REPLY #2 TO|
"EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM"
Boldfaced statements are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
Italicized/emphasized comments prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text and are prefaced by my initials (MB).
(R) Explain to me how "information" can evolve. Information has no mass. DNA molecules are loaded with information. If the DNA molecule evolved, where did the information in the molecule come from?
(MB) You are confusing "data" with "information" here. Information doesn't literally exist. Information is the interpretation or context which is given to an arbitrary set of data elements by a particular observer. The same data can have several different interpretations depending on what context is applied to it. This is a basic fundamental in computer science.
DNA contains data in the form of ordered pairs of amino acids. Those amino acids can only assemble themselves in a relative few ways. It is the particular sequences of ordered pairs that describes the genetic characteristics of a living organism. DNA is self-assembling in the same way that other molecules organize to form crystals. Basic chemistry describes how this occurs.
Obviously, it is easier for simpler patterns to form than for more complex ones. Once the simple patterns are formed, however, they then can go on to further combine to form more complex patterns. This is exactly what evolution predicts for the development of living organisms. The first life forms were little more than small blobs of prototype DNA. Some combinations would naturally be hardier than others and would naturally be more likely to
survive in larger numbers. Some of these would combine to become more and more complex. The process continues through the formation of basic cells and self-reproduction. Continue the process over a couple billion years or more of time and it would be highly unlikely for highly complex living organisms not to arise.
(R) Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The second law states that the universe is moving from available energy to unavailabe energy or another way to state it is that the universe is moving from a state of order to
(MB) This is an old, moldy Creationist fairy tale that continues to live on despite the innumerable times it has been rebutted. Oh, well, one more time...
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "In a spontaneous irreversible process, the total entropy of the system and its surroundings always increases; for any process, the total entropy of a system and its surroundings never decreases". Where the Creationist argument fails is in the fact that it completely ignores the phrase "and its surroundings" in the definition of the Second Law.
It is perfectly allowable under the Second Law for there to be a local increase in order so long as there is a larger increase in the total disorder (or "entropy") of the entire system. For example, I am creating local order by typing this letter, but it is being done at the cost of a larger increase in disorder caused by the heat created by my computer, the electricity it is using, and my own effort in time and energy.
A living being being born and growing is certainly a local increase in order. But, this is happening at a larger cost in disorder due to the amount of food that is consumed and converted into heat energy by that being. If this was truly a violation of the Second Law, living beings could not exist, planets could not form, there would be no stars and, by extension, no Universe.
(R) Creationism does not violate the second law.
(MB) Not only does Creationism violate the Second Law, the idea that a supreme being created a Universe out of nothing also violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy may not be created nor destroyed.
(R) Evolution states that man evolved from a state of disorder to a state of higher order.
(MB) Evolution states (among other things) that Man and Ape evolved from a common ancestor. That common ancestor was, most certainly, not a state of disorder.
Another thing that Creationists either forget or ignore is that evolution does not say how the Universe was created, how the Sun and Earth came to be, or how the first life form on planet Earth came to be. Evolution is the theory of how life on planet Earth has progressed since that first life form appeared. Any attempt to discredit evolution by denigrating it for not explaining things outside of its scope merely demonstrates a lack of
(R) Evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Tell me, what is wrong with this picture?
(MB) What's wrong with this picture is that evolution says nothing about the First Law of Thermodynamics. See the definition of the First Law given earlier.
(R) Evolution violates the laws of mathematical probabilities. Numerous mathematicians, using the most liberal estimates of the age of the universe, have proven mathematically that it would have been impossible for even "one DNA molecule" to have evolved. Again, what is wrong the evolutionary picture?
(MB) What's wrong here is that nothing of the sort has ever been correctly demonstrated. Some have tried, to be sure, but it always involves the sort of snake-oil mathematics that is used to "prove", for example, that 1=0. The usual fallacy is that the "mathematician" in question makes the invalid assumption that that the early Earth contains only enough organic material building blocks to form a single DNA molecule, that attempts to build such a molecule happen one at a time, and
that attempts are made at random -- forgetting that DNA is a self-assembling molecule.
(R) It is always interesting to me to read an argument put forth by a believer in evolution. You can never get them to stop talking about religion. In my opinion evolution is basically a fairy tale for adults. I am sorry to see that you have been suckered into the lie.
(MB) It is only necessary to refer to religion since the opponents of evolution all base that opposition upon their religious beliefs. Not only is the theory of evolution one which says absolutely nothing about religion or any religious belief, it is also not a theory which is mutually exclusive with belief in religion or in superior beings. Every major sect of Christianity accepts evolution as being compatible with their religion. Even the Pope accepts it! Add in the fact that
evolution is supported by mountains of evidence while Creationism is supported only by a small minority armed only with loud, unsupportable argument, which view is more likely to be the fairy tale that suckers adults in?
(R) You may not have noticed, but I did not talk about religion except to address your need to talk about religion when discussing evolution.
(MB) Just as well, since there are exactly zero arguments grounded in religion that have ever been able to so much as scratch the theory of evolution - and none ever will.
Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.0 .......... Last Update: 04 Jun 98
Earthlink Network Home Page
Go to next reply
Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay
Back to Philosophy page