Evolution, Creation and Thermodynamics
The Second Law states: Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, ...
Yes & no. "Order" and "disorder" are not thermodynamics states, but rather are subjective interpretations of the thermodynamic state variable known as
entropy. It is quite common, even amongst scientists, to use order & disorder, since they are easy to communicate to popular level audiences (i.e., to non-scientists). But this kind of interpretation does not work where precision of science & communication are required. So I direct the readers attention to my own set of webpages:
The Definitions of Entropy,
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics &
Entropy and the 2nd Law in Open Systems. A valid understanding of the correct physical meaning of
entropy is necessary if we are going to make definitive statements about which physical processes do or do not violate the fabled 2nd law of thermodynamics (see, however, Pahu's later definition of entropy recounted below).
Your analogies don't address thermodynamics. The fridge is receiving power from outside. Living organisms are created to digest food, etc.
In what way does this not address thermodynamics? The fridge receives power from the outside, but so do all biologically evolving systems. The fridge has the net effect of moving heat energy from lower temperatures to higher temperatures, in an apparent discord with the 2nd law, even though at every step in the mechanical process heat always flows spontaneously from higher to lower temperatures (never underestimate the ability of clever & talented engineers). The whole process is permitted by the las of physics thanks to the addition of work done on the system by the introduction of energy external to the system. Biologically evolving systems are able to maintain themselves in non-equilibrium thermodynamic states in much the same way, via chemical work done on the system by the introduction of energy external to the system, namely the energy in the chemical bonds in food. Where does any of this contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or any other law of physics?
Platitudes and appeals to authority are not effective. Definitive statements require definitive physics, and if neither Pahu nor Brown can deliver, then there is no scientific argument to be had.
The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, ...
The idea that the universe formed spontaneously from nothing exists only in the minds of creationists who, through simple ignorance, fail to properly interpret cosmological science. The idea comes from an over reliance on popular level writings, rather then proper science, the latter being obviously necessary if one is going to claim to be making scientific arguments as opposed to popular level simplifications. The correct interpretation of the big bang singularity is that the initial state of the universe is unknown (and in the realm of classical general relativity,
cannot ever be known in any case). Since no "evolutionist" accepts such a principle, it falls into the class of
strawman arguments commonly put forth by creationists.
... and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)
Of course, as we have already seen, the statement in parentheses is incorrect, as the former postulate does not in fact exist at all outside of the creationist imagination. As for the notion that the origin of life in some way violates the laws of thermodynamics, that is certainly not at all the case.
Pahu, for the sake of understanding, please define "entropy".
A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
Well, so far so good. Not bad for a popular level explanation, but quite inappropriate to be a scientific argument. See my earlier reference:
The Definitions of Entropy.
Entropy is what the equations define it to be, and no other answer can be tolerated in any scientific argument. Entropy is not just a conceptual notion, but rather a mathematically defined physical quantity that is subject to observation, measurement and quantitative theoretical investigation.
In other words, the observed process of everything moving from a higher state to a lower state, or running down, like a wound up clock.
But this is a complete failure. The clock runs down,
but the clock can be wound up again. The refrigerator has the net effect of moving heat away from the cold and into the hot, exactly opposite to a naive understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That's because the refrigerator, like the clock, can be "wound up" again by having energy injected into the system; in the case of the clock, it is the mechanical winding of the clock, and in the case of the refrigerator it is the mechanical & thermal work of circulating coolant. The origin & maintenance of life is no more philosophically complicated than winding a clock. The intercession of outside work & energy maintains life in a low entropy state in the same manner. Hence, the argument that life, either in origin or maintenance, has no basis in science.
