Evolution Versus Entropy


Evolution Versus Entropy

 
These indications add emphasis to a principle already alluded to several times, namely, that deterioration or degeneration rather than developmental evolution is the universal law of biology. As we have seen, there is no real evidence at all for progressive evolution but much evidence for disintegration and extinction or, at best, biologic stability.

We have already seen in the previous chapter that this law of degeneration, or entropy increase, is universally operative throughout the physical and chemical realms; it now seems also to pervade the biologic realm. In fact, this truth is beginning so to disturb evolutionists that a number of books and papers have been published in recent years attempting to “harmonize” the concept of evolution (increasing complexity) with the entropy principle (decreasing complexity).

These attempts have been futile. It is not possible to equate deterioration with development. Evolution and entropy are both supposed to represent universal laws of change, but each is the opposite of the other, so they cannot both be true. Entropy represents a law of science, to the extent there is such a thing, whereas evolution represents the wishful thinking of those trying to explain the existence of life apart from God and has no scientific basis at all.

More and more it appears that there is a degenerative principle pervading all nature. Some have called this the “law of morpholysis” (which means “breaking-down of structure”), but the Bible explains it as the great curse placed on the ground because of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:17-20). According to this principle, “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” under “the of corruption (or ‘decay’)” (Romans 8:22, 21). There is a universal tendency from the highly organized to the disorganized. Never is there an inherent, natural, undirected, unaided trend toward an increase of organized complexity. The natural tendency is always degenerative. Prior to the curse, entropy, like energy, was “conserved” with decay processes balanced by growth processes. Now, however, decay prevails.

In biology, an important example is found in the agencies supposed to bring about evolution; that is, gene mutations. All such changes are harmful (or neutral at best), because they represent a breaking down of the highly structured arrangement of the genes in the germ cell. This most likely accounts for the fact that most of the living creatures of the present are represented in the fossil record of the past by larger, more highly developed members of the same kind. It probably also accounts for the extinction of many former kinds of living things, as well as for the various ‘imperfect adaptations” and “vestigial organs” (to the extent there really are any such imperfections and vestiges), which evolutionists still cite (unrealistically) as evidence for evolution.

Evolutionists still may insist that the law of increasing entropy does not preclude evolution since biological systems are “open” systems and can draw enough energy from the sun to support an upward evolution. That is nonsense, however, since the equations of thermodynamics clearly show that an influx of raw heat energy (as from the sun) into any open system (say, like the earth) will increase the entropy (or decay) of that system more rapidly than if it were an isolated system.

Under certain special conditions (not available to evolution, as far as all evidence goes), the organization of an open system may be increased for a time by the entrance of external ordering energy, or information. Examples would be the growth of a plant from a seed or the construction of a building from various structural components. Any such growth process, however, must have a directing program (such as the genetic code in the DNA of the seed or the blueprint for the building), as well as an energy conversion mechanism of some sort to convert the raw energy of the solar heat into the specific work of building up the structure (such as the amazingly complex mechanism photosynthesis for the seed, or the machinery, fuels, muscles, and minds of the builders in the case of the building). The imaginary evolutionary growth of complex plants and animals from a primeval cell (and that from nonliving chemicals in a hypothetical primordial soup), however, has neither a directing program nor conversion mechanism to accomplish this. It must rely on time and chance, but time and chance break things down—they don’t build them up.

No one has ever seen anything evolve, no one knows how evolution works, the fossil record shows no evolutionary transitions taking place, and the basic laws of science show it to be impossible. Yet evolutionists insist that this is “science” and should be taught as proved fact to school children.

Science and the Bible
by Henry Morris