The Second Law of Thermodynamics, The Origins of Life, and Evolutionary Theory 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all things and all processes degrade and result in an increase in entropy. Entropy is a quantitative measure of randomness; it is the opposite of complex order.

This LAW is absolutely, undeniably true...never refuted...and the most defendable law in all of science. No scientist has yet attempted to deny its absolute sovereignty over all things material. Yet, atheists have attempted to look for ways around it. They have been widely successful at doing so...socially, but most unsuccessful scientifically.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics plainly determines (and states what any layman already knows from experience) that matter cannot spontaneously assemble itself into a more highly organized system. That is, molecules, when left alone, simplify their structures and organization. Regardless of the environment, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen do not assemble into amino acids which collect into self-reproducing proteins. This is an absurd proposition. The 2nd Law forbids it plainly.

One can go into statistics to prove that the chances of such things occurring are well beyond the realm of even the remotest possibility. But such arguments are unnecessary, for it is not really a question of probabilities but of possibilities. There is a point where low probability becomes impossibility; the spontaneous formation of life is much beyond this point.

Inquiring minds ask where the low entropy levels of the early Universe came from, and where the extremely high levels of the complex organization found in life came from. The only answer must be a pre-existing intelligence with enough power to do the job.

The 2nd Law is the most powerful empirical proof of the existence of God. Within its jurisdiction falls the questions of the origin of life and the proposed evolution of life.

The Origin of Life

The origin of life is, indeed, a question. No scientific finding, alone, has answered it. Fortunately for us, God has revealed the answer. But those who find that this is either not acceptable or is, at least, not good enough have endeavored to discover the answer with science alone because their philosophies have forced them to exclude the possibility of creation.

Assuming that life appeared first on Earth (although the argument is ultimately the same no matter where in the universe life came from) several problems arise.

First, there is a problem much like the old riddle "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". Life is a system that shows signs of intelligence, even in single-celled organisms! The molecule that carries the genetic code is not just a structural molecule; it contains information. Other molecules READ that information and direct energy towards organizing matter to fit the pattern found therein!!

Not only is this intriguing in the area of defining intelligence but it poses a dilemma! Even in the simplest form of life, BOTH the code (DNA/RNA) and the machinery to read it (proteins) are necessary for life to carry on. They both require the presence of the other! It is tragic that anyone could believe that two complex interdependent systems like this spontaneously appeared at the same time within a few angstroms of one another.

So, which one originated first? Obviously, neither could have originated first. In order for life to have originated randomly, BOTH would have had to have spontaneously come into existence . . .

1. at the same time (to within a few minutes)
   
2. in the same place (within a few angstroms of each other)
   
3. within a very small, protected environment (permeable to the necessary foods and gases but not to poisons or other destructive molecules)

The second problem for a natural (non-supernatural) origin of life theory is that there needed to be two contradictory environments. Elements of an oxygen atmosphere AND a non-oxygen atmosphere both seem to have been necessary.

The first life forms in a godless scenario could not have been complex enough to use oxygen. In fact, without a very sophisticated protective environment, oxygen will quickly destroy all the molecules of life. Oxygen acts on other molecules to increase the rate of the effects of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, thereby degrading them rapidly. Our bodies use oxygen to degrade our food rapidly, for example. But this is done in a very controlled manner, lest the oxygen degrade our bodies as well.

But another problem is revealed when one realizes that oxygen in the atmosphere is necessary for the existence of the ozone layer, our planet's only protection from deadly ultraviolet radiation! UV rays from the sun are extremely powerful. They cut through miles of atmosphere and several feet of water to quickly destroy the molecules of living things wherever they may be found.

Without an ozone layer, even life in its present state would have a hard time surviving, let alone as a "primitive", unprotected system! And yet, life universally uses the energy that comes from the sun, in some way, to power its cellular machinery.

