Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!hplabs!amdahl!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist arguments, PART I
Message-ID: <137@rtech.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 03:24:28 EST
Article-I.D.: rtech.137
Posted: Mon Feb 11 03:24:28 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 04:23:20 EST
References: <204@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA>
Organization: Relational Technology, Berkeley CA
Lines: 39

> CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS, PART I
> 
>     C.  Pseudo-arguments:  There are some people who insist on
>         rewriting science to fit the Bible.  Henry Morris of the
>         Institute for Creation Research points out that the
>         second law must have been tested in open systems.  After
>         all, how many closed systems do you know of?  Therefore,
>         the second law must really apply to open systems!  (For a
>         sarcastic response to that, please refer back to my pre-
>         vious post.)  He forgets, deliberately or accidentally,
>         that scientists do not expect perfection from anything.
>         Experiments are performed in environments that closely
>         approximate the ideal.  It is far too costly, if not im-
>         possible, to create an ideal environment for any experi-
>         ment.  The second law, like any other law of science, was
>         tested on systems that are essentially closed.  That is,
>         any outside influence or interaction is negligible.
> 
> I welcome anything which you would like to add or correct.
> 
> Until next time ...
> 
> -Keebler

As I understand it, the second law of thermodynamics isn't a physical law
in the normal sense.  Rather, it is a tendency that is overwhelming in
large-scale systems.  The strength of this tendency is derivable from the
mathematical definition of entropy.  This definition is based on the probability
of the various possible states of the system in question.  The second law of
thermodynamics states that physical systems have an extremely strong tendency
to go to more and more probable states.  This can only be guarnteed for closed
systems; energy coming into the system can perform the work necessary to reduce
entropy (that is, go to a less probable state) within the system .  The argumentthat the second law of thermodynamics was derived from experiments on non-closedsystems is false because this law was not derived from experiments; rather, it
was mathematically derived from more fundamental physical laws and the
definition of entropy.  If anyone has the opportunity to hear him state his
position, ask him which experiments he is referring to.
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak