Evolution
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:43 am
There have been attempts in the past to disprove evolution, by stating that evolution does not comply with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Thermo2). Thermo2 can be stated many different ways, but essentially says that given no outside influences (in a closed system), the overall system will tend to increase in entropy over time. Entropy is a very difficult concept to understand, and is often incorrectly equated to “randomness.” A better synonym for entropy is probably equilibrium, rather than randomness. Thermo2 doesn’t necessarily disprove evolution, because a higher life form can be in greater state of entropy (equilibrium) than a lower life form.
I will take a slightly different approach, based on the idea of “motivation” – what motivates objects to combine with other objects to form new ones. We’ll start at the same place that evolutionary theory begins: the atom.
Chemistry states atoms combine with other atoms to produce molecules with the lowest energy state possible. Atoms will combine with other atoms if the combination will ultimately release energy, and will likewise un-combine with other atoms if they will ultimately release energy. The motivational force behind what the atoms do (how they combine with other atoms) is their energy level.
Thermo2 states that in a closed system, the atoms and molecules will combine and un-combine in a way that maximizes entropy. The amount of energy transferring between the different objects within the system will equalize out over time, and the distribution of energy will become “uniform” from the perspective of the system (though not necessarily from the perspective or the individual objects within the system). The motivational force behind what the objects do (how they react and combine with each other) is the system entropy.
The Theory of Evolution states that the way atoms and molecules combine is determined by Natural Selection. That is, atoms and molecules will combine and un-combine randomly, potentially forming “useful” objects (say, amino acids or proteins or DNA strings). The combination will stay together longer if it is “more useful” or “more fit” than some other random combination of atoms, based on its “survivability.”
Natural Selection states that these molecular combinations somehow “perceive” that they are potentially useful (whether they actually are or not), have a “will” or “volition” or “desire” to survive, and will try to replicate themselves into eternity. Are you already beginning to see how utterly preposterous this whole concept is?
Obviously, the molecular combinations have no “will” or “volition”, and “survival” and “replication” have no conceptual meaning to them whatsoever, and evolutionists never state that they do. Rather, there is a tacit assumption underlying the Theory of Evolution that says that the desire for complicated objects to survive as long as possible and replicate themselves is simply “built into” nature. There is no “will to survive” that comes from within an object, but rather it is an outside influence (Natural Selection) that determines how new, complicated objects are formed. Survivability (in the form of Natural Selection) supercedes, or at lease co-exists, with chemical, thermodynamic, and all other natural laws.
Unfortunately, Natural Selection is not a natural law at all, because it requires a “will” or “desire” or “intelligence” that is capable of determining whether or not objects are worthy of surviving. Evolutionists implicitly state that there is something inherent in nature that looks at an object and says, “What you atoms did there might be a really good thing. You need to do that again. Did you atoms over there see what they just did? You need to do that too.” Of course, that is utterly preposterous (the stuff of dementia, not of science). Unfortunately for evolutionists, that is the concept of Natural Selection in a nutshell.
I suppose one could try to argue that Natural Selection is itself a product of evolution, which of course involves circular reasoning. Natural Selection must be there from the very beginning, and it must apply at all levels (even at the molecular level). Without Natural Selection, the Theory of Evolution lies in shambles.
Trying to prove that Natural Selection is true is very problematic, not only because it lies outside the purview of the scientific method, but also because it is patently absurd even at face value. There must be a motivation to “survive”, which is not observed in anything except the higher life forms, and that comes from the inside, not the outside. It is simply impossible for molecules to evolve into higher life forms without outside influence, no matter how many millions of years you wait. There is no motivation for them to do anything except distribute into equilibrium.
I imagine that if confronted with the argument as stated here, an evolutionist could try to use the same circular reasoning they claim creationists always use. Essentially, “It’s true that if the motivational force to survive doesn’t exist, then evolution can’t be true. But evolution is true (because I believe it is), so the motivational force must exist. However, the force is not God (because I don’t believe he exists).”
