Creationism - How
Entropy challenges Evolution Theory
June 13th, 2006
|
 |
|
Evolution? |
|
Few scientists have considered or
pondered the full implications of the law of entropy upon the theory of
evolution. And, as we shall see, entropy does occur in open systems such
as our Earth.
The theory of evolution teaches that
matter tends to evolve towards greater and greater complexity and order.
We are so accustomed to seeing evolution of technology all about us (new
cars, boats, ships, inventions, etc.) that we assume that nature must
work the same way also. Of course, we forget that all those new gadgets
and technology had a human designer behind them. Nature, however,
doesn't work the same way.
The spontaneous (the unaided or undirected) tendency of
matter is always towards greater disorder -- not towards greater order
and complexity as evolution would teach. This tendency towards disorder
that exists in all matter can be temporarily overcome only if there
exists some energy converting and directing mechanism to direct,
develop, and maintain order.
It
doesn't matter whether a system is open (with unlimited energy) or
closed (with limited energy), entropy occurs in both systems. In fact,
scientists discovered entropy here on our very Earth, which is an open
system in relation to the sun. The difference between an open system and
closed system is not entropy but, rather, the availability of useful
energy.
Is not energy from the Sun more than sufficient to drive the evolution
of life on Earth? The problem, again, is that it is not enough just to
have a sufficient supply of useful energy for evolution to occur. There
must also exist an energy converting and directing mechanism.
When a
seed becomes a tree, for example, it does not violate entropy because
there is already a pre-existing biological energy converting mechanism
and code in the seed which directs the order, growth and development of
the tree. In other words, the development of greater order from seed to
tree is not chemically a spontaneous event. It is not something that is
happening by chance. The question is how did biological order develop in
the first place when there was no already existing energy-converting and
directing mechanism.
Comment on this Article
at our Forum
Even
the scientific followers of Prigogine, the father of Chaos theory, have
admitted that only a very minimal level of order will ever be possible
as a result of spontaneous or chance processes.
For
example, a few amino acids have been produced spontaneously, but there
is already a natural tendency for molecules to form into amino acids if
given the right conditions. There is, however, no natural tendency for
amino acids to come together spontaneously into a sequence to form into
proteins. They have to be directed to do so by the genetic code in the
cells of our bodies. Even the simplest cell is made up of billions of
protein molecules. An average protein molecule may comprise of several
hundred sequentially arranged amino acids. Many are comprised of
thousands of sequential units. If they are not in the precise sequence
the protein will not function!
The
sequence of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) determines the sequence
of molecules in proteins. Furthermore, without DNA there cannot be RNA,
but without RNA there cannot be DNA. And without eiether DNA and RNA
there cannot be proteins, and without proteins there cannot be either
DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for
existence!
If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially
evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it
would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open
environment.
The
great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the
mathematical probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest
cell occurring by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power or roughly
equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a 747
Jumbo Jet. It is not rational to put faith in such odds for the origin
of life.
Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to
believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species
is due to a common Designer rather than common biological ancestry. It
is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions
for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in
all of the various forms of life.
Contrary to popular belief,
scientists have never created life in the laboratory. What scientists
have done is genetically alter or engineer already existing forms of
life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms
of life. However, they did not produce these new life forms from
non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from
non-living matter it won't be by chance so it still wouldn't help
support any argument for evolution.
What if we should find evidence of
life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof
that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural
processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would
have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the
Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have
easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually
could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12
mentions exactly this possibility.
Ultimately, however, scientists
concede that the law of entropy (the process of progessive energy decay
and disorder) will conquer the entire universe and the universe, if left
to itself, will end in total chaos (the opposite direction of
evolution!). In fact, the law of entropy contradicts the Big Bang theory
which teaches that the universe spontaneously went from disorder to
order.
The mighty law of entropy in science
simply teaches that the net direction of the universe is always downward
towards greater and greater disorder and chaos -- not towards greater
and greater order or complexity.
Furthermore, because of the law of
entropy the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself
from all eternity since all the useful energy in the universe will some
day become irreversibly and totally useless. The universe, therefore,
cannot be eternal and requires a beginning. Since energy cannot come
into existence from nothing by any natural process, the beginning of the
universe must have required a Supernatural origin!
Science cannot prove we're here by
creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or
macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on
faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or
creation, has better scientific support.
Whatever evolution occurs in Nature
is limited to within biological kinds (such as the varieties of dogs,
cats, horses, cows, etc.) but, unless Nature can perform genetic
engineering, evolution will never be possible across biological kinds,
especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones (i.e. from fish to
human).
What we believe about our origins
does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of
ourselves and others. This is no small issue!
Just because the laws of science can
explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is
no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer
behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes
operate and work?
Natural laws are adequate to explain
how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates,
but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of
such order.
There is, of course, so much more to
say on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and
lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e.
thermodynamics, fossils, biological variation and diversity, the origin
of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial
organs, the age of the earth, etc. ) at greater depth on his website at
www.creationscience.com. Another excellent source of information
from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute
for Creation Research (www.icr.org)
in San Diego, California.
It is important to understand that
belief in neither evolution or creation is necessary to the actual study
of science itself. One can understand the human body and become a first
class surgeon regardless of whether he or she believes the human body is
the result of the chance forces of nature or of a Supreme Designer.
Sincerely, Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. Bible/Biology)
www.religionscience.com
By Babu G. Ranganathan
The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is
an experienced Christian writer. He has his B.A. with academic
concentrations in Bible and Biology. As a religion and science writer he
has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The
East. The author has a website at:
www.religionscience.com
Entropy Books
Keywords and Misspellings: entrophy genetics genes
rna dna theory evolution vs creationism god creator science and creationist
religious religion beliefs debates arguemnents |
RSS Feeds to Search Engine News
