On another thread, we were discussing whether or not the theory of evolution had a general direction which, at least in the
minds of racists, gave them some justification for rationalizing their ideologies.
My antagonists immediately latched hold of a quote I provided concerning entropy. The quote was taken from panspermist enthusiast, Brig Klyce, who argues that much of the arguing over "entropy" between creationists and evolutionists are somewhat needless. The reason, according to Klyce, is that they are often using the term "entropy" to mean different states-- either thermodynamic or logical, but that these terms are not well defined.
When I discovered this essay, it immediately struck a chord in me because I understood exactly what he was getting at.
I have been a long time advocate for the naming of a natural law, that to my knowledge, goes on nameless. This seems almost impossible to me given how axiomatic the law is.
The law I'm referring to is the law of death.
Klyce opens with:
"Sometimes people say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is not the case; we know of nothing in the universe that violates that law. So why do people say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics?"
He goes on to explain thermodynamic entropy, which is hardly contested. But is their another kind of entropy-- one that is well understood in our minds, and yet remains, for some odd reason, nameless? He further explains:
"Entropy is also used to mean disorganization or disorder... This sort of entropy is clearly different. Physical units do not pertain to it, and (except in the case of digital information) an arbitrary convention must be imposed before it can be quantified. To distinguish this kind of entropy from thermodynamic entropy, let's call it logical entropy.
In spite of the important distinction between the two meanings of entropy, the rule as stated above for thermodynamic entropy seems to apply nonetheless to the logical kind: entropy in a closed system can never decrease. And really, there would be nothing mysterious about this law either. It's similar to saying things never organize themselves. (The original meaning of organize is "to furnish with organs.") Only this rule has little to do with thermodynamics... The rule that things never organize themselves is also upheld in our everyday experience. Without someone to fix it, a broken glass never mends. Without maintenance, a house deteriorates. Without management, a business fails. Without new software, a computer never acquires new capabilities. Never."
An excellent point. Yet classical entropy would assert that as long as energy is being introduced/replenished, a system won't deteriorate. Clearly that is only telling half the story. Yes, when we eat, we gain new energy, which is ultimately supplied by the sun. At some point, though, we are still dying in a very real sense, no matter how hard we try.
Aside from which, the introduction of energy is not a sort of catch all reason for why life exists to begin with. You can't just blast sunlight on the earth and expect life to proliferate. If that were the case, then all of the planets in the solar system would be inhabited with life. Clearly that is not the case.
There first must exist some mechanism which converts raw energy in to useful energy. For example: Sunlight blasts our roofs all of the time. The introduction of that energy certainly isn't improving the roof, now is it? In fact, it could be said that it is actually slowly deteriorating and dilapidating the roof. However, if we were to place solar panels on the roof, now we have a mechanism which converts that raw energy in to useful energy.
The same is found within nature. Sunlight is only useful to a plant because the plant has a mechanism to convert that energy. The process of photosynthesis is only made true because of that catalysis. And yet, the plant will die regardless at some point.
The big question is, why?
Well, this is where evo's and creo's get to arguing. One side is arguing about thermodynamic entropy, while the other side is arguing about the other kind of entropy which stipulates that all systems tend towards disorder. Maintenance of that system only slows the inevitable process.
Death... It happens. There is nothing that stops it. Life in the physical is intimately tied in to death in every way. Its a constant. And its as true of an immutable law as the 2LoT is. Why then is their not a specific name for it?
Any thoughts?
"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
™ Version 4.2