I’ve just read a couple of rebuttals to creationists’ claims that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists seem to be sure creationists have been soundly defeated but I remain unconvinced. They would say that it’s just me being stubborn and stupid, and they have a point, but I honestly tried to find a solid argument to consider in their presentations. Unfortunately, they are big on form but awfully short on substance.
Their “form” includes generously sticking denigrating labels on everything creationists say. They do not simply report the opposing arguments but they decorate them with words such as ignorant and dishonest. To me it seems this is the most convincing part of their argument because it sets the mind into a rejection mode. No matter what creationists say, it will be rejected because no one wants to associate with ignorance and dishonesty. The space for honest inquiry shrinks and hardly anything ever gets through. Sometimes these labels might be justified because no one is perfect but evolutionists exaggerate the problem to comical levels.
Next level in their arguments is calling creationists on misquoting. One interesting thing about creationism as a science is that they always find some quotes from established scientists to support their views. Most of the time these scientists do not and will not associate themselves with creationism in any public setting so to evolutionists all the quotes look out of context and sometime outright distorting. Isaac Asimov, for example, is quoted in support of evolution breaking the laws of thermodynamics but evolutionists bring up his other quotes where he says this argument against evolution is based on ignorance. Who’s got time to trace this “he said she said” back and forth?
The quotes used by creationists stand very solid on their own but it might be true that the overall direction of authors’ thought is the opposite. I see it as taking a different look at the same facts. One makes a statement but others interpret it differently, happens all the time, especially in politics. The statement in itself might be factually true and so evolutionists, rather than screaming “he didn’t mean that”, should deal with facts and try to disprove clear cut statements, otherwise creationists have all the right to build their own theory from these known facts. To say that “you don’t understand, there’s also this and that addendum that must be considered” is simply saying that creationists didn’t do their homework, but they did.
Evolutionists can’t state a law but when it’s called into application start spouting millions of conditions no one has ever heard of before. Everything becomes a special case for them and for every statement they invent an infinite number of qualifiers. “Catch me if you can,” they are like busted kids spinning lies one after another and nothing is ever said for certain. “Can you understand everything I just said,” they challenge creationists, to which creationists reply “You don’t understand what you just said yourself, you are spamming, and you are far out of the agreed framework. Maybe what you say is true, maybe it’s not, but as far as this debate goes, it’s inadmissible.”
Oh, btw, creationism is a theory, not knowledge. At its heart there’s the Bible but beyond that it’s mere speculation, albeit a benign one.
At this point I’m not even sure there’s any more to evolutionists’ presentation on this subject. There’s some wishful thinking and bold proclamations but nothing to consider seriously. I’m not going to indulge in pondering possible validity to their insistence that evolution here on Earth is just some localized case of naturally rising complexity and is driven by thermodynamics, that evolution is our peculiar way to dissipate Sun’s energy pouring down on Earth.
They must as some point realize that to us it doesn’t look like we as humans are driven by heat dissipation demands at all. This is simply ridiculous (from materialistic POV), but they don’t even touch on it. They could say that first life was a product of heat dissipation but then it started organizing itself. That would fit with their generally accepted theory – first life was created according to strict natural laws but then it learned to organize and reproduce itself, developed consciousness etc. In this case it still breaks the second law of thermodynamics because we clearly have an insatiable urge to order things according to our will, not let them decay into chaos. We can’t stand chaos, and according to thermodynamics it’s unnatural.
Kṛṣṇa consciousness can be of big help here because it explains where the active principle in the universe comes from. First there was mahā tattva, the aggregate, non-differentiated material energy, and then, by the glance of the Lord, it got agitated and started ordering itself. The Lord shook it and various things fell out. First it shook up the space, then the force appeared, then the energy, and so on.
In some of our books a great importance is given to the details of this process and I never understood why until this point, until I started considering this law of thermodynamics. After all, we do have occasional increases of order in some places but eventually all order decays, so where does this initial push come from? What made the universe to release so much energy that the ripples are still all around us?
We live here, on Earth, because the Sun has enough materials to produce energy for many billions of years. There are many intricate ways how this energy eventually trickles down into our stomachs but the Sun is still our only source. As this energy dissipates it transforms many times and takes many forms but it still doesn’t explain life, more on that in a moment. What is important here is that we should look for the source of energy beyond the Sun – where did it all come from? And, ultimately, what caused the Big Bang?
Even from scientific POV something must have cased the universe to appear, to unravel that infinitely small ball of time and space which released all the energy. They don’t have an answer but we do – Kṛṣṇa. He is the active principle that starts the universe, an outside force that causes everything to move, develop, and grow.
The second active principle is life, the spirit souls. As parts and parcels of the Lord and as constitutionally similar to Him we also bring the impetus to order and control the matter. Scientists can’t explain life and they can’t explain, or rather dance around the issue of the Big Bang.
To better understand their predicament we should look at the big picture – it’s not just us, living entities, who break the second law of thermodynamics, but God, too. He was the original “troublemaker” who brought order to chaos (well, it wasn’t chaos exactly, but rather absence of order and differentiation). Faced with the problem of life scientists can try to attribute it to dull matter or to the consequence of God’s initial creation, ie Big Bang. None of these explanations are satisfactory, of course, because living entities are agents of desire and order in themselves. We are similar to God in our wish to create and control but science denies our existence. At best they attribute us to consequences of the Big Bang, without giving us any independence or independent origins.
So, the second law of thermodynamics was actually broken twice, or, in other words, every time the dull matter comes with contact spiritual energy, be it God or jīva tattva, doesn’t really matter.
Science aside, the relationships between us as spirit souls and material energy is complicated because we can’t move it ourselves but that is the subject of free will and how it’s conducted in the material world. Bottom line is that we are an active principle and we do bring order to chaos, and break the laws of thermodynamics all the time. And so does God, to a far greater degree.
Lastly, I titled this post “double whammy” and it was a tribute to the language normally used in this kind of conversations. It doesn’t mean what people think it does. Evolutionists can’t care less about my blog and so talking about inflicting some double whammy damage on them is silly. I believe it’s more appropriate to apply this double whammy to my own doubts, whether I admit to having them or not. I’m not preaching to scientists here, I’m preaching to myself, and at this stage me convincing myself is relatively more important than trying to convert some evolutionists.