Second law of thermodynamics
initial conditions early in the universe were those of low entropy, as this
The law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the
phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.
The second law declares the impossibility of machines that generate usable
energy from the abundant internal energy of nature by processes called
perpetual motion of the second kind.
The first theory of the conversion of heat into mechanical work is due to Nicolas
Léonard Sadi Carnot in 1824. He was the first to realize correctly that the
efficiency of this conversion depends on the difference of temperature between
an engine and its environment.
Recognizing the significance of James Prescott Joule's work on the conservation
of energy, Rudolf Clausius was the first to formulate the second law during 1850,
in this form: heat does not flow spontaneously from cold to hot bodies. While
common knowledge now, this was contrary to the caloric theory of heat popular
at the time, which considered heat as a fluid. From there he was able to infer
the principle of Sadi Carnot and the definition of entropy (1865).
Established during the 19th century, the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second
Law says, "It is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive
heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work." This was shown
to be equivalent to the statement of Clausius.
The ergodic hypothesis is also important for the Boltzmann approach. It says
that, over long periods of time, the time spent in some region of the phase space
of microstates with the same energy is proportional to the volume of this region,
i.e. that all accessible microstates are equally probable over a long period of
time. Equivalently, it says that time average and average over the statistical
ensemble are the same.
It has been shown that not only classical systems but also quantum mechanical
ones tend to maximize their entropy over time. Thus the second law follows,
given initial conditions with low entropy. More precisely, it has been shown that
the local von Neumann entropy is at its maximum value with a very high
probability.The result is valid for a large class of isolated quantum systems (e.g.
a gas in a container). While the full system is pure and therefore does not have
any entropy, the entanglement between gas and container gives rise to an
increase of the local entropy of the gas. This result is one of the most important
achievements of quantum thermodynamics
 Today, much effort in the field is attempting to understand why the
is seen as the origin of the second law
 The second law can be stated in various succinct ways, including:
• It is impossible to produce work in the surroundings using a cyclic
process connected to a single heat reservoir (Kelvin, 1851).
• It is impossible to carry out a cyclic process using an engine connected
to two heat reservoirs that will have as its only effect the transfer of a
quantity of heat from the low-temperature reservoir to the high-
temperature reservoir (Clausius, 1854).
• If thermodynamic work is to be done at a finite rate, free energy must
be expended.
Statistical mechanics gives an explanation for the second law by postulating that
a material is composed of atoms and molecules which are in constant motion. A
particular set of positions and velocities for each particle in the system is called
a microstate of the system and because of the constant motion, the system is
constantly changing its microstate. Statistical mechanics postulates that, in
equilibrium, each microstate that the system might be in is equally likely to
occur, and when this assumption is made, it leads directly to the conclusion that
the second law must hold in a statistical sense. That is, the second law will hold
on average, with a statistical variation on the order of 1/√N where N is the
number of particles in the system. For everyday (macroscopic) situations, the
probability that the second law will be violated is practically zero. However, for
systems with a small number of particles, thermodynamic parameters, including
the entropy, may show significant statistical deviations from that predicted by
the second law. Classical thermodynamic theory does not deal with these
statistical variations.
JHT: SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND THE EVOLUTION OF
LIVING SYSTEM.
 INTRODUCTION:
In this article, the classical formulations of the second law of thermodynamics
as they relate to the evolution of living systems will be presented. Some
mistakes in the understanding of the physical meaning of this general law of
nature will be noted. It is asserted that many misunderstandings of the second
law of thermodynamics are related to terminological confusion and to the
underestimation or disregard of the theory developed by Willard Gibbs and
other founders of "true thermodynamics", which is impossible to disprove.
 To a certain approximation then, herein, the thermodynamics of Rudolf
Clausius and Willard Gibbs will be applied to description of the evolution
of living systems. This is possible due to the law of temporal hierarchies
and to the premise that the functions of state of living systems have
real physical meaning in the practical sense, in all hierarchical levels, and
at every moment of time.
 Making no pretensions to perfection, the author offers some advice to
researchers dealing with thermodynamics. The author believes that,
when considering thermodynamic problems, "ambiguous" terms and
definitions should be clarified preliminarily in order to preclude possible
misunderstandings. It is also advisable to refer to the classical works of
those noted; including textbooks, encyclopedias, and founding articles in
each respective historical publication. This will allow the correctness of
the results reported to be estimated at least preliminarily.
"… the true and only goal of science is
 to reveal unity rather than mechanisms"
Henri Poincaré, French Mathematician [1854-1912]
 Caratheodory's principle (1908).
Classics of science enunciated the second law of thermodynamics, one of general
laws of nature, in the first half of the 19th century. Well-known formulations of
this law are associated with the names of Sadi Carnot (1824), Rudolf Clausius
(1850), and William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) (1851). Although the formulations
themselves are different, mainly because of the difference in phrasing, they may
be considered equivalent. Many authors have attempted to change or improve the
formulations as regards to their physical meaning, yet none have succeeded. The
meaning and essence of these formulations has not been disproved to date
 LAW OF TEMPORAL HIERARCHIES:
The discovery of the law of temporal hierarchies, which may be considered a new
general law of nature, has determined the extension of Gibbs's theory to living
systems This law makes it possible to apply thermodynamics, or more precisely
the hierarchic thermodynamics of quasi-closed systems, to all hierarchies of the
real world, particularly, living objects and biological systems, to quite a good
approximation.
 where the equality sign pertains to reversible processes and the
inequality (greater-than) sign, to irreversible ones. Expression is
suitable for a simple isolated system, which can exchange neither
substance nor energy with the environment and whose internal energy
(U) and volume (V) are constant. In such systems only the work of
expansion or no work at all is performed In this case, the second law of