Living things need the sun but UV radiation will destroy them. Living things need the ozone layer, but oxygen will destroy them. So, even if the simplest imaginable living thing could have spontaneously come into existence, it certainly would have been destroyed by oxygen or by ultraviolet radiation.

These are just two of the major dilemmas that Atheists must overcome. Keep in mind that the major problem is, of course, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. To date, no theory has managed to overcome the many obstacles which face the atheistic scientist in this area (though one is forced to read the original scientific literature to discover this; the media suggest that there is a theory that is widely accepted by atheistic scientists which adequately addresses every problem. There is not.)

Evolutionary Theory

Finally, there is Evolutionary Theory. First came the assumption that the universe came to exist without God. Second came the assumption that life arose spontaneously without God. After assuming all of this, Evolutionary Theory takes the stage. Evolutionary Theory attempts to explain the present diversity and complexity that is the Earth's biology without God.

Evolutionists assume that naturalism (the belief that the supernatural does not exist) is a criterion for science; it is not. The origin and development of life is a matter of history which may be investigated with the scientific method. As a result the study of creation can be (and is) just as scientific as the investigation of evolution.

Evolutionists go on to assume that The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has no jurisdiction over living things since life is constantly building more and more of itself. They fail to notice that living things accomplish this task by increasing the probabilities of the desired outcomes. Their previously existing cellular machinery makes a specific set of outcomes the most probable outcomes! For example, if one sprays paint onto a wall the placement of the paint molecules is random. But if a previously existing stencil (a board with holes in the shape of letters) is placed between the paint source and the wall then the paint molecules will be arranged on the wall to form intelligible letters. The stencil increased the probability that specific areas would be painted.

In a similar way, the machinery of all living cells create a path of least resistance for chemicals to follow. The path of least resistance is always the most probable path. The big questions are, "Where did the machinery come from?" and "Can the machinery improve itself?"

• The first question is the same as asking how life arose in the first place. Since the "stencil" for life could not have been used to create itself, the issue is one of pure probability. Unfortunately for atheists, the odds are beyond the realm of possibility.
• The second question is the question Evolutionary Theory attempts to give a "yes" answer to. But the problem is that systems that copy themselves obtain the information for copying internally. Random changes in this information (mutations) cannot be responsible for offering improvements because, again, it then becomes an issue of pure probability. The mathematics of these probabilities show that improvements simply will not occur spontaneously. If the mutations are random then they must contribute to chaos. Improved information would not result.

Evolutionary Theory FIRST assumes that 'good' mutations occur and THEN imagines mechanisms which sift through them, find the best ones, and copy them. It is this initial assumption that discredits the theory most due to its direct conflict with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. However, the many facets of subsequent ideas are worth examining.

Regarding the particulars of Evolutionary Theory, I will first make a few extremely bold statements, then I will prove them. The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific theory! It is actually untestable. It is not even a single theory but has many parts which do not fit well together. Some of the parts of the theory are purely mathematical models and so appear irrefutable. Other parts are merely stories that are used to explain away isolated problems. And the most important part, Natural Selection, makes sense to the layman only in its simplest form in which it is false, but in its full complex form it has become and so remains untestable.

The most glaring problem is that Evolutionary Theory is currently so broad and complex that few people fully understand it completely. But even among evolutionary scientists themselves, when they realize that their area alone does not offer acceptable proof of the plausibility of the theory, there is a belief that the concrete proof of evolution lies in some area other than their own. That is, they know their area of study has found no proof, so they assume that some other evolutionist's area contains the actual concrete evidence.

This problem extends to other scientists as well. Atheistic cosmologists who attempt to prove the Big Bang Theory, find that they run into a great many problems, but rest their minds on the assumption that other scientists elsewhere have adequately shown that the atheistic perspective is valid.

The problem then continues down the ladder to the media, the schools and the public. None of them know the details about the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution, but they all assume that somewhere there are experts that do know the details and who can be trusted when they say that the theories have been validated by science.

But now to prove these accusations. I claimed that Evolutionary Theory is not a scientific theory, but instead is untestable. In order to be scientific, Evolutionary Theory must be testable, and its subject observable.

