Search This Blog

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Maxwell's Silver Hammer comes down on Darwin

KEY THOUGHT - This counters the criticism of naturalistic scientists that presume scientific research comes to a halt when the answer is “God did it.”  On the contrary, the question How did God do it? often spurred great thinkers to uncover the laws that they believed the great Lawgiver had designed."

Maxwell's Silver Hammer is, of course, an image drawn from a Beatles song written primarily by Paul McCartney.

Bang, Bang (for the sake of Darwinists who cannot or will not grasp the fundamental problems their pet fairy tale faces) Maxwell's Silver Hammer comes down on their heads...McCartney wrote the song about those unforeseen events that can befall you in the course of life.  It is an oddly cheerful song about a (fictional) guy who would be categorized in real life as a serial killer.  But it is certainly apt in that the game of life can definitely throw curveballs at you.  Darwinism was struck out by science long ago. 

Recently the comments section of this blog has become a home for juvenile rhetoric that would be beneath the dignity of your average High School freshman.  So it seems I need to make a couple of things very clear even to the fifth grade mind.   There are two immutable laws that Darwinism has to break to exist.  These laws have NEVER been observed to have been broken and therefore it is foolish to believe that Darwinism has a leg to stand on.  Science is based on evidence and observation.  Darwinism is built on fairy tales and puppy dog's tails.  Real scientists study the problem of Biogenesis and 2LOT and conclude that, yep, God created, let's see what we can learn from that creation and apply it to our daily lives.   But unfortunately there are millions of foolish people who would prefer ANYTHING to the existence of a Creator God and there are many millions more who do not know any better. 

I have contempt for the so-called scientists who know better and do their best to lead the ignorant on to the bitter end of Darwinism...a life lived in willful ignorance ends with a regretful sigh on this side of the divide.  A life lived in ignorance in a world where absolutes are absent, meaning is absent and there is no point or purpose to existence.   A Darwinist sees no reason or purpose or intentionality to his life and yet...and yet he values it.  A Darwinist believes that we are all the result of a series of impossible accidents that are without any deeper meaning.  He denies any supernatural cause even if evidence demands it.  No Darwinist will let facts stand in the way of his faith.   A Darwinist is a human being who has placed belief in No God above evidence and reason.   Is there any other way to label such a worldview other than a faith?  I think not.

I've pointed out previously that Darwinists cannot give you a cause for the Universe, for life, for information and they certainly cannot account for design and yet they carry on...despite the fact that Darwinism theoretically breaks two laws that have never been broken.   I say theoretically because no macroevolution has ever been observed to take place and frankly no portion of the Darwin story comes with evidence.   It is all hot air.  Darwinists would be pretty useful at a hot air balloon rally, we could just hook Richard Dawkins and those of his ilk to the in port of the balloon and ask them to wax poetically on the beauty and wonder of Darwinism.

Ironically enough, one of the greatest scientist/Christians was a fellow named Maxwell:

  James Clerk Maxwell     1831 - 1879   In our roll call of great scientists of Christian faith, it would be hard to find a better role model than James Clerk Maxwell.  Just take a look at his report card!  His scientific work alone puts him in a triumvirate with Newton and Einstein, but no matter what other way you examine his life – intellect, personality, creativity, wit, work ethic, Christian character, integrity, breadth and depth of knowledge and accomplishments – Maxwell comes out on top.  He pursued science with exuberance, and with grace and charm and unselfishness, giving glory to God.  In his too-brief life of 48 years, Maxwell changed the world.

Do you use a cell phone?  A pager?  A remote control for your TV?  A radio?  Television?  You owe these inventions in large part to Maxwell.  Radar, satellite, spacecraft and aircraft communications – any and every means of transferring information through thin air or the vacuum of space, comes out of his work.  The inventors of all these devices all built on Maxwell’s exceptional discoveries in electromagnetism, discoveries that required the best in experimental method with the best in mathematics and theory.  Maxwell discovered many things, as we shall see, but his crowning achievement was the summation of all electromagnetic phenomena in four differential equations, appropriately named Maxwell’s Equations in his honor.  These equations, that express natural laws, not only brought together all the work of Faraday, Ohm, Volta, Ampere, and everyone else who had studied the curious properties of electricity and magnetism, but made an absolutely astounding and important prediction: that light itself was an electromagnetic wave, and through manipulation of electromagnetic waves, it might be possible to transmit information through empty space.  Thus, our modern world.  The importance of these equations can hardly be overstated.  Dr. Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate and influential 20th-century modern physicist, paid his respects this way: “From a long view of the history of mankind–seen from, say, ten thousand years from now– there can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell’s discovery of the laws of electrodynamics.”  Electricity and magnetism, mere curiosities when explored by Faraday and explained by Maxwell, turned out to generate more economic wealth than the entire British stock exchange.  Our modern world is inconceivable without the experimental and theoretical foundation laid by these two great Christians and scientists who harnessed mysterious laws of nature for human benefit.