thermodynamics may be written as:
Thus, the entropy of this system increases when irreversible processes occur,
and it is maximum in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
The second law of thermodynamics according to Thomson, i.e. Thomson's
principle, states that: “the process during which work is transformed into heat
without any other changes in the system's state is irreversible.” This means that
all heat withdrawn from a body cannot be entirely transformed into work unless
the system is changed in other respects. This formulation is equivalent to the
statement that the perpetuum mobile of the second kind is impossible [7-10].
Carnot's theorem is also equivalent to the impossibility of the perpetuum mobile
of the second kind. According to this theorem, no heat engine can have a higher
efficiency than that of the Carnot cycle, η = (T1 – T2)/T1, which is determined
only by the temperatures of the heater and the cooler (T1 and T2, respectively).
Carnot's theorem lays the basis for the absolute temperature scale. Sometimes,
the second law of thermodynamics is formulated as the well-known
where k is the Boltzmann constant. Note that the Boltzmann's substantiating the
statistical basis of the second law of thermodynamics, as well as the statistical
substantiation of phenomenological thermodynamics suggested by Gibbs, involves
ideal models, e.g., a perfect gas. In the case of more complex systems [3-4, 8],
where pronounced (especially, strong) electromagnetic interactions between
particles (molecules) are observed, it is difficult to perform the calculations.
Therefore, it is obvious that these models are unlikely to be effective when
studying most natural systems (e.g., biological), i.e., systems that are far from
corresponding to ideal or simple models.
  New concepts, however, have extended the possible applications of the
second law of thermodynamics to different sciences, especially
chemistry and, as it turned out later, biology. This became possible
mainly due to J.W. Gibbs' works performed in 1873–1878. To a certain
approximation, the methodologies of Gibbs thermodynamics have been
extended to date to all hierarchies of natural systems, which are
generally open ones.
 Clausius' formulation of the second law of thermodynamics, also known
as the Clausius principle, states that: "a process that involves no
changes except for the transfer of heat from a warmer body to a
colder body is irreversible, i.e., heat cannot spontaneously pass from a
colder body to a warmer one Building on this principle, in 1865, Clausius
introduced the concept of entropy (S), a function of state of a system,
i.e. a function that has a full differential, according to the Clausius
inequality:
Historically, the formulations of the second law of thermodynamics were closely
associated with the study of heat engines. This approach has been developed by
physicists, mainly thermal physicists, and heat engineers. Another trend in the
use of the second law of thermodynamics is related to the attempts of some
mathematicians and physicists constructing ideal and simple models to explain
many natural phenomena in statistical terms. However, since all interactions in
real systems are near to impossible to take into account, there is but little hope
that calculations in the framework of these models will successfully solve the
problem. Hence, only the phenomenological thermodynamics of systems close to
equilibrium, i.e. equilibrium or quasi-equilibrium thermodynamics, are likely to
ensure the insight into many natural phenomena and make reliable quantitative
predictions.
The above formulations of the second law of thermodynamics are, in a sense,
somewhat outside the realm of the chemistry of molecular and supramolecular
systems. These formulations may seem to be even farther from biology,
sociology, and other sciences that are mainly based on chemistry, both molecular
chemistry per se and the chemistry of supramolecular structures, which we
perceive as "chemistry around us". Therefore, it is not unexpected that a purely
physical, rather than a physicochemical, approach to the origin of life, biological
evolution, and the aging of living organisms has lead to numerous
misunderstandings—one might say, even to tragic errors—in life science. It
should suffice to mention L. Boltzmann's, E. Schrödinger's, I. Prigogine’s and
other researchers' fallacies accounted for by neglecting to some or another
extent, Gibbs's works and underestimating the possibilities offered by
thermodynamics. The following publications emphasized the substantial
misunderstandings in this field that the founders of classical thermodynamics
noted long ago
To justify these statements, let us make a digression to cite the renowned
scientists Boltzmann and Schrödinger who asserted that "living organisms
struggle for negative entropy" or, as it is sometimes called, "negentropy". In
addition, we will cite some of Prigogine's] quotations that appeared even on the
cover of his books. The reader will find references to them in the Internet Here
we note that the quotations presented below do not pertain to the second law of
thermodynamics in its classical form Today, they may seem surprising, especially
when we take into account that all this was written several years after Gibbs
published his works. For example, Boltzmann (1886) wrote:
"The general struggle for existence of animate beings is therefore not a
struggle for raw materials - these, for organisms, are air, water and soil, all
abundantly available—nor for energy which exists in plenty in any body in the
form of heat (albeit unfortunately not transformable), but a struggle for
entropy, which becomes available through the transition of energy from the hot
sun to the cold earth.”
Then, in 1944, Schrödinger wrote:
"the only way a living system stays alive, away from maximum entropy or death is
to be continually drawing from its environment negative entropy. Thus the device
by which an organism maintains itself stationary at a fairly high level of
orderliness (= fairly low level of entropy) really consists in continually sucking
orderliness from its environment. …Plants of course have their most powerful
supply in negative entropy in sunlight…"
Later, Prigogine also supposed, on the basis of previous notions of Boltzmann,
Schrödinger, and their followers in the life sciences, that the phenomenon of life
is hardly consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. He noted, "During
the last decades, an opinion has widely spread that there is the apparent
contradiction between biological order and laws of physics—particularly the
second law of thermodynamics" (1980). Prigogine also emphasized that:
this contradiction cannot be removed as long as one tries to understand
living systems by the methods of equilibrium thermodynamics".
GIBB’S THERMODYNAMICS
One of the greatest merits of Gibbs and other renowned founders of
classical thermodynamics is that they used the works by Joseph Lagrange,
Leonhard Euler, and other outstanding mathematicians, in particular the variation
principles developed by them, as a basis for the concepts of the functions of
state of the system other than entropy, which, like entropy, have full
differentials. The functions of state permit the determination of the directions
of spontaneous processes and the estimation of the extent of their advancement
in individual thermodynamic systems identified in the real world.
In other words, the evolution of systems themselves can now be studied,
