Objections to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics by Evolutionists

    There are five main arguments against the 2nd law of thermodynamics used by evolutionists to try and escape its inescapable implications. Below are their basic arguments and the rebuttals to each.

1. "The 2nd law doesn't apply to living systems."
    Evolutionists often make this statement without offering a shred of proof to back it up, as if merely stating it makes it true. However, the processes of life are merely very complex chemical processes, which are entirely governed by the laws of thermodynamics. Evolutionist Dr. Harold Blum has stated:

"No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world." (The Dawn Of Life, 1962, p. 119). 
2. "The 2nd law is only a statistical statement and exceptions are possible."
    The odds against such an exception are truly astronomical. The chemist Harry Bent has calculated the possibility that just one calorie of thermal energy could be converted completely into work. His result can be expressed in terms of a familiar statistical example, the probability that a group of monkeys hitting typewriter keys at random could produce the works of Shakespeare. According to his calculation, the likelihood of such a calorie conversion is about the same as the probability that the monkeys could produce Shakespeare's works 15 quadrillion times in succession without error. (Bent is quoted by S. Angrist, Scientific American, p. 120, Jan. 1968).

3. "Perhaps the 2nd law was not operating long ago."
    This assumption would be akin to denying the basic principle of evolution - that present processes can account for the origin of things. This assumption would actually affirm the creationist position, acknowledging that special creative processes operating only in the past are able to explain the world of today.

4. "The 2nd law does not apply to open systems."
    By far the most common response by evolutionists to the problem posed by the 2nd law is to deny its applicability to open systems such as the earth. Since there is enough energy reaching the earth from the sun to more than offset the loss of energy in its processes due to entropy, they say, the problem is irrelevant.

    However, this response is itself irrelevant, since it confuses quantity of energy with conversion of energy. The question is not whether there is enough energy from the sun to sustain the evolutionary process; the question is how does the sun's energy sustain evolution?

    This evolutionary argument runs into two main problems:
        (a) There must be a program to direct the growth.
        (b) There must be a power converter to maintain and regulate the growth.

    No code or mechanism has ever been identified. Where in all the universe does one find a plan which sets forth how to organize random particles into particular people? And where does one see a marvelous motor which converts the continual flow of solar radiant energy bathing the earth into the work of building chemical elements into replicating cellular systems, or of organizing populations of worms into populations of men, over vast spans of geologic time?

    Until evolutionists can not only speculate, but demonstrate, that there does exist in nature some vast program to direct the growth toward higher complexity of the marvelous organic space-time unity known as the terrestrial biosphere (not to mention the cosmos), as well as some remarkable global power converter to energize the growth through converted solar energy, the whole evolutionary idea is negated by the 2nd law. Creationism, on the other hand, does not have to explain them, since it predicts them.

(My appreciation to Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Duane Gish for their scientific literature which allowed me to present these facts).

Back to the Evolution page