I recently heard someone pull out the classic "evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics" argument (I'm not sure whether they were just throwing it out, or actually believed it), and it got me thinking. I'm not going to deal with rebuttals to the argument (for those see here or here), I want to go in a little bit of a different direction. (I will state at the outset that I am weak in physics. I encourage comments those of you who are strong.)
Continue Reading
Just out of curiosity I had a look through some of my college textbooks. I think that the first time I encountered the laws of thermodynamics in any substantive way was in basic inorganic chemistry. I still have my textbook and thermodynamics is explained. I looked through several other textbooks--biochemistry, biology, and cell biology. All of these books explain the second law of thermodynamics and most also explain how complex biological structures can exist in the face of it. None of them describe any problem for evolution.
Now let's step back for a moment. The field of biology is broad--some specialties are deeply rooted in mathematics, physics, or chemistry. All of these people have been through basic college courses where the second law of thermodynamics was taught. If it was really a silver bullet fatal for evolution, shouldn't some of these people have noticed and made an issue of it within the scientific arena? Unless you posit a vast cover up, that should be a clue that the argument is actually baseless. On the contrary, I did a quick search and found this paper applying issues of thermodynamics and information theory to evoltuion.
This got me thinking even further. The first law of thermodynamics states that the total energy in the universe is constant--it can be converted into different forms, but it cannot be created or destroyed. Then I remembered the central equation of relativity, e=mc^2. This equation reveals that energy and matter can be converted into one another. With this little bit of knowledge, I might accuse phyicists: "The theory of relativity can't be true because it contradicts the first law of thermodynamics."
I found this PBS site where you can listen to a number of leading physicists explain the meaning of Einstein's equation. Sheldon Glashow actually says that the concept of conservation of energy (by which I understand him to mean the first law of thermodynamics) is wrong. Perhaps what he means is that the law could be generalized a little more to state that the amount of energy and mass in the universe is constant.
I recognize it is not a scholary reasouce, but Wikipedia actually says that the laws of thermodynamics break down in quantum mechanics.
I think there are several lessons here.
1. A little knowledge can be dangerous. Just on an intuitive level it seems ridiculous to me that a concept introduced to all science undergraduates would secretly mean the downfall of the central principle of biology. Yet some people seem to really believe it--you can easily find the claim in creationist literature.
2. It is a mistake to get caught up in the titles of scientific principles. Some people make a lot out of titles like "law" and "theory." Laws are not invincible and theories are not inherently weak. You have to look past the titles to the actual evidence and data.
3. Scientist are sometimes not sure how two concepts relate to each other. For them this represents a challenge to do additional research. For critics, such as creationists, this is taken as evidence that whichever concept they dislike is false.
4. In connection with #2 and #3, it is useful to remember that "unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions" (D&C 88:38). Science is about discovering those laws, their bounds, and their conditions. Additional information may require a revision of the bounds and conditions. Sometimes this represents an expasion of the law; sometimes it is a contraction.
Continue reading...
Posts