And that was only one of Maxwell’s claims to fame.  One biographer described him, “a man of immense intellectual capacity and seemingly inexhaustible energy, he achieved success in many fields, ranging from colour vision and nature of Saturn’s rings to thermodynamics and kinetic theory.  In a short life he published a hundred scientific papers and four books.  His was perhaps the last generation of scientists to whom so wide a field of interest was possible: with the rapid increase in knowledge in the latter part of the 19th century specialization became unavoidable . . . . on any assessment Maxwell stands out conspicuously among a race of giants.  How much more might he not have achieved had his life run a normal span.”

Maxwell would be too Christian and gentlemanly to actually clobber Darwin himself on the head with hammer of any kind.  But his science pounds Darwin dead.  As David Coppedge says in writing about another great scientist/Christian,  Robert Grosseteste:

"This brings us to the scientific side of this amazing individual.  The encyclopedia goes on to describe the tremendous breadth of his knowledge and interest, from liberal arts to music to husbandry to finance to classical literature: “Besides being learned in the liberal arts, Grosseteste had an unusual interest in mathematical and scientific questions.  He wrote a commentary on the ‘Physics’ of Aristotle; and his own scientific works included studies in meteorology, light, colour and optics.  Amongst his mathematical works was a criticism of the Julian calendar, in which he pointed out the necessity for the changes introduced in the Gregorian.  He attempted a classification of the various forms of knowledge; and few indeed, among his contemporaries, can have had a more encyclopedic range.”  Why would a bishop be interested in science?  The Grosseteste website explains,
During his lifetime, Grosseteste was an avid participant in European intellectual life.  His early education had given him a taste for natural philosophy.  He began producing texts on the liberal arts, and mainly on astronomy and cosmology.  His most famous scientific text, De luce (Concerning Light), argued that light was the basis of all matter, and his account of creation devotes a great deal of space to the biblical text of God’s command, ‘Let there be light.’  Light also played a significant role his [sic] epistemology, as he followed the teachings of St. Augustine that the human intellect comes to know truth through illumination by divine light.  Grosseteste’s interest in the natural world was further developed by his study of geometry, and he is one of the first western thinkers to argue that natural phenomenon [sic] can be described mathematically.
Notice how Genesis gave him the inspiration to pursue a mathematical analysis of light.  Robert Grosseteste is a prime example of how a Biblical worldview stimulated science.  In more than one case, an actual Bible verse was the stimulus.  This counters the criticism of naturalistic scientists that presume scientific research comes to a halt when the answer is “God did it.”  On the contrary, the question How did God do it? often spurred great thinkers to uncover the laws that they believed the great Lawgiver had designed."

Bang number one:   The Law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from life and it reproduces after its kind.  Pasteur and others performed experiments that sought to give any life at all, even microorganisms, an opportunity to utilize various possible cultures to come to life from non-life.  Scientists tried for decades, even centuries, to finally prove this law.   Now many scientists are working on ways to try to encourage non-life to become life with all sorts of differing scenarios and ingredients and...they always fail.   Always.  NEVER has the law of Biogenesis been broken.  Yet to a Darwinist it is imperative and it is a given that this law was broken in the past and in fact several times. 

Now consider that hundreds and perhaps even thousands of research scientists are spending at least part of their time and money (mostly grant money that in the long run comes from your pocket) trying to disprove a law that has never been broken in observed history.  Gee, thanks, Charles Darwin!  You have produced a hypothesis that has been shown to be one of the greatest money-sucks in the history of mankind.    

Darwinists break the Law of Biogenesis every time they open their macroevolutionary mouths and tell another just-so story!

Second Law of Thermodynamics - The Laws of Heat Power

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of three Laws of Thermodynamics. The term "thermodynamics" comes from two root words: "thermo," meaning heat, and "dynamic," meaning power. Thus, the Laws of Thermodynamics are the Laws of "Heat Power." As far as we can tell, these Laws are absolute. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant. 

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase. 

Second Law of Thermodynamics - In the Beginning...
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?

The theological implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these implications when he said, "Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)

Jastrow went on to say, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken..."

You will find that Darwinists have been taught to back and fill and hem and haw about the Second Law (2LOT).  But to put it simply, the 2LOT states that all natural processes are running downhill, going from energy to entropy.  Let's be actual scientists now and consider that no natural processes have ever been observed to defy the 2LOT.  
We all know that if we as humans bring our own energy and work and intelligence to bear, we can reverse the 2LOT at least temporarily.  We can build things...but as soon as something is erected, the 2LOT begins to break it down.   We can publish books.   2LOT eventually causes them to crumble into dust.  Man brings intellect and work to nature and we build things.   We learn things and pass that knowledge down so that discoveries by Newton and Bacon and Faraday and Maxwell and Joule lead to further discoveries by Einstein and Edison and Tesla and...but wait.  All of this is involved with intelligence and design!  We now have made machines that can fly us higher than the highest heights a bird can reach and into the deepest depths of the oceans.   Whether 30,000 feet above sea level or 30,000 feet below, we have found life.  

