Thursday, March 12, 2009

Do I Understand Any of This?

One of the arguments for Creationism is that "life" is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics: that energy tends towards maximum randomness or entropy.  I read something recently that pointed out that living things are, in fact, far more efficient than non-living things when it comes to randomly dispersing energy, so the second law of thermodynamics is actually an argument against Creationism, assuming you see the "purpose," if you will, of the universe as dispersing as much energy at random until it's all spent--a goal that is certainly in line with, amongst other things, the Big Bang Theory.

The caveat to all of this is that, while we get another point against the Creationists (yippee), it also means that every second we're here living hastens the universe towards its demise.

So, all I'm saying is that I'm suddenly less concerned about my carbon footprint.



Walter said...

Why does there have to be an divide between the possibility of a creator and science? If God created the universe, he would have also created the laws of physics that govern it. Would it be that crazy to think he might just use this system of physics he created once in a while? Why does something necessarily have to defy scientific logic to be entertained as a possible act of God?

Kurt said...

I was referring specifically to Young-Earth Creationist movement (which IS at odds with science), not "God" in the broader sense.


There is an argument to be made that the idea of a creator is at odds with Occam's Razor. Or, on a more philosophical level, science is a pursuit of knowledge and understanding within a set of natural laws. From this perspective, any supernatural attribution would be contrary to the aims of science, as if one were throwing his/her hands in the air at the absence of explanation.

However, that is a conversation for another time, and not what I was talking about.