to a certain approximation, if certain natural (independent) variables are
constant. The Gibbs function G, i.e. the Gibbs free energy or, briefly, the Gibbs
energy, can be used for studying equilibrium, i.e. quasi-equilibrium, processes and
closed systems, i.e. quasi-closed systems in which quasi-equilibrium
transformations occur, at constant temperature and pressure. Similarly, the
Helmholtz function A, is applicable to studying these processes and systems at
constant temperature and volume.
Certainly, this is only true on the assumption that the functions of state
of the systems studied have actual physical sense at any moment of time. This is
true for systems close to equilibrium but not for those far from equilibrium.
Here, we emphasize once more that the law of temporal hierarchies gives
grounds for the use of the functions of state when the direction and the extent
of advancement of the evolutionary processes that occur in quasi-closed systems
are estimated at different hierarchical levels of living matter [17]. For clarity,
let us make a digression on the law of temporal hierarchies.
The law of temporal hierarchies makes it possible to identify quasi-
closed thermodynamic systems and subsystems within open biological systems,
thus facilitating the study of individual development (ontogenesis) and evolution
(phylogenesis) of these subsystems via the study of the changes in the
“specific”, i.e. calculated per unit volume or mass, Gibbs function for the
formation of a given higher monohierarchical structure out of lower
monohierarchical structures. For example, it has been found that the specific
Gibbs function for the formation of supramolecular structures of biological
tissues G tends towards its minimum in the course of ontogenesis as well as for
phylogenesis and evolution as a whole:
SUMMARY
It is impossible in this short article to list all of the important
conditions for the use of each function of state of each respective system.
Moreover, we have not noted all of the main "delicate" points that beginners
should take into account. Besides, we have referred to just a few publications,
those that are most important. It should also be noted that this paper, as well as
most publications on thermodynamics, may contain some inaccuracies of wording
resulting from the ambiguity of translation. For example, most professional
scientists know about inexcusable confusions with the terms isolated system and
closed system (originally English). Both terms are sometimes translated into
Russian as замкнутая система (literally, closed system). So the terms are often
regarded as equivalent or identical.
Other errors result from semantic coincidence of some terms. For
example, the Gibbs and Helmholtz free energies are often confused with energy
in the ordinary sense. This is why many researchers have attempted to replace
this term with the term the Gibbs function [19]. Another example is the term
complex system. Here, the word complex has a double meaning. In
thermodynamics, a complex system, as opposed to a simple one, usually means a
system in which or on which a work other than the work of expansion is done [15,
16]. Sometimes, however, the word complex is used to emphasize a structural or
some other heterogeneity of the system itself or the diversity of its elements.
This also applies to the term simple system, and so on.
Certainly, these and other such confusions may lead to blunders that
escape a nonprofessional's notice. These and other similar errors creep into
some textbooks, reference books, and then into the Internet. It is our intention
that the above remarks will warn beginners about the erroneous views that may
exist in thermodynamics. Also, we encourage all physicists, chemists, biologists,
and other specialists that deal with thermodynamics to study the Gibbs
phenomenological thermodynamics first of all.
As noted above, this authentic and, in a certain sense, true
thermodynamics is based on the notion of full differentials. This approach to
understanding the world surrounding us is intrinsically irrefutable. We may only
discuss the accuracy of the Gibbs thermodynamics as applied to, e.g., quasi-
closed systems the processes in which are close to equilibrium. In accordance
with the very essence of the full differential, i.e. its mathematical meaning, as
well as the first law of thermodynamics, the change in the function of state of
the system accompanying the transition from one equilibrium state to another is
independent of the way or mechanisms of this transition.
It is likely that our lack of knowledge on actual complex systems may be
partly attributed to the changes in entropy during this transition, being that the
entropy cannot be measured directly. The changes in phenomenological entropy
accompanying transformations in both simple and complex systems may be
calculated only if one has studied the corresponding thermal processes. In
statistical terms, the entropy is calculated only for ideal systems or systems
close to ideal. It is impossible to perform any precise calculations of this
function of state for systems with significant interactions between particles, i.e.
molecules and supramolecular structures, on a statistical basis. We would like to
emphasize that this applies to complex thermodynamic systems, i.e., the systems
in which measurable interactions occur.
 Thermodynamics, owing to its impeccably reliable mathematical basis,
may be regarded as a "machine" that always yields the right result if the
premises are correct. Physical chemistry has repeatedly confirmed this [8–10,
14, 19]. Unfortunately, some physicists, biophysicists, biologists, and, especially,
modern "philosophers" are still unaware of this experience of chemists and
chemical technologists.
We repeat that the aforementioned ambiguities, which are mainly related to the
disregard of the correct use of many terms that are semantically similar but
differ in physical meaning, result in confusion and misunderstandings. These
misunderstandings discredit, at least in nonprofessionals' opinion,
thermodynamics itself and science as a whole. Hence, the numerous incorrect
interpretations of the second law of thermodynamics, various dubious "views" on
entropy [11, 13, 20, 22], and other far-fetched "functions of state of systems" in
the literature are apparent.
Many authors, ignoring classical works in this field, apply different
formulations of the second law of thermodynamics to systems where they are
inherently inapplicable. Some of these authors suggest their own interpretations
of this general law of nature. This debases science and education. Moreover, it
can be said that several "second laws of thermodynamics" have appeared, none of
which having anything to do with reality. A good example is the aforementioned
Prigogine's [29] interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics. This
interpretation "extends" the well-known incorrect and indemonstrable statement
by the great Boltzmann [31], who neglected the important concepts put forward
by Clausius and Gibbs.
The interpretation suggested by Prigogine has practically conquered the
"scientific" world and still remains one of the trendiest interpretations of the
second law of thermodynamics. We are well aware that it would be hopeless to
argue with the visionaries that create or support these concepts: they have
developed an excellent method for leading such debates. They unfailingly give
lots of arguments, which are mostly quotations from published or oral
statements made by other visionaries or by insufficiently informed scientists. It
is often emphasized that those scientists are well known or even famous.
However, the visionaries forget that scientists that are well known and famous in
one field are not necessarily professionals in others. The only way to withstand
this conjuncture is to refer the readers to classical works and serious textbooks
written in a highly professional milieu of world-renowned scientific schools with
centuries-long traditions.
Thus, making no pretensions to perfection, we would nevertheless like to
offer advice to researchers dealing with thermodynamics, as well as other
branches of science, and the editors of scientific periodicals. This advice is the
following: when discussing the problems of thermodynamics or using its
mathematical tools for calculations, it is necessary to clarify "ambiguous" terms
and definitions. It is also advisable to refer to the classical works including
textbooks, reference books, and encyclopedias that the authors of the original
publications used. In this case, the correctness of the results reported in the
publications can be at least preliminarily estimated.
THIMS' HUMAN THERMODYNAMICS:
On the forefront of hierarchical thermodynamics, is the work of
chemical engineer Libb Thims who in 2001 published, via local distribution, a
short paper entitled “On the application of the Gibbs free energy equation to
the human reaction mechanism.” Before this, however, building on the
mathematical framework and structure of Gibbsian thermodynamics, beginning in
1995, Thims proposed to investigate the interactions of humans, from a
reactionary point of view, within their respective structural hierarchies, based
on the essentials of physical chemistry, i.e. Gibbsian thermodynamics, and thus
created “human thermodynamics”.
In fact, this application of thermodynamics has been applied similarly to
the philosophic reduction principle that was also used in the development of
hierarchical thermodynamics. In doing so, Thims extended, i.e. applied, the
principles of chemical thermodynamics to the interactions between humans. He
has named the elemental structures, i.e. the human organism and their
communities in the human hierarchy, “human molecules”. Thims’ model fully
corresponds to the principles of hierarchical thermodynamics which allow us to
apply the laws of physics and chemistry, primary physical chemistry, to all
temporal and structural hierarchies and sub-hierarchies of our world. Thus
Thims’ theory has a reliable foundation and is a key step in the human community
sciences.
HUMAN THERMODYNAMICS
In science, human thermodynamics (HT) is the study of heat and work
transformations involved in the processes of human existence. HT is a fusion of
the following fields:
1. Particle Physics – the science of sub-atomic behaviors.
2. Human Chemistry – the science of human molecular behaviors.
 3. Evolutionary Psychology – the science of human mating behaviors.
4. Thermodynamics – the science of energy transformations.
In more detail, human thermodynamics is the study of the energy and
entropy aspects of the work cycles involved in human life, namely those existent
between heat, spontaneity, irreversibility and the laws defining therein. In
short, human thermodynamics is the study of heat and its relation to the motion
and changes in the equilibriums of human bodies. The essential process of
thermodynamics is that whereby heat cycles through a system of chemical
species, e.g. water molecules in a steam engine or human molecules in a social
system (sociological thermodynamics) and thereby mediates the production of
work. In simple terms, heat, in the form of gamma-ray photons, cycles from the
sun, the systems are coupled economies, the chemical species are people, and the
work is the work of life. The four laws of thermodynamics define the boundaries
of this action.
HISTOR
PRINCIPLES LAWS
Y
PRINCIPLES | LAWS | HISTORY
With respect to intimate relationship (reaction) life, to elaborate on the
concepts of equilibrium and spontaneity, it is well known that the process of pair-
bonding or human bonding in general and the characteristic love or heat energy
dynamics resulting from such bond formations mediates thru the action of
conjoined parallel, evolving, substrate-attached, human chemical reactions. The
change in the Gibbs free energy determines the "spontaneity" of these
reactions, i.e. if they will work or not. In other words, for example, in theory,
rather than haphazardly and inefficiently stumbling through the dating market
"testing the water" (i.e. hot, ambient, or cold) one can instead constructively use
the Gibbs free energy equation to pre-calculate or see into the future whether
or not any particular bond will hold, be it a relationship bond, occupational bond,
or friendship bond, etc., as determined by how far such bonds are from
equilibrium (i.e. dead relationship level) [12].
Say a woman Fy desires employment W with a certain company; will the product
FyW of this potential merger work?
Furthermore, suppose we impose constraints onto the system such that only
monogamous relationships (bonds) are ‘legal’. The question remains, because of
these constraints, who will be more likely to stay married – and who will be more
likely, or tempted, to ‘cheat’ through a sort of crude serial monogamy?
HT
It's now time to apply what we've learned to our own lives!
H2O molecules in possession
of gravitational potential energy
What - do I have to do to get (i.e. bond with) that
most desired man or woman?
If everyone agrees with absolute certainty that there do exist ‘bonds’ between
humans, some strong, some weak, then why over the course of our existence has
no one come forward to explain their mechanism of operation via the
fundamental forces?
[1]
HEAT
energy in transit [1]
ENERGY
fundamental interactions [2]
As many will agree, the mechanism underlying the desire to bond perfectly with
another human being is the most fundamental curiosity of all human existence.
No other question carries more weight! The science of human thermodynamics
provides the answer. This objective defines HT's pinnacle mandate for millennia
to come. Thermodynamics itself is concerned with transformations of energy,
and the laws of thermodynamics describe the bounds within which these
transformations are observed to occur. The "process" of human life defined by
its myriad peculiarities within its insatiable multi-timed flow is one of these
bounded transformations. Over the last 200-years, more than 105+ individuals
have published views on the relationship between thermodynamics and existence.
Willard Gibbs [1839-1903]
■ Founder of the science of Chemical Thermodynamics
■ Descendant of 6 generations of college graduates: 8 Harvard, 3 Yale, and 2 (C) Summing A + B, together with our curiosity of human life, we note that
Princeton. starting from an early age there are several questions that seem to forever build
■ Received the first doctorate of engineering to be granted in the U.S. (Yale) to encompass our daily lives:
■ His 1876 paper On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances is concidered
to be:
"the Principia of Thermodynamics". [6]
■ Formulated an equilibrium equation for chemical reactions as based on his
analysis of the equilibrium of James Watt's steam engine governor.
■ Both parents died before he was 21.
EQUILIBRIUM
A balance of two entities: the heat energy supplied to and the work energy
performed by a substance [7]
DESIRE
the feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state [3]
When - do I have to make this pristine SELECTION?