So emboldened, Darwinists ascribe the qualities of God and man to nature.  So often when reading Darwinist fairy tales, words like "arose" or "developed" or "formed" are used in describing the imaginary evolution of one form of life into another.   But you see, natural selection is nothing more than an observation of processes that have been designed into organisms.  The 2LOT states emphatically that all natural processes run downhill.   Darwinism is an uphill climb.  

Evolution versus a basic law of nature

Scores of distinguished scientists have carefully examined the most basic laws of nature to see if Evolution is physically possible - given enough time and opportunity. The conclusion of many is that Evolution is simply not feasible. One major problem is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
law of science: basic, unchanging principle of nature; a scientifically observed phenomenon which has been subjected to very extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe (e.g., the law of gravity, the laws of motion).
thermodynamics: the study of heat power; a branch of physics which studies the efficiency of energy transfer and exchange.1
copyrighted, Eden Communications.
Decaying buildings. Massive structures may appear to be capable of lasting almost forever, but they will not. The need for ongoing repairs stems, in part, from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (Scene from the ORIGINS motion picture series.)
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.2 Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.

Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law (maintenance, painting, medical bills, etc.). Ultimately, everything in nature is obedient to its unchanging laws.
2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.3
copyrighted, Eden Communications.
Cells and blood vessels—scene from the ORIGINS motion picture series.
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.4
Copyrighted, Eden Communications. Artist: Paul S. Taylor.
Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder. (Illustration from the ORIGINS series)
Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe. Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order. To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.5

Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.6 Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.7
However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.
Has the 2nd Law Been Circumvented? No, says expert Frank A. Greco:
"An answer can readily be given to the question, 'Has the second law of thermodynamics been circumvented?' NOT YET." 8

No experimental evidence disproves it, say physicists G.N. Hatspoulous and E.P. Gyftopoulos:
"There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries…" 9
Creationist Duane Gish comments:
"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley) 10
Emmett Williams, Ph.D:
"It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. While the utterances in some fields (such as astronomy) seem to change almost daily, the science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted." 11
If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful, ultimate tendency toward “disarrangedness” brought by the 2nd Law. If such an important force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite obvious to all scientists. Yet, the fact is, no such force of nature has been found.

A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism.
open systems/closed systems: open thermodynamic systems exchange heat, light, or matter with their surroundings, closed systems do not. No outside energy flows into a closed system. Earth is an open system; it receives outside energy from the Sun.

Is Energy the Key?

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12
Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?
A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.
If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information

Photo copyrighted, Eden Communications.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in the ORIGINS motion picture series.
The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:
"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13
teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14
Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:
"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."15
Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.
[See below for further evidence that the 2nd Law is a major problem for Evolution]
[Learn more about the origin of life]
Illustrated ORIGINS Answers Book
Recommended book from Eden Communications. The Illustrated ORIGINS Answer Book by Paul S. Taylor. [info]

References and Endnotes


  • Heat is the name of energy when it is moved from one area to another. [Allen L. King, Thermophysics (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Company, 1962), p. 5.]
  • Heat is transferred by virtue of a temperature difference. Work is energy transferred by virtue of a force.


  • Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, Georgia 30092: Creation Research Society Books, 1981), p. 18.


  • Lord Kelvin as quoted in A.W. Smith and J.N. Cooper, Elements of Physics, 8th edition (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1972), p. 241.
  • Emmett Williams (1981), p. 19 (endnote above).
  • World-renowned Evolutionist and avid anti-Creationist Isaac Asimov confirmed that: "Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."
    [Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6 (emphasis added).]
    "The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of available work you can get out of the energy of the universe is constantly decreasing. If you have a great deal of energy in one place, a large intensity of it, so that you have a high temperature here and a low temperature there, then you can get work out of that situation. The smaller the difference in temperature, the less work you can get out of it. Now, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there is always a tendency for the hot areas to cool off and the cool areas to warm up—so that less and less work can be obtained out of it. Until finally, when everything is one temperature, you cannot get any work out of it, even though all the energy is still there. And this is true for EVERYTHING in general, the universe all over."
    [Isaac Asimov in The Origin of the Universe in the ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be video series (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Communications, 1983).]

  • Technically and most succinctly, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that: "The total amount of entropy in nature is increasing."
    [S. Gasstone, Textbook of Physical Chemistry (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1946).]


