Does entropy disprove evolution?

By Bernie Dehler
9-19-07

I hear this statement from those who oppose evolution: "The law of entropy says that order goes to disorder; you can't get order from disorder." In fact, I heard a Bible teacher repeat it last Sunday.  I think this statement is easy to refute with many examples.  (By the way, I disagreed with some other things this teacher said, agreed with some things, and also learned some new things.)

First, an easy answer.  Saying the law of entropy disallows order from disorder is like saying airplanes can't fly, because of the law of gravity... or that no one can jump in the air because of gravity.  Even the real-life example of seeing a child grow into an adult is a form of higher complexity arising... is that also against entropy?  But we see it happening!

Now, for the really better scientific answer.  (By the way, this is my idea, and I don't have much feedback on it yet, so feel free to respond in the comment section.)  Consider the picture, showing how large the Sun is to the Earth.  The Sun is the energy source for the life on Earth.  Einstein's equation is E=MC^2, which states the relationship between the conversion of energy and matter.  Think of all the energy the Sun is throwing off, in all directions, and how much just a very tiny bit of it is captured by the earth and actually used for life (such as photosynthesis in a green leaf).  The amount of energy captured from the sun is so very little... remember how small the Earth is to the Sun, and the picture above is only 2D... visualizing it in 3D shows even less energy being captured and used by the Earth.  As you can see from this example, most of the energy is simply lost in heat radiating out to space... no useful work at all, and thus the law of entropy in play.  When the sun burns out, we go with it-- that is entropy... that is things going from order to disorder... that is energy flowing from heat to cold, as the law of entropy actually literally states (click here to learn more about entropy).

Anyway, people shouldn't try to teach things they don't understand... and pretend as if they do.  Also, Bible teachers, I think, are failing in their responsibility to know science and to be able to integrate it correctly into the faith.  Ignorance is fine for an audience that doesn't know any better; however, sometimes the audience grows up, attends college, then finds out they were duped by those in authority.  That can't be good for the faith.

Comments

[tad]

I was going to comment on a comment from Bernie's newsletter. In it, Bernie quoted one of the comments he received:

"I have to admit I have lost confidence in you if you really can support evolution. You really need to study Ken Ham’s material. Go to Answers in Genesis website. Go to the creation museum near Cincinnati. If you cannot believe the first 11 books of Genesis you cannot believe the rest of the Bible."

My question back to the writer of this comment: how do YOU interpret John 6? There are three miracles written about. Do you accept them all as is written? If I were a betting man, I would bet all I have that the writer takes the third miracle in John 6 to be figurative ONLY...but that would put that writer at odds with historic orthordox Christianity.

Do you believe there is more than one way to intrepret that chapter (and all similar ones) or should there be only one way to interpret such things?

Just something to consider...

[Aaron]

Thanks Bernie, I will look forward to the dialogue!

[Bernie of www.sciligion.org]

Aaron said: "But I guess the question should be asked: do you believe that altruism exists? or do you think it is an idealistic construct?"

That would make a good article... seems to me that Jesus Christ was and taught the ultimate in altruism. "He who loves the least of these is loving Christ"... "highest form of love is giving one's life for his friends..." etc. These things are made possible with humans who have the Spirit of God within them. I'll put that on the list of things to write about.

...Bernie

[Aaron]

Thanks for the reply Bernie,

I still think the sun analogy is challenging. I may be the fact that you are using some loaded words in the analogy. In my (albeit limited perspective) terms and phrases such as "wasted", "accomplishes", and "no useful work" imply intent. The theory that the energy from the sun has an active intent is a fallacy. The additional energy the sun generates may be unused (by us) but the idea that it is wasted is a non-starter. That which is not used by us is identified as wasted in your post, when in fact a great deal more of the suns energy is used by plants and animals that don't generally use solar calculators. I still think it is a great idea to refine, I'm just not sure that it can reinforce your point without revision.

I think an interesting area for discussion may be the existence of altruism which directly refutes evolution (though I'm an old earther myself). I have yet to find the most dedicated atheist that can satisfactorily explain the evolutionary origin of altruism. The strongest argument I have heard for the evolutionary development of altruism came in the form of insect colony interdependence, for obvious reasons it was wholly unsuccessful in swaying me from my theory that human altruism is one of the clearest evidences of God's handiwork in our creation.

But I guess the question should be asked: do you believe that altruism exists? or do you think it is an idealistic construct?

YBIC, Aaron

[Bernie of www.sciligion.org]

Aaron said: "The sun's energy is passive, not wasted. The sun is making no effort to sustain survivable life on earth, whereas evolution at it's root is about adapting to an environment for the sake of the survival of a species. The sun does not care whether we thrive or not, it is simply burning fuel and we are the beneficiary of it's exhaust."

My point is that the sun is our energy source. Without it, we would almost immediately die. How much of the energy from the sun does the earth use? An extremely teeny weeny tiny bit. All the rest of the energy from the sun is being wasted. It goes to no use. It accomplishes nothing.

Aaron said: "Where your idea gains real legs is the acceleration of our ability to adapt to our rapidly changing climate. The adaptation is to some degree passive, but as our capacity to understand our surroundings increases, we are more rapidly able to adapt to those surroundings using technology in a few years rather than physical adaptation over eons. This signifies to me an increasing sophisticated intellect which clearly evidences behavioral and intellectual evolution which refutes the idea of evolution = entropy."

The idea of intelligence driving evolution goes to the definition of a "meme" (atheist Richard Dawkins made up that term, but I really really like it). Just as genes drive evolution in biology, memes drive evolution in intelligence. Only humans have sophisticated memes. We learn from those before us-- reading books, internet, going to school/university, debates, etc. Apes and all lower lifeforms are incapable of that. I think the discovery and use of the "scientific method" is in fact a major breakthru meme, leading to many others. And just as there are good and harmful bacteria, there is good and bad memes (good and bad ideas). Now, with our knowledge (memes), we are on the cusp of manipulating biology (genes) in the lab, through cloning and DNA-related research. Memes and genes working together for the benefit of man-- the medical consequences are tremendous ("gene therapy" to name one field).

...Bernie

[Aaron]

I think your idea is interesting as a starting point. But I am unsure that it is the best analogy to use the sun to earth idea. The sun's energy is passive, not wasted. The sun is making no effort to sustain survivable life on earth, whereas evolution at it's root is about adapting to an environment for the sake of the survival of a species.

The sun does not care whether we thrive or not, it is simply burning fuel and we are the beneficiary of it's exhaust.
Where your idea gains real legs is the acceleration of our ability to adapt to our rapidly changing climate. The adaptation is to some degree passive, but as our capacity to understand our surroundings increases, we are more rapidly able to adapt to those surroundings using technology in a few years rather than physical adaptation over eons. This signifies to me an increasing sophisticated intellect which clearly evidences behavioral and intellectual evolution which refutes the idea of evolution = entropy.

Is that bad or good? I think it's the way God made us and therefore most excellent. But don't tell the looneyligionists, it appears they still believe a man with hundreds of concubines and wives, and that sacrificed children to Molech, is the epitome of wise. We that choose to question that, of course, are the entropied.