Where - do I need to be in life to optimally effectuate this PROCESS?

Why - am I innately HOT for certain PEOPLE, objectives, or occupations, etc.?

Why is attractiveness A inversely proportional to intelligence I? Why in any

random high school, for instance, are the least physically attractive students
typically found in math class, and the most physically attractive students
typically found in English class?

For years we've had great success in measuring the potential, the capacity to
(A) Why do certain subatomic particles, atoms, or molecules DESIRE to be with develop into actuality, of such small reactions as:
other certain subatomic particles, atoms, or molecules?

(B) Through these DESIRE fulfillment processes is HEAT Q released or

absorbed (and why)?
SUMMARY:
Human Thermodynamics (Latin: humus = of earth + Greek: thermo = heat +
dynamis = power) may be encapsulated as the qualitative and quantitative study
of human life via thermodynamic analysis. In this assignment is the
understanding and science that humans are comprised in essence of fundamental
particles organized according to the actions of fundamental forces.
These processes are studied under the auspices of particle physics. At the
earth-bound energy levels, of 300 k, these fundamentals organize themselves
into atoms and molecules. This is the realm of physical chemistry. Over the last
200,000 years, these atoms and molecules have coalesced, evolved, and
enhanced, over time to form the self-defined psychological structures known
through biological classification as Homo sapiens. This is the domain of
evolutionary psychology. In the last 300 years, these structures have, of their
own accord, come to discern their internal and external atomic and molecular
structure, as modified along, through, and in evolutionary time scales, via heat
analysis on the dynamics of engines. This is the school of thermodynamics.
Together, these diverse yet unified sciences constitute the study of
fundamental interactions and their effect on the developmental, organizational,
and interoperational kinetically designed patterns and directions of spontaneous
fundamental particle work throughout the universe in its vast and seemingly
never-ending expanse.
“Direct conversion of chemical free energy into mechanical work without such
intermediates as electricity or heated gases is unique to life.”
– James Bailey & David Ollis
Biochemical Engineering Fundamentals
SOURCES
We first study this system; and then ask:
1. which entity will be perceived as being physically the ‘hottest’?
2. which entity will be perceived as being neurologically the ‘hottest’?
“…whose name not only in America but in the whole world will ever be reckoned
among the most renowned theoretical physicists of all times…”
– Max Planck, 1918 Nobel prize physics
Suppose you’re married with two kids: Bc1 and Bc2; when, in certain
circumstances, does it become in everyone’s best interest to get a ‘divorce’ – i.e.
to de-bond:
Hydrogen: H
Oxygen: O
Nitrogen: N
Carbon: C
1. a carbon dioxide molecule - CO2?
2. a water molecule - H2O?
"Any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist
by natural causes must be compatible with the First and Second Laws of
Thermodynamics."
– Donald Haynie, Biological Thermodynamics
Central to HT is an equality called the combined law to thermodynamics: ∆G =
∆H - T∆S, also known as the Gibbs free energy equation, derived in 1876 by the
famed theoretical physicist and chemical engineer Willard Gibbs. The Gibbs
free energy equation essentially measures the level of spontaneity for any
potential chemical reaction or future molecular relationship at STP. That is, it
determines if a reaction is going to work or not, i.e. be energetically favorable.
According to Gibbs, from the opening sentence of his famed 1876 paper "the
comprehension of the laws which govern any material system (of which all
systems are) is greatly facilitated by considering the energy and entropy of the
system in the various states of which it is capable." This fundamental sentence
constitutes the starting point for any analysis of human life. In short, according
to Gibbs, for any system one only needs to determine the energy and entropy
quantifiers effecting the state of the system, from this the “criteria of
equilibrium and stability”, and hence the conditions for spontaneous change, i.e.
reaction, change, or evolution.
EQUILIBRIUM
A balance of two entities: the heat energy supplied to and the work
energy performed by a substance
With respect to intimate relationship (reaction) life, to elaborate on the
concepts of equilibrium and spontaneity, it is well known that the process of pair-
bonding or human bonding in general and the characteristic love or heat energy
dynamics resulting from such bond formations mediates thru the action of
conjoined parallel, evolving, substrate-attached, human chemical reactions. The
change in the Gibbs free energy determines the "spontaneity" of these
reactions, i.e. if they will work or not. In other words, for example, in theory,
rather than haphazardly and inefficiently stumbling through the dating market
"testing the water" (i.e. hot, ambient, or cold) one can instead constructively use
the Gibbs free energy equation to pre-calculate or see into the future whether
or not any particular bond will hold, be it a relationship bond, occupational bond,
or friendship bond, etc., as determined by how far such bonds are from .
In the human case, as we are definitively carbon-centric molecular
structures, it is a combination of both neurological and physical "structure" that
determines reactivity. Organic chemistry in human life is, therefore, a study of
the relationship between the structures of molecules and their reactions. creationist argument is based on their interpretation of the relationship
Moreover, in agreement with intuition, statistically it is known that 66% of between probability and a thermodynamic property called "entropy."
people agree that love, being the central process in human life, is a chemical
reaction equilibrium (i.e. dead relationship level) .