  • R.B. Lindsay, "Physics - To What Extent Is It Deterministic?" American Scientist, Vol. 56, No. 2 (1968), pp. 100-111.


  • Creationist Emmett Williams, Ph.D.: "Obviously Evolution involves transformation, and natural transformations require energy. Such a description of evolution as given above [refers to Huxley quote] would require tremendous quantities of energy and many energy transformations. The process of Evolution requires energy in various forms, and thermodynamics is the study of energy movement and transformation. The two fields are clearly related. Scientific laws that govern thermodynamics must also govern Evolution."
    [Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, Georgia 30092: Creation Research Society Books, 1981), p. 10.]


  • The well-known chemist and Evolutionist Sidney Fox confirms this belief in increasing complexity: "Evolution, however, has put together the smallest components; it has proceeded from the simple to the complex."
    [Sidney W. Fox, "Chemical Origins of Cells - 2," Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 49 (December 6, 1971), p. 46.]


  • In the context of this discussion, “order” means “arrangedness”, not necessarily “uniformity”. That is, adaption of the parts to the whole, and of the whole to some plan. [Harold L. Armstrong, "Thermodynamics, Energy, Matter, and Form, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2 (September 1978), pp. 119-121, and Vol. 15, No. 3 (December 1978), pp. 167-168, 174.]


Frank Greco, "On the Second Law of Thermodynamics," American Laboratory, Vol. 14 (October 1982), p. 80-88 (emphasis added).


E.B. Stuart, B. Gal-Or, and A.J. Brainard, editors, Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics in a Critical Review of Thermodynamics (Baltimore: Mono Book Corporation, 1970), p. 78 (emphasis added).


Duane Gish, "A Consistent Christian-Scientific View of the Origin of Life," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979), pp. 199, 186 (emphasis added).


Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, Georgia 30092: Creation Research Society Books, 1981), pp. 7-8.]
[Also, see: Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), pp. 113-165.]


The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is just as valid for open systems as it is for closed systems, says John Ross, Harvard University:
"…There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."
[John Ross, letter in Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 58 (July 7, 1980), p. 40.]


Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of the Universe (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Films and Standard Media, 1983) (a Creationist motion picture).


  • Dr. Henry Morris has proposed A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS in accordance with this concept:
    "In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system.
    If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that 'open' system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The system will decay in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
    [Henry M. Morris, "Entropy and Open Systems," Acts and Facts, Vol. 5 (P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, California 92021: Institute for Creation Research, October 1976).]
  • Ernst Mayr, Ph.D., Evolutionist: "Living organisms, however, differ from inanimate matter by the degree of complexity of their systems and by the possession of a genetic program… The genetic instructions packaged in an embryo direct the formation of an adult, whether it be a tree, a fish, or a human. The process is goal-directed, but from the instructions in the genetic program, not from the outside. Nothing like it exists in the inanimate world."
    [Ernst Mayr in Roger Lewin, "Biology Is Not Postage Stamp Collecting," Science, Vol. 216, No. 4547 (May 14, 1982), pp. 718-720 (quote from p. 719, emphasis added).]


For further evidence that the 2nd law is a major problem for Evolution (including rebuttal arguments against claims that this law is wrongly applied against Evolution or that it is contradicted by growth, living systems, crystal formation, etc.)

  • "Creationist Interpretations of Chemical Organization in Time and Space," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 4 (March 1986), pp. 157-158.
  • Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984).
  • Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 185-215, and "Creation and the Laws of Science," in Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science? (Santee, California: Master Books, 1982), pp. 153-188.
  • Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1981).
  • Harold S. Slusher, The Origin of the Universe, revised edition (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1980), pp. 3-10.
  • Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, The Creation of Life (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1970), and Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968).
  • Walter L. Bradley, "No Relevance to the Origin of Life," Origins Research, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1987), pp. 13-14 (addresses some arguments raised by Dr. John W. Patterson and Francis Arduini, etc., shows that the basic arguments used by Evolutionists against the 2nd Law have no relevance to the origin of life).
  • Robert A. Gange, "Commentary on the Patterson/Walter Exchange," Origins Research, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1987), pp. 14-16, and Origins and Destiny (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1986) (contains an explanation of The New Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics and the information content in biological systems).
  • Tracy Waters, "A Reply to John Patterson's Scientific Arguments," Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 8-9.
  • Jerry Kelley, “Thermodynamics and Probability,” Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 11-13, and "On the Nature of Order," Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 14-15.
  • Dudley J. Benton, "Thermodynamics, Snowflakes, and Zygotes," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2 (September 1986), p. 86.
  • David A. Kaufmann, "Human Growth and Development, and Thermo II," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1 (June 1983), pp. 24-28.
  • Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1981), pp. 91-110.
  • Harold L. Armstrong, "Evolutionistic Defense Against Thermodynamics Disproved," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (March 1980), pp. 226-227, 206, and Vol. 17, No. 1 (June 1980), pp. 72-73, 59.
  • Duane T. Gish, "A Consistent Christian-Scientific View of the Origin of Life," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979), pp. 185-203, especially pp. 200-201, and Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972).
  • J. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1973).
  • Hubert P. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis By Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67 (1977), pp. 377-398.
  • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LIPs = Large Igneous Provinces

