Entropy – Evolution and Order
Hello Rabbi,
I saw in the notebook that the rabbi claims that evolution creates order, but the Davidson Institute absolutely claims that it does not:
“Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics”
This argument combines a failure to understand the evolutionary mechanism with a violation of a fundamental premise of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy (a kind of measure of disorder – also not very accurate) in an isolated system will always increase over time. Some people argue that since the process of evolution creates order, it essentially contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.
As a first step, it is worth discussing whether evolution does indeed create order. This is a philosophical debate that can be quite easily explained why it does not. “But this argument can be refuted much more sharply and decisively: the second law of thermodynamics deals with the total amount of entropy, so there may be islands of order in an ocean of chaos as long as the total entropy continues to increase over time.”
Secondly,
If overall the general entropy of the world is conserved and not decreasing, then why claim that the world needs a creator?
We see that the laws of nature do not add anything to the complexity of the world. And the argument about the need for order is absurd. So why does the rabbi continue to argue that order is needed for chaos?
It seems to me that recently, for the third time, the Davidson Institute’s Shaffer statements have been mentioned here. Usually, this is baseless nonsense, but here it is actually possible (although not certain). Indeed, the general entropy of the world does not necessarily decrease, because there is an offset with the environment. But this does not concern the physico-theological argument.
First, there is the argument that outside the laws. Under other laws, no life would have been created, and therefore the question arises as to who created the laws. See here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%98-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%98%D7%AA %D7%99-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D 7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/
And second, even if the general entropy does not decrease, the formation of stable life (and not a temporary state that is immediately destroyed) within the system still requires an orderly hand. The limitation of the laws of physics is only a necessary but not sufficient condition. If something very special were created (say, a frog were created from a piece of plasticine) and disorder were to multiply around it so that overall order was maintained, wouldn’t that require an explanation? The fact that the second law is maintained does not mean that all the problems of philosophy have been solved. In this regard, see an example of Anaximander’s argument here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%97%D7%9B%D7%9E%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7 %95%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%93%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%9 8%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%AA/
What the Rabbi wrote in Genesis depends on the second, doesn't it?
It is that other laws would not have created life, and therefore the question arises as to who created the laws. It depends on whether man is truly orderly or not.
In any case,
the Rabbi is actually arguing that uniqueness in one place at the expense of another does not harm the philosophical idea. Why is there uniqueness in place of uniform disorder.
Can this be likened to the case where a regular assembly line maintains entropy and all the laws of nature and we still demand an explanation for it?
Or is this a false analogy?
This is a partially correct analogy. There is an argument that if a person arranges something (creates something complex and orderly), the mess that compensates for it is in his head (in the information). But this is not the place to go into that.
Exactly the same in evolution, the mess that compensates for it is in the sun.
Isn't that right?
Rabbi, I don't understand. It is clear that philosophically you are right that complexity leads to the conclusion that there is a God.
But scientifically, how is it even conceivable to prove that the second law in the formation of life does not exist by an intelligent designer?
It is clear a priori that the second law exists, after all, you also claim that God governs the world through the laws of nature, and did not assemble the proteins of the first chain with his own hands, etc., so that by definition there can be no contradiction between the formation of life and the second law (and hence prove that the system is not closed), because God established initial laws and that is it.
Where is the mistake?
I'm not proving the law doesn't exist. I brought up the law to demonstrate the idea that complexity doesn't just happen.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
