecular level -- deteriorates into a tired polemical monologue.
Sadly, on the evidence of the current posts, this blog has not escaped this challenge. I therefore wish to suggest the following online resources as a way to lift the level of discussion in this thread:
1] A classic paper by Thaxton et al on the case, in the days when Darwin’s still, warm pond was regarded as a viable model (latterly, there has been a shift to hydrothemal vents, perhaps in a panspermia conjecture), but the basic thead of the thermodynamics discussion still applies to the synthesis of informational polymers. The clarification of concepts, terms and issues is an outstanding contribution, and is still very relevant indeed: http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/
2] Granville Sewell’s discussion [NB he does not use isolated, closed and open systems in the usual way, but his remarks are quite relevant] in Appendix D of his Wiley-published text on numerical solutions of ODE’s and PDE’s: http://www.math.tamu.edu/~sewell...des/
article.pdf
3] Dembski on searching large spaces, with special reference to the ~ 100-element informational polymer, including an updated form of his no free lunch theorems argument. (Readers not Mathematically inclined should skip to the closing remarks.) http://www.designinference.com/
d...arge_Spaces.pdf
I trust these references will be fruitful in helping move the discussion of this important cluster of issues above the usual sad and futile polemical level.
Another reference to add to the collection, by H. Allen Orr (in the latest New Yorker).
~ 100-element informational polymer
This is the kind of bullshit that creationists spout to try and baffle the ignorant. Death's too good for them.
it is not that mutations couldn't be responsible for a lifeform of some sort, but the chance of this happening randomly is extremely petite;
if you then think about all the mutations that eventually lead to everything we know in nature and you check what the odds are of ALL of this happening, you will find that it would take thousands of billions of years for this to happen and our space-time is only about 16 billion years young
our existence would be an incredible spot of luck, but i doubt the theory of luck is a scientifically valid theory
one must also keep in mind that when one speaks about evolution, this deals not only with living organisms but with everything in space-time and maybe even in the universe
evolution is just an ugly word for change and everything in space-time changes with time (this is something christians recently discovered and atheists admire) and everything that changes changes in a similar way since space-time works with scales
therefor it is most likely that whatever causes lifeforms to change is a similar or indeed the same force as this which causes or determines change in any other collection of quarks and gluons
our space-time is a closed system in which the present is an arbitrary location and the future is equally actual as the past
it forms a whole which is both and neither static and/nor dynamic
it is also extremely important that personal religious views stay out of the discussion since they corrupt the way people interpret the world they live in
this does not necessarely mean that god ought to be dismissed a priori
to dismiss something one can not be certain about is hardly a scientific practice
or at least it shouldn't be
ps the posts on this site about the discussion are amongst the most interesting i found so far
keep up the good work
Commenting by HaloScan