Large igneous provinces.   I have a commenter who, like a parrot, keeps mentioning LIPs over and over again as if in some way LIPs are a problem for YEC (young earth creationism).   That is just so typical of Darwinists, finding some kind of evidence and immediately trumpeting it as another victory for Darwin.  I hope those of you who read this blog carefully look into every singled claim of evidence that Darwinists proffer as support for their failed hypothesis.    

But let me sum up the LIPs problem for Darwinists.  LIPs are massive, they are inexplicable, they are associated with extinction event(s) and they seem to have happened rapidly and recently.

Darwinists can talk about it talk about it talk about it talk about it all they want.  LIPs do not fit the gradualism model any better than the sedimentary rock layers do and are yet another problem for Darwinism.

Let's be clear.   The Noahic Flood was a catastrophic event that is so much bigger than anything recorded in recent human history.   As time goes on we learn more about rapid tectonic plate subduction, the rapid eruption of both water and other elements from beneath the Earth's crust during the event and the magnetic field activity associated with the Flood.  

Actual evidence says that the Universe was designed and created supernaturally by a Creator God who is not bound by matter or time.  Organisms all have the imprimateur of their Designer, DNA, and they all reproduce after their kind, just as the Bible predicts.   Only God can create, so in this life nothing is being created or destroyed.  Only God could produce life and so life does not arise from non-life.  Since God created a Universe that is much like a watchspring in that it is running down from a beginning.   This tells us that the Universe had a finite beginning and will have an ending.  The testimony of God given to mankind in the Old Testament gives us the framework by which we can best understand and utilize the world around us.   What a shame that so many so-called scientists pour money down rat holes trying to prove the impossible for the sake of their religion and, even worse, do their best to drag others down with them. 


Jon Woolf said...

Recently the comments section of this blog has become a home for juvenile rhetoric that would be beneath the dignity of your average High School freshman.

[shrug] You get back what you give out, Radar.

The Law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from life and it reproduces after its kind.

This is not a law. It's an assumption. It also contains an unspoken clause: under current conditions. Whatever conditions Life originated in, they were not the conditions that obtain right now here on Earth.

On the matter of entropy, a simple question: As it burns, a star converts simple nuclei into larger, more complex, more highly structured nuclei by means of fusion. Does a star therefore represent a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Jon Woolf said...

Now, as for the subject of LIPs (Large Igneous Provinces):

You say you're going to prove that LIPs aren't a problem for creationists. You even link to the Wikipedia article about them. Then, as your counter, argument, you link to an AIG article that has nothing at all to do with LIPs! It's transparently obvious that you didn't understand the Wikipedia article on LIPs, or what they are, or why they're a problem for YEC, at all.

And yet, you expect people to take your arguments seriously?


The AIG article you linked is talking about radiohalos in granitic intrusions. None of the plutons mentioned in the article fit the definition of LIPs.

For the benefit of lurkers, here's a thumbnail description of the typical Large Igneous Province: BIG-A$$ BASALT LAVA FLOWS.

Here's a slightly longer description: Huge flows of lava, typically basaltic or mafic (ie, NOT GRANITE, where the radiohalos article talks only about granites), covering thousands of square kilometers. The largest known one covers chunks of Africa, Europe, and both Americas for a total area of more than 11,000,000 square kilometers. The lava was clearly erupted in multiple layers over large amounts of time. In some cases, such as the Deccan Traps of India, there are fossil-bearing layers of sedimentary rocks between layers of lava, like so:

sedimentary rock
fossils in sedimentary rock
fossils in sedimentary rock

Et cetera. For many hundreds of feet of vertical layering.

Do you know how long it takes for a lava flow to cool, then form a soil surface, and build a fully functional ecosystem atop it complete with fossil deposits? At least centuries. Probably millennia. But it happened multiple times in the Deccan Traps.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to explain how all that could have happened multiple times in the one year of the Noahic Flood. Should you or any of your YECIMF be captured or killed, the ICR will disavow any knowledge of your actions.

Hawkeye® said...

Good article. What I found to be most interesting was the discussion of 2LOT. I had heard all of this before, but it suddenly spurred some thoughts.

I don't know about "teleonomy" (that's a new one on me), but I had always questioned why life seemed to have the appearance of being able to increase in complexity. In other words, seeds grow into trees, and fertilized eggs grow into humans.

