Re: Entropy was never the issue

Todd—You and I’d agree that entropy started very low at the beginning, that it only increases, and that if we see a glass knocked off a table, shattered on the floor, it’s a safe bet that entropy has increased.

Fred, I'm very honored at your sincere attempts to find common ground here, and I appreciate it. However I think we do disagree here on fundamentals regarding thermodynamics as far as the contents of our recent posts, because I am trying to support precisely the position that:

(1) entropy is not a measure of macroscopic disorder, but a microscopic or statistical measure of dispersal of energy, and that these may not be as strongly interdependent as the heat death argument assumes, and

(2) that the common interpretation of the universe marching from an ordered singularity to inexorable heat death is certainly possible, but is currently a speculation, not a simple logical consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

(3) That being the case, I don't draw any compelling metaphysical conclusions about Creation from thermodynamics, one way or the other. It simply doesn't seem to be reliably relevant to me.

You seem to be taking the things we supposedly agree on as the solid basis for reasoning about Creation, but we don't actually agree on them.

So we agree on the essentials, and probably the particulars if we took the time to get into the details. What entropy/thermodynamics is, is not, and never has been, the issue here. But then you already know that.

As far as I can tell, we don't. You are saying that entropy can be treated as a measure or reflection of macroscopic disorder, identifying it with glasses breaking, and that the presumed march of entropy has metaphysical implications about Creation. I'm saying that I personally find that argument unconvincing, not just because of my preexisting bias against the "intelligent design" view of Creation (that is, the view that supposedly makes all physical theories regarding natural history equally implausibly "accident"), but because both of those premises are controversial at best.

I know the conclusion we're addressing is not thermoydynamics, its metaphysics, or even theology, but thermodynamics was certainly relevant to the substance of your argument, so it's what I addressed.

If there's a core issue from my perspective, it's the issue of distinguishing our search of meaning in our origins from our physical explanations for natural processes. It raises the fundamental question of just what is eternal and timeless, and what is subject to change, and appeals to very different modern traditions. Those who agree with IDers that our understanding of nature must be shaped by our timeless narratives about Creation stand on one side, while those willing to reinterpret our sacred narratives to better fit with changing scientific understanding stand on the other side.

best,

Todd

Replies:

There are no replies to this message.

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.