
The first problem is that when a creationist uses this law for the purpose of disproving evolution, they are using it in the wrong context. The second law of thermodynamics isn't a law for life, it's a law for kinetic energy. This law could be used to explain why a perpetual motion machine doesn't work, not if life could or could not have originated from a single cell. Not only does the creationist take the law out of context, but they leave out a very important part of it. If you could use the second law of thermodynamics in context with evolution, it would only prove that evolution exists, this is because of the thermodynamic probability of irreversability. What this means is that creationists fail to mention the possibility of outside factors falling into play. Here is what it all boils down to. When a creationist says that the second law of thermodynamics makes it where evolution cannot exist, they are using only part of the law. If we translate their use into more common situations the following would be true. 1. If you drop the temperature of a cup of water down to 30 degrees and let it freeze, it will stay frozen forever. Now as we know, ice can melt, this is from outside factors, such as putting the ice in an oven, turning the thermostat up, or whatever. That is where the thermodynamic probability of irreversability come is, which the creationist leaves out. 2. If you jump into the air, you will never come back to earth. But the creationist would leave out the fact that the force of gravity will pull us back to earth. 3. Life could never come from a single cell. But what they leave out is the possibility of the conditions around it allowing the cell to live and grow. What I was hoping to get across with this page is that if someone tells you something, then insists that they know what they're talking about, it doesn't mean they are right. Go find out for yourself. |