Dear Editor,
Evolutionists have ridiculed creationists for using the entropy argument against evolution.
Evolutionists keep insisting that entropy (the natural tendency for all matter to go towards disorder) only applies to closed systems and not to the Earth which is an open system.
Evolutionists argue that in an open system, such as the Earth, there is more than sufficient energy from the sun for the evolution of matter to occur towards greater and greater order and complexity.
However, the fact is entropy also occurs in open systems. We discovered entropy here on earth which is an open system in relation to the sun. In both open and closed systems the natural (or spontaneous) tendency of matter and of all of energy is always towards greater disorder and disorganization, not towards greater order or complexity as evolution would teach.
What evolutionists fail to understand is that it is not enough to have just sufficient energy (an open system) in order for matter to evolve towards greater order and complexity. There also has to exist an energy-converting and directing mechanism. Without that no substantial order can ever develop.
For example, when a seed becomes a tree it does not violate the law of 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 existing energy-converting and directing mechanism in nature. It takes an energy-converting and directing mechanism to bring about another energy-converting and directing mechanism into being.
Yes, 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 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 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.
Even the scientific followers of Prigogine, the father of Chaos theory, have acknowledged that only a very minimal level of order will ever be possible as a result of spontaneous or chance processes.
We are so accustomed to seeing evolution of technology all about us (new cars, planes, 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. Nature, however, does not work the same way!
Ultimately, however, scientists concede that the law of entropy will conquer the entire universe and the universe, if left to itself, will end in what scientists predict will be a heat death because all of the energy in the universe will reach a uniform temperature from being evenly distributed and no more work of any sort can be accomplished. This proves that the universe could not be eternal or otherwise it would have reached this point of heat death long ago.
The law of entropy, which governs all of matter, teaches that the net direction of the universe is always ever downward towards greater disorder, disorganization, and chaos – not towards greater order and complexity. The reality of entropy in the universe leads us to believe that an intelligent power outside of nature and the universe was responsible for the origin of the universe and its initial order.
Science cannot prove that we came about by creation but science cannot prove that we came about by chance or evolutionary processes either. Nevertheless, educators and students should be free to investigate and make up their own minds as to which position the scientific evidence best supports.
At the very least, those who believe in God should know that their faith is well supported by science. It is not blind faith or superstitous to believe in a Creator who brought the universe and its initial order into being.
Belief in neither evolution or creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself. One can study and 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.
There are various other issues (i.e. fossils, mutations, comparative embryology/anatomy, vestigial organs, etc.) which are covered by scientists from a creationist perspective and which are available through organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research of San Diego, California.
Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan
B.A. (Theology/Biology)
Be the first to comment