You are a big chemical reaction. Everything you say, all that you do, all By way of background, and in order to clarify the creationist position,
that you see, decide or remember, think or feel is nothing but the manifestation let me quote from the creationist literature:
of the chemical reaction that is you.”

– Jim Eadon
The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, by Henry Morris:
With an understanding of this relationship, we are able to make
predictions about molecules and reactions that are new to us. Subsequently, as
humans are definitively 26-element biomolecules that react over substrate [see:
(p. 14) All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and
Molecular Evolution Table], i.e. "human molecules", a term coined by French
disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of
philosopher Hippolyte Taine in 1869, it is a matter of logical reasoning that
randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of
quantitative formulations and predictions on "potential" human interactions
Thermodynamics.
(reactions) will have significant, time saving, and quality improving meaning [14].
For comparison, the de-bond rate for first marriages in the US is 43% at 15-
years [15]. Scientifically, from the get-go, marriages, i.e. unions (reactions),
that end quickly in divorce are less thermodynamically stable than as compared (p. 19) There is a universal tendency for all systems to go from order
to more energetically-favored marriages (reactions) that continue to ignite for to disorder, as stated in the Second Law, and this tendency can only be arrested
50-years or more.** and reversed under very special circumstances. We have already seen, in Chapter
I, that disorder can never produce order through any kind of random process.
There must be present some form of code or program, to direct the ordering
process, and this code must contain at least as much "information" as is needed
One of the first to follow this line of reasoning was English physicist
to provide this direction.
C.G. Darwin, the grandson of English naturalist Charles Darwin, who in his 1952
book The Next Million Years argued for the future development of a type of Furthermore, there must be present some kind of mechanism for
human statistical thermodynamics, in which statistical mechanics could be used converting the environmental energy into the energy required to produce the
to predict the future course of evolution reactions between human molecules in higher organization of the system involved. ...
the next million years to come.
Thus, any system that experiences even a temporary growth in order
http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/JHT/Second-Law-Systems- and complexity must not only be "open" to the sun's energy but must also contain
Evolution.html a "program" to direct the growth and a "mechanism" to energize the growth.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics,

Evolution, and Probability Scientific Creationism, edited by Henry Morris:

reationists believe that the second law of thermodynamics does not

permit order to arise from disorder, and therefore the macro evolution of
complex living things from single-celled ancestors could not have occurred. The (p.25) The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay) states that every
system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its
energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally When we say that a change is irreversible (in the thermodynamics
reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work. sense) it means only that the change will not spontaneously reverse itself without
some change in the surrounding conditions. It does not mean that it cannot be
reversed by any means at all!

Of course, the creationist application of the second law of

thermodynamics to the development of living things is inconsistent with any
model of origins. Creationists get around this problem by invoking the
supernatural:
It is important to remember that a change that has a high degree of
probability under one set of circumstances may have a very low degree of
probability under a different set of circumstances. To illustrate: If the
The Genesis Flood, by Whitcomb and Morris: temperature drops below freezing, the probability of water becoming ice is very
high. The change from water to ice is thermodynamically irreversible. If the
surrounding temperature should happen to rise above the freezing point, the
probability of water becoming ice, or remaining as ice, is zero. Under these
(p. 223) But during the period of Creation, God was introducing order
conditions the reverse change of ice to liquid water is also thermodynamically
and organization into the universe in a very high degree, even to life itself! It is
irreversible.
thus quite plain that the processes used by God in creation were utterly
different from the processes which now operate in the universe!

