A Challenge for Darwinists
Over the years new products of all types are constantly appearing on the market. But they are the result of human invention, guided by intuition and common sense, and those guiding factors are not programmable. On the other hand, Darwinism offers an explanation for our existence without purposeful intervention. Darwinism has given a great boost to materialism, the philosophy that says that only the material world exists, not the spiritual world. Darwinists have a preference for materialism. What is more materialist than the desire to get rich quick? Darwinists have never been able to make artificial evolution work and reap the enormous profits it promises. Why then should we accept unquestioningly their dogma that we are the product of evolution? They should first demonstrate that the process works.
The problem Darwinists have with natural selection is not that it doesn’t work. The problem is that the natural selection of small variations is insufficient to produce the great variety of life forms found on Earth. Darwinism needs a coordinated series of timely breakthroughs to create all the modern species and phyla from one-celled organisms in the space of 620 million years since the Pre-Cambrian Explosion.
Here is the challenge for Darwinists. This challenge is no more difficult in principle than the assignment thousands of computer programmers have accepted, to write an automatic design program to optimize some product using a series of small changes. Let the Darwinists choose any two species that can’t cross and produce reproducing offspring. The inability to cross should not merely be because of differences in mating ritual or feeding times. The species should be undeniably different. Let the Darwinists demonstrate at the molecular level that there is at least one possible path from one species to the other, limiting each step to small changes only in the DNA coding. They should show that there are closely spaced stepping-stones all the way, with no leaps or giant steps. In this first demonstration we will refrain from asking for fossils to show the missing links. All the Darwinists need to do is to show that small changes can get from the genome of a species of their choice to the genome of any other really distinct species they choose, provided that every step along the way the transitional form of the genome is still viable. The burden of proof is theirs.
Those who accept the challenge should understand that they are working against well-established physical law. To understand this, we need to understand thermodynamics.
The problem Darwinists have with natural selection is not that it doesn’t work. The problem is that the natural selection of small variations is insufficient to produce the great variety of life forms found on Earth. Darwinism needs a coordinated series of timely breakthroughs to create all the modern species and phyla from one-celled organisms in the space of 620 million years since the Pre-Cambrian Explosion.
Here is the challenge for Darwinists. This challenge is no more difficult in principle than the assignment thousands of computer programmers have accepted, to write an automatic design program to optimize some product using a series of small changes. Let the Darwinists choose any two species that can’t cross and produce reproducing offspring. The inability to cross should not merely be because of differences in mating ritual or feeding times. The species should be undeniably different. Let the Darwinists demonstrate at the molecular level that there is at least one possible path from one species to the other, limiting each step to small changes only in the DNA coding. They should show that there are closely spaced stepping-stones all the way, with no leaps or giant steps. In this first demonstration we will refrain from asking for fossils to show the missing links. All the Darwinists need to do is to show that small changes can get from the genome of a species of their choice to the genome of any other really distinct species they choose, provided that every step along the way the transitional form of the genome is still viable. The burden of proof is theirs.
Those who accept the challenge should understand that they are working against well-established physical law. To understand this, we need to understand thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics, Information, and Creation
Signs provide information, and living organisms have information written in their genetic code. People can interchange information using complex systems of auditory and visual signs called languages. This brings us to a convenient point to introduce thermodynamics.
Einstein had a very high view of thermodynamics. He said:
Einstein had a very high view of thermodynamics. He said:
A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its area of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content concerning which I am convinced that, within the framework of the applicability of its basic concepts, it will never be overthrown.[i]
[i] Einstein, Albert, autobiographical notes in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, P. A. Schilpp, editor, Library of Living Philosophers series (London: Cambridge University Press, 1970), Volume VII, page 33, quoted in Elliott H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, “A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” Physics Today, 53 (Number 4, April 2000), pp. 32–37.
[i] Einstein, Albert, autobiographical notes in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, P. A. Schilpp, editor, Library of Living Philosophers series (London: Cambridge University Press, 1970), Volume VII, page 33, quoted in Elliott H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, “A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” Physics Today, 53 (Number 4, April 2000), pp. 32–37.
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The laws of thermodynamics govern all physical processes without exception. They have zero tolerance for nonconforming processes. The first law is simply the law of the conservation of energy, including the equivalent energy of matter. We discussed that in The First Three Days of the Earth when we introduced the theory of relativity.
The first law of thermodynamics is sometimes called the “no free lunch” law. Once in a while people get what they think is a free lunch, but somebody always has to pay. The second law is about disorder and information. The second law says that no decent lunch can come out of a machine that runs garbage through a simple filter. We will see why not after explaining the second law.
The first law of thermodynamics is sometimes called the “no free lunch” law. Once in a while people get what they think is a free lunch, but somebody always has to pay. The second law is about disorder and information. The second law says that no decent lunch can come out of a machine that runs garbage through a simple filter. We will see why not after explaining the second law.