5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: #4: Thermodynamics renders Chemical Evolution impossible
ReligiouslyIncorrect.org—Uniting Bible believing Christians
The most fundamental and important natural law, according to scientists, is Thermodynamics.

Even Albert Einstein himself presumably admitted as much.

The laws of Thermodynamics, simply stated, suggest the following facts:
  1. Energy or matter cannot be created or destroyed, just shifted around in various ways (i.e., the universe's energy remains constant, merely changing states); and,

  2. The universe (and all "isolated" or "closed" systems like it) tend unwaveringly toward a state of equilibrium, or "disorder."
These are effectively the first and second laws of Thermodynamics in oversimplified vernacular. The second law is commonly referred to as "Entropy" or the Law of Entropy. "Entropy" simply means "disorder."

So, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy), everything in the universe is gradually becoming more and more disorderly.

Everything in the universe is clocking down—losing usable (potential) energy.

They say even the sun will burn out if time goes on long enough. So will all energy sources in the universe.

Well, since everything in the universe is becoming increasingly less complex (without intelligent intervention, that is), how did that first organism get so enormously complex—when everything else in the universe was doing the opposite?

This basic question has dealt a fatal blow to evolution; and although it has been "answered," it has never been answered adequately—as we plan to demonstrate shortly.

An Example of Entropy

To explain Entropy I use the "house in the woods" analogy:

Suppose you decided to build a new house in the middle of the woods.

Then imagine you were later forced to permanently abandon your house.

Suppose no one else moved in.

If you returned to your house after a few years, do you think it would look the same? Would you expect it to appear as neat, orderly and tidy as the day you left it? That is, if no one stayed around to keep it tidied up?

Obviously not.

In fact, you could put 100, 1,000, or billions of houses in the woods and all of them, without exception, would deteriorate with time. Conversely, none of them would "build themselves into more complex and orderly structures."


Because of Entropy. Entropy takes effect and gradually destroys things, and the more orderly an entity is, the more destruction Entropy will wreak upon it. The simpler it is, the less the destruction, because there's less to destroy.

(By the way, the same thing happens to all living beings; they die and decay. Remember Irreducible Complexity?)

Thus, forces of nature will progressively demolish your unattended abode, causing it to deteriorate from its initial state of order and organization to a state of more and more disorder, a state of greater and greater Entropy.

This is a fundamental Law of Physics that applies to every entity and system in our universe.

As one Expert said: "...the direction of all natural processes is toward states of disorder...the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder...all natural systems degenerate when left to themselves."

Could any matter in its right mind, in light of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, accidentally organize itself to form life from scratch—as Chemical Evolution suggests?

Evolutionists insist "yes."

Evolution's failed attempt to explain away Thermodynamics: Open Systems

Keenly aware of the huge predicament Thermodynamics presents to their theory, evolutionists have produced some "counter logic" of their own.

They insist that although the universe is a "closed system" (it doesn't gain or lose energy as a whole), the earth is an "open system"—it actually gains heat and light energy from the sun.

And, they say, since earth is gaining more energy than it's losing, that energy somehow randomly generates hugely complex organisms from absolute scratch.

But make no mistake: Under no circumstances will any system—open or closed—circumvent the fundamental concept of nature's tendency toward disorder and equilibrium (without Intelligent intervention, that is).

Evolutionist John Ross of Harvard put it as well as anyone:

"...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...There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the Second Law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."

Evolutionists know that this obvious fact logically destroys their theory. Thus, they defend this territory at all cost—even to the point of essentially suggesting that, in evolution, laws of nature are suspended, that miracles occur.

There's a lot more required for an organism's creation than the input of "Unintelligent Energy"

Even if one assumes (incorrectly) that Entropy doesn't apply to evolution—the paradox of the "Open System" argument is that, instead of answering questions, it dramatically compounds the logical difficulties of both Chemical and Macro Evolution.

That's because there's a lot more to "spontaneous creation of life" than mere input of sunlight or solar heat energy (or any other kind of unintelligent energy")—as evolutionists would have us to believe.

Simply increasing the intensity of dumb energy into any system will simultaneously increase the degree of destruction of that system.

Thus, dumb energy not only does not construct intelligent design, it actually destroys any intelligent design that happens to be present.

In other words, creation of life is not just a matter of inputting energy into a system. It's also a matter of controlling the intensity, timing, and intelligent application of the energy.