Walter James ReMine, in his book The Biotic Message makes these powerful statements, (see end of article for reference)

"The classical evolutionary theories (such as orthogenesis, vitalism, and Lamarckism) have all been falsified, except for the one that cannot conceivably be falsified – natural selection. All the evolutionary mechanisms are now outside science. Why does nature seem to always possess counterexamples sufficient to probe any evolutionary theories, thereby exposing their lack of structure? Why is it that evolution explains life on earth only by using countless convoluted and contradictory just-so stories?

"Why are life forms united by countless similarities? Why are there biologic universals such as DNA, RNA, amino acids, protein, and the genetic code? These are not predicted by evolution. In fact, evolutionists now imply that biologic universals should not exist."

Mr ReMine goes on to ask why evolution cannot answer the necessary question of the origin of life. Why can't they create a primitive life form in the laboratory? Why doesn't some organism other than the bacterium confined to the guts of termites and ruminants evolve the ability to digest cellulose and thus make available to itself the most abundant food source on the planet? And why does the fossil record not show anything but gaps between species?

"Why are morphological gaps plentiful, large, and systematically placed? Why are the gaps so large that they cannot be bridged by experimental demonstrations? This striking pattern is evidence against evolution.

"Why does the record of life fail to show substantial patterns of lineage and phylogeny?"...

"There are two methods that would have the power to establish evolution as a fact. These methods are gradual intergradations, and clear-cut phylogeny. Why does the data fail to conform to these? Why does the data fail not just in a piecemeal way, but uniformly and systematically throughout the pattern of life? Evolution does not predict that. Why do embryological similarities commonly exist between quite different organisms said to have been separated by three to four hundred million years? Evolution does not predict this. Why does ontogeny tend to display characters in a sequence from generalized to specialized? Evolutionists are so vexed by the problem that they never explicitly addressed it. Evolution is unable to cope meaningfully with this sequence of ontogeny. Embryology is major evidence against evolution.

"Why do new complex designs make their appearance in the fossil record abruptly and fully developed? Why does that usually happen in stunningly orchestrated bursts, such as the Cambrian explosion? Evolution does not predict these. In addition, the fossil sequence fails to show a vector of progress, and even Stephen Gould acknowledges this as the greatest dilemma for evolutionary study. These facts of the fossil sequence count against evolution."...

"Why is it that sex is here, and here abundantly? The most plausible evolutionary theories predict that it should not even exist."...

"These are not trivialities. These are the major features of life. On every point, if evolutionary theory speaks with any clarity whatsoever, it favors an opinion opposite from what we observe."

Population Genetics is a major part of Evolutionary Theory. It describes how a new gene enters a population and becomes a part of the individuals in that population. However, it is a purely mathematical model, a system of formulae that can be used to describe whatever one wishes. As such, it is absolutely true. Pure mathematics does not lie. Unfortunately for Evolutionary Theory, Population Genetics shows that a new gene is much more likely to be lost than to "thrive" in a new population. In fact, Population Genetics proves that a new gene would most certainly be eliminated if it were not introduced in fairly large numbers. An example: In order for a new gene in chimpanzees to become a gene in most chimpanzees then several chimpanzees would have to SIMULTANEOUSLY evolve the same mutation and then mate... often. This scenario must fight astronomically bad odds in.

Natural Selection is the cornerstone of modern Evolutionary Theory. But there are two versions. The first version is called "Naive Natural Selection". This version is the one that the public knows. It involves a simple organism obtaining new traits that improve its survival ability. Eventually the organism's species improves until it is a new species. A classic illustration of this is the picture of several creatures in a line, each successive creature appearing more advanced than the one before it.

This model is so simplified and oblivious to the many details that it really isn't accurate at all. However, the current model used by evolutionary biologists, with all its facets and details shows that an organism is much more likely to stay in one state than anything else. This more realistic model also takes note of the large barriers that separate the species. However, this model is too complex to test and so is explored only philosophically!

