Q&A: Entropy – Evolution and Order
Entropy – Evolution and Order
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I saw in the booklet that the Rabbi argues that evolution creates order, but at the Davidson Institute they claim the exact opposite:
“Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics
This argument combines a failure to understand the evolutionary mechanism with a distortion of a basic assumption of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy (a kind of measure of disorder—though that too is not entirely precise) in an isolated system will always increase over time. Some people claim that since the process of evolution creates order, it inherently contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.
As a first step, it is worth discussing whether evolution in fact creates order. This is a philosophical discussion, and it is quite easy to explain why it does not, but this argument can be rejected much more sharply and decisively: the second law of thermodynamics deals with the total sum of entropy, so there can be islands of order within an ocean of chaos as long as the overall entropy continues to increase over time.”
Second,
if the total overall entropy of the world is preserved, and does not decrease, then why argue that the world needs a Creator?
We see that the laws of nature do not add the slightest bit to the world’s complexity. And the claim that there is a need for an organizer is pulled out of thin air, so why does the Rabbi continue to argue that the messy needs someone to organize it?
Answer
It seems to me that lately, for the third time already, pearls of wisdom from the Davidson Institute have been mentioned here. Usually this is nonsensical drivel, but here it is actually possible they are right (though not certainly). Indeed, the world’s overall entropy does not necessarily decrease, because there is an offset with the environment. But that does not touch the physico-theological argument.
First, there is the argument that lies beyond the laws. Within a framework of different laws, life would not have come into being, and therefore the question arises: who created the laws? See here:
Discussion on Answer
That analogy is partially correct. There is a claim that if a person arranges something (creates something complex and ordered), the chaos that compensates for it is located in his head (in the information). But this isn’t the place to get into that.
Exactly—also in evolution, the compensating chaos is in the sun.
Isn’t that so?
Rabbi, I don’t understand. Obviously, philosophically you are right that complexity leads to the conclusion that there is God.
But scientifically, how can one even imagine trying to prove from some non-fulfillment of the second law in the formation of life that there is an intelligent designer?
It is obvious a priori that the second law holds, since you too argue that God runs the world through the laws of nature, and did not personally assemble the proteins of the first chain and so on. So by definition there cannot be a contradiction between the formation of life and the second law (and from that prove that the system is not closed), because God established the initial laws, and that’s it.
Where is the mistake?
I am not proving anything from the non-fulfillment of the law. I brought up the law only to illustrate the idea that complexity does not arise on its own.
What the Rabbi wrote at the beginning depends on the second point too, doesn’t it?
That is, the fact that different laws would not create life, and therefore the question arises who created the laws—that depends on whether a human being is really ordered or not.
In any case,
the Rabbi is basically arguing that uniqueness in one place at the expense of another does not undermine the philosophical idea—namely, why there is uniqueness in one place rather than uniform disorder.
Can this be compared to a case where a normal production line preserves entropy and all the laws of nature, and yet we still demand an explanation for it?
Or is that an incorrect analogy.