From a few simple cells, we watch the generation of complex chemical factories, communication networks, fluid transportation pipelines, energy conversion systems, and more. Such a process would almost appear to be in violation of 2LOT and in support of evolution.

Then it occurred to me that a human life is probably one of the BEST examples of 2LOT. Consider...

At conception, a human being is like a machine which builds itself according to a pre-established set of instructions. The speed of construction is high, the growth of complexity is at a maximum, and the rate of energy consumption is huge. Within a matter of weeks, most of the major organs and biological systems have begun to appear. In only a mere 9 months, the embryo has been transformed into a being that is ready to confront the "outside world".

Throughout childhood, size increase continues at a rapid pace, energy consumption remains high, but the growth of complexity slows dramatically. Features like eyes, ears, nose, heart and lungs are fully functional at birth and do not increase in complexity much beyond that.

As the child matures through puberty, a few new physical features appear and some chemical changes occur that will allow the human being to reproduce. Energy consumption may increase from time to time as "growth spurts" occur, but as the youth matures into adulthood, size increase will tend to slow, and growth in complexity will nearly cease.

As the young adult matures into middle age, size increase may continue, but horizontally rather than vertically. Growth in complexity completely ceases. Energy consumption may or may not slow depending on energy expenditures. [Occasionally energy consumption will outpace expenditures and horizontal growth becomes needlessly excessive (:D)]

Beyond middle age, size increase generally stops (horizontally as well as vertically) and vertical reductions may even occur. Growth in complexity has not only stopped, but has started to reverse. Functional systems begin to deteriorate. Energy expenditures and consumption both decrease. Cell reproduction rate has been drastically reduced from its earliest stages.

Eventually, we know what happens next. Systems and functions begin to fail. Eyesight, hearing, lung capacity, cardio-vascular problems, etc. The body continues to deteriorate until it reaches a state of total equilibrium with its surroundings (ie, death).

In summary: from conception to death, the human being is transformed from a high-energy, fast-growth, increasingly-complex machine... into a low-energy, no-growth, complexity-reducing entity. Ultimately, death ensues and the 2LOT transforms the body's molecules into disorganized chaos.

It never seemed so clear to me before. Thank you.

radar said...

Hawkeye, well said!

As to Woolf, science is done under current conditions. If you cannot reproduce the conditions, you cannot do science. Science studies what can be observed, not what you dream up in unobservable time and space.

Biogenesis is a law and, like the common definition of information you considered too difficult to navigate, you simply dodge evidence and venture into fairy land.

LIPs were certainly formed in conjunction with the Noahic Flood event. Any interspersal of sedimentary catastrophic layers with igneous catastrophic layers simply underscores the magnitude of a world-wide flood. We also can be quite sure that rapid tectonic plate subduction was occurring at the same time.

As to the article, if it was too complex for you simply ignore it. I sometimes link to technical and semi-technical articles and readers can absorb what they can.

Surely you are not going to ask me if a burning star is in violation of the 2LOT? All stars are moving from a state of more energy to more entropy. If there is one law that has been tested and retested and proved over and over, it is the 2LOT. Stars are fine examples of 2LOT in action. In fact, for this reason we know our Sun would not have been conducive to life for the long millions of years Darwinists demand, because it would have been much more volatile a few hundred million years ago and would have been deadly to life as we know it.

radar said...

So we have commenters who do not understand or accept two of the most inviolate laws of science?



No matter how many thousands of Darwinist scientists spending thousands of hours every year trying to overturn these two laws you can dredge up, not one of them will have succeeded and they never will. Darwinism is simply not scientific. It is all based on a metaphysical argument. Despite the completely obvious evidence before the eyes of the Darwinist pointing him or her to a Creator, the Darwinist ignores laws of science and observation and evidence and joins in with fellow believers making up long stories about make-believe evolving creatures and fanciful ages for rock formations and fossils that cannot be supported by observable evidence.

Darwinists are shown to base their arguments on one thing - a complete unwillingness to even consider the possibility of God, no matter how preposterous the alternative.

radar said...

Kids, if you happen upon this blog, I want you to understand that the forming of molecules is not a violation of the 2LOT. Woolf should know this, but when molecules or elements combine in any way, they have to pay a price in heat loss to do the work required to do the job. No matter what kind of elements may be formed by or within a star as it burns, there is a continued heat loss during the operation. This always happens.

We are able to build things by bringing in energy and the intellect required to design what we build. But we must take in food to live and work. We use energy to build whatever we are building. If you had a giant calculator that measure all the energy brought to bear on the operation, you would find a price was paid in heat loss no matter what job is being done.

Mankind is designed to obtain energy from the surrounding ecosystem to live and thrive and reproduce. The sum of our knowledge can grow and our technology can advance. We evolve, so to speak, by building upon the discoveries of our ancestors and peers. Nevertheless the total energy available to us continues to be used up. There is no escape from the 2LOT.