These last two elements of evolution deal with how new, favorable mutations enter a population and how the organism deals with them. Thus it can be seen that Evolutionary Theory relies on a great many occurrences of favorable mutations. However, the likelihood of a new and improved gene being spontaneously mutated can be compared to throwing 1000 straight sixes with a single die or coming up heads in a coin toss 3000 times in a row! It is difficult for a human brain to grasp such odds, but perhaps this will help: If every atom in the universe represented 1000 throws of the die it would still take a quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion such universes to allow just one instance of throwing 1000 straight sixes!!! In addition, for every good mutation (represented by the one instance of 1000 straight sixes) there are many many more bad mutations (represented by the number of trials for each atom in 1 quadrillion¹⁴ universes). How could an organism survive if it needed to endure this many bad mutations in its lifetime so that it could have a more realistic chance of obtaining one good mutation? How could it even live long enough?

Indeed, Evolutionary Theory depends upon many new and improved genes springing up out of nowhere with no proven mechanism capable of providing them. The odds are so amazingly opposed to such a concept that they strain the informed mind to its very limits. Even if every organism that ever lived produced a million random mutations in its lifetime the laws of probability dictate that not even one of them would be a good mutation. This fact alone should give any evolutionary biologist pause. Simply adding millions of years to the problem won't help, the odds are many times beyond astronomical for even ONE good mutation let alone the millions required to turn an amoeba into a mammal.

As I addressed within the graphic novel, evolutionists often can be seen using microevolution to prove that macroevolution occurs. Microevolution never involves the creation of new information but usually either a repetition, differential expression, or even loss of previously possessed genetic information. It is not a suitable position from which to extrapolate to macroevolution since they are entirely different in their mechanism.

Walter James ReMine concludes his book with this statement, and I will also use it to conclude this article.

"When a theory is falsified by the evidence, its proponents then tinker with the theory to remedy the problem. Sometimes the tinkering helps. Frequently, however, the tinkering moves the theory from the falsified to the unfalsifiable (an equally grave problem). When this is recognized, the proponents tinker further to try to remedy this new pitfall.

"So, a theory does not immediately go flying out the window when falsified. Rather, by human intervention and ingenuity, it often lingers a while, vacillating nebulously between the nether worlds of the falsified and the unfalsifiable. In either case, the theory fails to inform us about empirical observations. The theory loses its grip on reality and becomes scientifically useless. The precise status of the theory is then an academic matter of interest only to philosophers and historians.

"Evolutionary theory is like that. Is evolution falsified? Or is it unfalsifiable? Such debate could go on endlessly, depending on whose version of evolutionary theory we are talking about. May we avoid the academic rancor by calling it non-science and leaving it at that? That approach is best. When pressed, however, we can say that evolutionary theory - as practiced by its proponents - is unfalsifiable, since that is its essential character."

Ape-man

The mythology of Tibet also speaks of strange ancestors. Overlooking the Yarlung Valley is Monkey Cave where supposedly a reclusive monkey mated with a female ogre of the cliffs. He did it to help the ogress so that she wouldn't be doomed to having ogre children who would trouble the world. They had "six monkey children who eventually proliferated into the whole population of Tibet." The monkey children were eventually turned into farmers after Tibet's divine protector reached into a mountain and withdrew the seeds of five different grains and scattered them over the children.

Walter James ReMine's book is a very comprehensive and powerful tool. It leaves no stone unturned in rooting out all of the problems of Evolutionary Theory. I would highly recommend it to anyone with a need for such in-depth and technical knowledge, that is, anyone with any doubt that Evolutionary Theory is a poorly thought out philosophy masquerading as a science. Here is the information you will need to get your own copy.

Title: The Biotic Message, Evolution Versus Message Theory
Author: Walter James ReMine
Publisher: St. Paul Science, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
Price: $44.95

Icons of Evolution

 

HOME PAGE