Failure to understand that in thermodynamics probabilities are not

fixed entities has led to a misinterpretation that is responsible for the wide-
As will be shown later on, it is only the over-all entropy of a complete, or
spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not
closed system that must increase when spontaneous change occurs. In the case
permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. In fact, there are many
of spontaneously interacting sub-systems of a closed system, some may gain
examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder:
entropy, while others may lose entropy. For example, it is a fundamental axiom of
Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously
thermodynamics that when heat flows from subsystem A to subsystem B, the
from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of
entropy of A decreases and the entropy of B increases. The statement that an
crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution.
increase in order can only occur as the result of a directional mechanism,
Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks.
program, or code is misleading. Any process that can be demonstrated to take
place with an increase in order/decrease in entropy is arbitrarily deemed to be
the consequence of an undefined "directional mechanism."
Thermodynamics is an exact science that is based on a limited number
of specific mathematical concepts. It is not explainable in terms of qualitative
metaphors. In order to understand the relationship between probability and the
Probability, as used in thermodynamics, means the probability that some
second law, the reader must be familiar with the relationship between
specific change will occur. Probability is related to the thermodynamic concept
probability and entropy. Entropy is a mathematically defined entity which is the
of irreversibility. An irreversible physical or chemical change is a change that
fundamental basis of the second law of thermodynamics and all of its engineering
will not spontaneously reverse itself without some change in the surrounding
and physical chemistry ramifications.
conditions. Irreversible changes have a high degree of probability. The
probability of an irreversible change spontaneously reversing itself without
outside interference is zero.
 In the following sections we will try to explain the true relation between
entropy and probability and show why this relationship does not preclude the
possibility of order spontaneously arising from disorder.
In describing the laws of thermodynamics we often refer to "systems."
A system is a specific entity or object or region in space to be evaluated in
terms of its thermodynamic properties and possible changes. It could be an ice
cube, a toy balloon, a steam turbine, or even the entire earth itself.
ttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
I am amazed at how many Christians claim that the theory of evolution
violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This can be clearly shown to be
false. There may well be some good, valid arguments against evolution, but
claiming that it violates the Second Law is not one of them. If we are so careless
in our thinking about this subject, are we not in danger of being equally careless
in our thinking about more important issues?
The first thing we need to understand about the Second Law of
Thermodynamics is that it is a very well-defined scientific statement, not a
general philosophical idea. Things like the degradation of morals in society and
the crumbling of civil empires are often compared to the Second Law, but no one
who is knowledgeable and honest about the subject would call them true
examples of the Second Law at work.
The only scientifically valid statements of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics are those that can be proven to be equivalent to the idea that
the thermodynamic entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. In classical
thermodynamics, entropy is a quantity which is defined to be zero for a pure
crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature, and is otherwise defined by
the calculus equation dS = dQ/T, where dS is the change in entropy of the
system, dQ is the change in heat of the system, and T is the temperature of the
system.
In statistical thermodynamics and information theory, entropy is
defined by a different equation, namely S = k·ln(W). Here S is the entropy of the
system, k is a constant, and W is the number of microstates available to the
system. The concept of microstates available to a system can be defined in
various ways in information theory, but if we want to apply the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, then we must define it in such a way as to make this definition
of entropy equivalent to the definition in classical thermodynamics, provided
that the right constant k is used. This is exactly what is done in statistical
thermodynamics, where k is known as the Boltzmann constant.
This second definition of entropy is the one that more clearly
demonstrates why entropy is a measure of the "disorder" of a system. If a
system is highly organized into a rigid, crystalline structure, then the entropy is
low because the molecular arrangement is relatively fixed, meaning there are not
very many degrees of freedom, or microstates, that the system can be in. If a
system is not so well-ordered, then there are many degrees of freedom on the
molecular level, and the entropy is high.
Note that the concept of "disorder" is not necessarily the opposite of
"complex design," as often assumed. For example, the rigid structure with low
entropy may actually be a very simple, repetitive design, whereas the other
system with high entropy may have a far more complex design.
Since the universe is taken to be a closed system, the Second Law
requires that the total entropy of the universe can never decrease, no matter
what changes are taking place in the universe. For example, when heat flows
naturally from a hot object to a cold object, the entropy of the two objects
taken together always increases. From a classical thermodynamics viewpoint, this
is because the T of the dQ/T expression is greater for the hot object than for
the cold object, making the entropy lost by the hot object less than the entropy
gained by the cold object. From the equivalent statistical thermodynamics
viewpoint, it is because the number of microstates available to the combined
system of the two resulting warm objects is greater than the number of
microstates that were available to the combined system when one object was
cold and the other was hot. The number of microstates available to the combined
system is the product of the numbers of microstates available to each part,
which means the entropy of the combined system is the sum of the entropies of
each part, because of the logarithm in k·ln(W). Thus the entropy lost by the hot
object is again seen to be less than the entropy gained by the cold object, and
we can say that the composite system (as well as the entire universe) has become
more "disordered" after the change.
Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the
evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it
involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in
entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.
First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less
entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder,
not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to
believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-
sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing
to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being
equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy
than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple
and repetitive, not more complex.
Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-
forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The
burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along
with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself,
increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could
possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local
entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are
receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still
increasing.
Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason
that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law.
To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as
an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the
addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a
collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the
entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population
of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound
monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times
the entropy of a single 100-pound human.
Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a
monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the
entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an
entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic
material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of
1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.
Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The
population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which
must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the
surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of
organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall
entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it
decreases by 2 to 298.
But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely
independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey
parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial
presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and
postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of
monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of
decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.
Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the
time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human
baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for
any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.
 So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not
argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law
of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That
doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim
that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.
http://www.noble-minded.org/thermodynamics.html
Thermodynamics, Creationism, and Evolution
John W. Patterson
“Scientific” creationists destroy their own credibility and that of their
beliefs by the way they present themselves and their ideas in public. One of
the more scornful exposes of their deceitful tactics, published under the title
“The Hoax of Scientific Creationism,”1was authored by Dr. John W. Robbins, a
devout biblical creationist whose doctorate from The Johns Hopkins University
is in philosophy and political theory. Robbins’ article describes the deceptive
tactics of the scientific creationists in considerable detail and goes on to explain
how hostile were their misrepresentations of Christianity in their oral arguments
before the Supreme Court in 1987. Christians who find my characterizations of
scientific creationism a bit harsh will do well to read and reflect on Robbins’
account.
“Scientific” creationists also have destroyed their own credibility in
every branch of science about which they have written by the tactics they
employ in writing. This is especially true in thermodynamics, of which there are
many distinct versions, depending on the application involved.2This comes about
because creationists view the laws of science not as do scientists on a quest, but
as evangelists on a mission. They use whatever knowledge they may have not to
further scientific understanding, but to forge apologetic defenses of the biblical
truths they believe in. Here’s an example3from one of my former bosses:
In teaching on-campus and at church, I have found that an
understanding of physical laws, particularly the First and Second Laws of
Thermodynamics, is essential to the defense of biblical truths. The Second Law
has been particularly helpful in developing an apologetic against abiogenesis...
Dr. David R. Boylan, Dean
College of Engineering
Iowa State University; 1997
Numerous authors already in print have done an excellent job of
exposing the more serious mistakes and downright whoppers that the so-called
“scientific” creationists have proudly authored. I reference here only six of the
many critics,2456789the ones I’ve read, while making special note of
Cramer.6His blistering critique, published by the American Scientific Affiliation
in 1978, was the most stinging of all at the time – not only because of his clear
elucidation of the second-law misrepresentations being perpetrated back then,
but also because Cramer (like Robbins cited above 1) is a devout believer in the
Genesis account of creation.
I will not rehash the earlier criticisms, preferring instead to develop
somewhat different lines of attack. For example, previous critics of creation
“science,” (I among them,24) have described any number of remarkable
mechanical devices that seem to defy the second law of thermodynamics – so
“backwards” do they seem to operate. Among the more interesting examples is
the hydraulic ram, reliable versions of which have been in operation since the
late 18th century.24 In response, creationists simply note that all such devices
were ultimately designed and built by an intelligent human, whereupon they
develop the false analogy that “intelligent design” also pervades nature (which it
does not) and assert that it, too, must have been designed and created. It is
best to anticipate this bogus explanation for apparent design by explaining why
science is totally justified in rejecting intelligent design because it is rooted in
supernaturalism. Accordingly, I have dedicated space “up front” on why all
supernaturalism is strictly forbidden in modern science. This means that such
notions as intelligent design, miracles, creators, and such – however cleverly
disguised – amount to counterfeiture in science.
[diagram of hydraulic ram]
The hydraulic ram:
 suitable calculations. Finally, I have outlined a thermodynamics-based approach
I’d consider if asked to examine the relation between evolution and the second
law. This approach strongly suggests that living organisms generate so much
entropy, just staying alive, that life should never lower entropy anywhere, no
matter what the rate or path of evolution.