Without design and work brought to bear from outside, natural processes all run straight downhill from energy to entropy, from design to random, from treasure to trash. Darwinists want you to believe that a natural phenomenon operates in exactly the opposite direction without any outside design or intelligence or energy brought in as a cause. It would do you well to just ignore all the Darwinist fairy tales and think simply on this one concept. Can Darwinism describe a process that runs exactly opposite to every natural process ever observed? Since Darwinist macroevolution has never been observed, can you now understand why? It is logically impossible for a natural process to continually break the 2LOT when no natural process has ever been observed to do so EVER in the history of scientific investigation.

radar said...

Oh, and Woolf? You have no idea how long it takes for LIPs to form and how they formed. YEC would say that the enormous amount of water and other elements released from within the Earth, the freight-train speed of the rapid tectonic subduction events and very possibly a comet or meteor impact all must be considered when looking at the rock layers.

Scientists (real ones, not Darwinists) have been studying the formation of LIPs along with evidence of rapid subduction, the formations of mountains and canyons, massive amounts of coil and oil and natural gas and chalk and several other factors in order to understand the Flood to the extent that we can. Once you throw away the Darwinist just-so stories and simply observe what we see in nature, we see a story of massive and catastrophic destruction and overhaul of the planetary surface. We already know approximately when and why and by Whom. We are still deducing a long list of answers for the hows. Unlike Darwinists, we have an explanation for the rock layers and the makeup of the surface of the Earth and the evidence within those rocks and underneath the surface that makes sense.

By the way, lava is rapidly cooled by large amounts of water. This is why volcanoes that come up from beneath the surface of the ocean form islands rather than boiling cauldrons of superheated lava. I've walked the surface of Oahu and I can testify that lava can cool off and become a solid. LIPs are extremely large but then so is a world-wide flood. In fact, I would go so far to say that LIPs are inexplicable unless you do have a massive and catastrophic event of proportions modern man has not seen.

radar said...

From my technical article Woolf considers unrelated to LIPs - " Conclusions

The discovery and documentation of the three types of Po radiohalos in the biotites within three granitic plutons that were clearly sourced and formed during the Flood year falsifies the hypothesis for the formation of these Po radiohalos and their host granitic rocks during the creation week. Furthermore, the presence of dark, mature U and Th radiohalos in the same biotites in these same granitic rocks may be considered physical evidence of at least 100 million years worth of radioactive decay at today’s rates within a part of the Flood year. We consider this to be evidence of accelerated nuclear decay during the catastrophic Flood. Accordingly, conventional radioisotopic dating of rocks based on the assumption of constancy of decay rates is grossly in error. Furthermore, the heat generated by this accelerated nuclear decay would have contributed to catastrophic tectonic and geologic processes during the Flood.

Many related lines of evidence can be brought together in development of a viable hydrothermal fluid transport model for the precursors to the Po isotopes (principally 222Rn), and probably also some Po atoms themselves. Sourced from zircon and monazite grains already included within biotite flakes, the hydrothermal fluids would have carried these isotopes only short distances along the cleavage planes of the same and adjacent biotite flakes to deposition sites where the chemical environment was suitable for concentration of the Po isotopes into radiocenters that then formed the Po radiohalos. The short half-lives of these isotopes require the hydrothermal fluid transport and chemical concentration timeframes to have been extremely short—less than in the order of ten Po half-lives. Furthermore, after Po atoms are deposited at radiohalo sites, the temperature must drop below the α-track annealing temperature before radiohalos can form. This implies that the timescale for cooling of the granitic plutons was also extremely short, measured in half-lives of these isotopes (days, not years).

The possibility of Po radiohalos, and thus also rapid hydrothermal fluid flows, in metamorphic rocks has powerful implications for the rapid formation and cooling of regional metamorphic complexes. This needs further investigation. Additionally, the Po radiohalo evidence for rapid hydrothermal fluid flow has far-reaching implications for the rapid deposition and formation of many classes of metallic ore deposits hosted by, and associated with, granitic, other plutonic, and metamorphic rocks. Thus the Po radiohalos are potentially powerful evidence for rapid geological processes within the year of the Flood on a young earth." Understand?

Jon Woolf said...

Kids, if you happen upon this blog, I want you to understand that the forming of molecules is not a violation of the 2LOT. Woolf should know this [and does], but when molecules or elements combine in any way, they have to pay a price in heat loss to do the work required to do the job.

Right. This is Chemistry 101.

Now here's Biochemistry 101: at the molecular level, life is just a bunch of chemical reactions all going on at the same time, all requiring an input of energy, all producing waste heat and an increase in local entropy. Hence, Life doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And here's Evolution 101: evolution consists of a series of steps. Each step is an organism, living through biochemistry, increasing its internal organization only by using energy and thus increasing entropy. If an organism is more organized (whatever that means -- how do you measure organization?)than its ancestors, it must use more energy to stay alive, and produce even more entropy in the process.