If you actually believe that Natural Selection is true, you have a lot more faith in unprovable nonsense than I do in God. It doesn’t take a lot of faith to believe in something you can see evidence for everywhere you look. You just have to ask God to open up your eyes so that you can see The Truth.
I will take a slightly different approach, based on the idea of “motivation” – what motivates objects to combine with other objects to form new ones. We’ll start at the same place that evolutionary theory begins: the atom.
Chemistry states atoms combine with other atoms to produce molecules with the lowest energy state possible. Atoms will combine with other atoms if the combination will ultimately release energy, and will likewise un-combine with other atoms if they will ultimately release energy. The motivational force behind what the atoms do (how they combine with other atoms) is their energy level.
Thermo2 states that in a closed system, the atoms and molecules will combine and un-combine in a way that maximizes entropy. The amount of energy transferring between the different objects within the system will equalize out over time, and the distribution of energy will become “uniform” from the perspective of the system (though not necessarily from the perspective or the individual objects within the system). The motivational force behind what the objects do (how they react and combine with each other) is the system entropy.
The Theory of Evolution states that the way atoms and molecules combine is determined by Natural Selection. That is, atoms and molecules will combine and un-combine randomly, potentially forming “useful” objects (say, amino acids or proteins or DNA strings). The combination will stay together longer if it is “more useful” or “more fit” than some other random combination of atoms, based on its “survivability.”
Natural Selection states that these molecular combinations somehow “perceive” that they are potentially useful (whether they actually are or not), have a “will” or “volition” or “desire” to survive, and will try to replicate themselves into eternity. Are you already beginning to see how utterly preposterous this whole concept is?
Obviously, the molecular combinations have no “will” or “volition”, and “survival” and “replication” have no conceptual meaning to them whatsoever, and evolutionists never state that they do. Rather, there is a tacit assumption underlying the Theory of Evolution that says that the desire for complicated objects to survive as long as possible and replicate themselves is simply “built into” nature. There is no “will to survive” that comes from within an object, but rather it is an outside influence (Natural Selection) that determines how new, complicated objects are formed. Survivability (in the form of Natural Selection) supercedes, or at lease co-exists, with chemical, thermodynamic, and all other natural laws.
Unfortunately, Natural Selection is not a natural law at all, because it requires a “will” or “desire” or “intelligence” that is capable of determining whether or not objects are worthy of surviving. Evolutionists implicitly state that there is something inherent in nature that looks at an object and says, “What you atoms did there might be a really good thing. You need to do that again. Did you atoms over there see what they just did? You need to do that too.” Of course, that is utterly preposterous (the stuff of dementia, not of science). Unfortunately for evolutionists, that is the concept of Natural Selection in a nutshell.
I suppose one could try to argue that Natural Selection is itself a product of evolution, which of course involves circular reasoning. Natural Selection must be there from the very beginning, and it must apply at all levels (even at the molecular level). Without Natural Selection, the Theory of Evolution lies in shambles.
Trying to prove that Natural Selection is true is very problematic, not only because it lies outside the purview of the scientific method, but also because it is patently absurd even at face value. There must be a motivation to “survive”, which is not observed in anything except the higher life forms, and that comes from the inside, not the outside. It is simply impossible for molecules to evolve into higher life forms without outside influence, no matter how many millions of years you wait. There is no motivation for them to do anything except distribute into equilibrium.
I imagine that if confronted with the argument as stated here, an evolutionist could try to use the same circular reasoning they claim creationists always use. Essentially, “It’s true that if the motivational force to survive doesn’t exist, then evolution can’t be true. But evolution is true (because I believe it is), so the motivational force must exist. However, the force is not God (because I don’t believe he exists).”
If you actually believe that Natural Selection is true, you have a lot more faith in unprovable nonsense than I do in God. It doesn’t take a lot of faith to believe in something you can see evidence for everywhere you look. You just have to ask God to open up your eyes so that you can see The Truth.