Evolutionists George Gaylord Simpson and W.S. Beck put it extremely well:

"...the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed..."

What this means is that more input of dumb energy does not solve the problems of evolution—it significantly compounds them—since instead of life being created and maintained, it is destroyed (without the aid of Intelligent energy). As more dumb energy is applied, more destruction occurs.

An example of how unintelligent energy increases destruction, rather than enhances creation

Consider the following example:

A lot of energy obviously goes into the building of a house. One does not achieve an elegantly built home by placing construction materials on a subdivision lot and then unleashing great amounts of dumb energy in the area.

For example, they don't ignite a few barrels of gasoline energy and expect meaningful construction to occur.

But the energy from gasoline combustion (heat) must be intelligently converted into usable forms (electricity and engine power) by intelligent systems (motors, machines, etc).

Then, even after this conversion, the new form of energy must be even more intelligently channeled toward the completion of a specific architectural design by use in machines and motors.

Dumb energy alone, that is, energy without intellectual control, simply causes more destruction and disorder, but never creation.

It's like pouring gasoline over a construction site, lighting a match, and expecting a building to "build itself" just because you added energy. This in essence is the argument Chemical Evolutionists are making in Open Systems.

What About Snowflakes?

Some evolutionists, refusing to accept that Entropy applies also to Evolution, have pointed to mineral crystals, ice cubes, and snowflakes as examples of "complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts."

They point to these simple compounds as evidence that even though nature is under the influence of Entropy (disorder), it is still possible for some order to randomly emerge from the chaos.

Please notice the logical double-standard.

On the one hand, they tell us that extremely complex, microscopic organisms are "simple."

On the other, they attempt to convince us that incredibly simple snowflakes or crystals are "complex."

In fact, they are not only wrong in both cases, they are dramatically incorrect, suggesting again that their "success" in convincing others of their theory is totally reliant on the ignorance of their followers pertaining to both organisms and snowflakes.

It was already examined in part 2 of this series that the simplest organisms of earth are far more complex than the most advanced human inventions.

By contrast, we are about to see that crystals, ice cubes, and snowflakes are in fact far simpler than practically any invention of man.

Crystals simply form due to the most basic attractions between chemicals, tantamount to a couple of amino acids joining together if placed in a test tube and subjected to heat (or, using the automobile analogy, like a couple of metal fragments joining together into interesting random shapes).

However, to get those random crystals to form something as complex as life is quite literally "mathematically impossible."

So, rather than being "complex structures" (as evolutionists are deceitfully suggesting), crystals are merely simple sequences of chemicals that have formed natural attractions and that in certain cases join together to look pretty. However, crystals, ice cubes, and snowflakes are incomparably simpler in design and construction than a mere protein—much less a living organism.

And since the impossibility of even one protein spontaneously forming from nature it has been abundantly indicated (again, please see part 2 of this series), that doesn't bode too well for the snowflake argument.

Carl Wieland aptly wrote:
"...a roughly equivalent formulation [is]...break a crystal and you just get smaller crystals; break a protein and you don't simply get a smaller protein, rather you lose the function completely. This is the equivalent of saying that the crystal has low information content that is simply repeated, while the protein molecule can't be constructed simply by repetition, because there is no chemical tendency for amino acids to align in specific ways during polymerization.
"Those who manufacture proteins know that they have to add one amino acid at a time, and each addition has about 90 chemical steps involved."

5 Reasons Chemical Evolution is False:
REASON #1—That "simple little organism" isn't so simple after all
REASON #2—Nature can't produce complex organic molecules
REASON #3—'Irreducible complexity' insurmountable problem
REASON #4—Thermodynamics is a deathblow to evolution
REASON #5—Chemical Evolution is mathematically and physically impossible

Additional recommended reading:

Science's Law of Disorder: The 2nd law of Thermodynamics
Why does atheism violate the most basic fact of science?
Defending Christianity


Print this article Email this article

How to be Saved

10 Tips

Christian Living

         Article Archives:   Feature Article Archives Video Archives Bible Mythbuster Archives
          Main Links:  
Home Make ReligiouslyIncorrect.org your Favorite Translate this page Join our Email List Contact Us
          Other Links:  
Submit Your Article Find Other Christians Near You
        © 2009 ReligiouslyIncorrect.org