And thus, students, we see that evolution does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Fancy that: Radar's sophomoric blatherings were wrong. Again.

All of this has been known for many decades, so he also underestimated the savvy of real science. Again.

As for the "law of biogenesis," it doesn't exist. The laws of thermodynamics are something that we can test throughout the visible Universe, simply by looking. We've never seen any of them broken, and there are excellent theoretical reasons to think that we never will. However, the "law of biogenesis" has not been so tested. We can't even test it under all situations here on Earth. How can we possibly test it on all the other planets in our star system? in other star systems? in binary and trinary star systems? in stars within globular clusters, where there is no night to speak of?

If it hasn't been tested everywhere, it's not a "law of science." It's just an assumption.

Jon Woolf said...

Thus the Po radiohalos are potentially powerful evidence for rapid geological processes within the year of the Flood on a young earth." Understand?

Perfectly. You're easily hypnotized by impressive-sounding tangletalk, and haven't got the knowledge-base required to figure out that Snelling and Armitage were spewing nonsense.

This is especially funny in that the only reason creationists pay any attention to radiohalos is that thirty years ago, Gentry pointed to them as "the Creator's signature," postcard-perfect proof of a recent rapid Creation. Yet in this article, Snelling and Armitage say Gentry was wrong. Of course, they have to say that, since Gentry's original claims have been shot full of holes by amateur geologists. So Snelling and Armitage try a different approach: assume a miraculous "burst of accelerated radioactive decay during Flood Year", and hey-presto! an explanation for polonium radiohalos that fits into Flood geology!

Of course, they fail to mention that radioactive decay rates, like most things in the subatomic world, are intricately interconnected with everything else ... including something called the "fine-structure constant," which affects the strength of the electromagnetic field, which in turn affects both radioactive decay rates and the interatomic bonds that hold molecules together. In short, the only way to get "accelerated radioactive decay rates" is to screw with the fine-structure constant. But if you screw with the fine-structure constant, Life As We Know It becomes impossible.

IOW, this is another laugh-out-loud-funny case of YECism fubaring itself. The fine-structure constant is one of those things that creationists claim must have been intentionally set exactly where it is, and yet here they are claiming it was changed in major ways during the Flood. While at the same time it was clearly not changed at all, because the Ark survived. (Sounds like Vizzini trying to outwit the Man in Black, if you ask me...) Of course, they can account for this through a divine miracle, but then, miracles are magic, not science, and there goes their entire claim to be doing science. [guffaw.wav]

And none of this has anything to do with the Large Igneous Provinces Problem anyway. The Problem, remember, is that entire ecosystems could and did form within the time period between lava flows. That requires time for the lava to cool, and time for soil to form, and time for ecological succession, and time for organisms to become fossilized. And YECs like Radar somehow corkscrew their brains into believing all of this happened multiple times within the span of a single year. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

Oh yeah, his claim also requires a reservoir of living organisms to repopulate the area in question, several times over. Yet the Flood had supposedly already killed all those land animals! "Pathetic" falls far short of being an adequate word.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that you chose Maxwell to feature, as his "Demon" thought experiment blows apart the oft-cited, if erroneous, idea that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
It is absolutely true that evolution makes no statement concerning "why" the universe exists, that is clearly the province of religion. However, it is completely incorrect to claim that Darwinism cannot explain design, that is the whole point of Darwinism, to explain the present organization of the biological world.
Darwinism makes no statement concerning the existence or non-existence of God. Claims that the opinions of some Darwinists, like Dawkins, represent Darwinism in theological discussions are like claiming Nazism is a Christian philosophy because Hitler was raised as a Christian. All serious biologists today are Darwinists. The overwhelming majority in this country are also Christians or Jews.
The statement that there are no examples of macro-evolution is also false. Most of us who grew up in the SE are familiar with the leopard frog. Adjacent populations of frogs can always interbreed, making them one species, however individuals from the opposite limits of their distribution cannot interbreed, making them separate species. They are clearly in the middle of a speciation event. It is interesting that you specified "macro", which indicates you are fully aware that evolution is occurring constantly in microbes. The reason we know so much about them is that the events take place very often, while larger species require tens of thousands to millions of years to complete.
Finally, your idea that Creationism is based on facts while Darwinism is not is a little bizarre. Any time a biologist makes a generalization it is scrutinized and critiqued by experts in the field. Creationism was not based on evidence at all. It is considered revealed truth by its adherents. No evidence that disproves it can ever be accepted by true believers. Its supporters have relied on manufactured evidence (eg., carving human footprints next to those of dinosaurs-the chisel marks are obvious.) taking the statements of experts out of context, and all the other rhetorical tricks employed by frauds.