Creation “Research,” Creation “Science"

Creationists love grand-sounding names with a ring of authority. So

much so, that they named their two most prominent ministries, the Institute for
Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, or ICR and CRS for short.
But the members are not researchers so much as lay evangelists. They develop
reams of counterfeit rhetoric, apologetics and polemics – CRAP for short. The
“research” smacks of the “concordance approach” ministers use to prepare their
sermons, which goes something like this. First, decide what is to be supported
and what denied. (If in doubt, consult The King James.) Next, scour the
publications and public utterances of scientists and compile a well-indexed
database from these materials. The index should be of the key-word variety,
much like biblical concordances, so that you can quote a snippet here, a passage
there, etc., to defend everything you decided on beforehand. Defenses prepared
in this way are called apologetics.

If you are defending the Bible, as creationists are, you’ll need a

strategy to deal with the reams of things that flatly contradict your
water forces itself uphill by being coupled to its own downhill flow -
presuppositions. For this you prepare a litany of ad hominem attacks to
most of which is lost.
intimidate all questioners, friend and foe alike, in hopes of diverting attention
away from the embarrassing stuff. Ad hominem attacks prepared in this way are
called polemics. Should embarrassing stuff ever come up, just fly off the handle
Another area short-changed by previous authors, is that of classical with a few of your polemics.
thermodynamics, particularly its technical aspects, and how it differs from the
statistical and informational theories of thermodynamics that creationists
exploit almost exclusively. Though risky for a popular article, a brief account of
For the most part, creation “research” is library work – the kind needed
the classical theory of thermodynamics is given below, along with a some of the
to prepare defenses of the creationists’ presuppositions. Creation “science,” is
mathematical methods on which it is based. The purpose is to show how deviously
the organized body of CRAP that creationists have amassed. Because of its
creationists have misrepresented thermodynamics and, more importantly, what
biblical basis,1011121314creation “science” is so deeply rooted in supernaturalism
would really be necessary to prove that the second law renders biological
that modern science won’t give it a hearing – which infuriates the creation
evolution impossible. Fact is, thermodynamics does not rule evolution impossible.
scientists and their grassroots supporters. This important issue is worth a
Creationists have only claimed it does, but have never demonstrated it with
closer look for two reasons. First, to see how the scientific denial of
supernaturalism is justified and, second, to see how creationists tie
supernaturalism into science and the laws of thermodynamics. The Status of Supernaturalism in Modern Science

The Status of Supernaturalism in Creation Science. Closed- minded as it may seem, modern science simply refuses to
consider supernaturalism in any form. I like to put it this way:

What disqualifies creationism from modern science is its direct

dependence on things supernatural. This makes it religion, not science.
Depending on the audience, creationists will either soft-pedal the supernatural –
as when arguing to get creationism into public school science curricula – or they
may flaunt it – as when addressing throngs of bible-believing supporters. Here
are some of the religious ideas creation “scientists” and their supporters have
advocated in the past:
1. Their supernatural creator idea, which is firmly rooted in the Book
of Genesis.10
Supernaturally-based ideas, such as Design in nature, miracles and
such, are never to be seriously considered in modern science not even when
science itself is in disarray because it has no explanations to offer.
This seems unfair, but is not. It is as completely justified, for example,
as is the policy of rejecting anything and everything based on the idea of
perpetual motion, this being the idea that energy-from-nothing is possible. Here,
too, pre-ordained rejection is justified, even before the plans are drawn!

2. Their miracle mechanism, also described in Genesis, which they

Here are two of the many lines of reasoning scientists use to justify
think is the only way to explain the origins of life and of everything else in the
such harsh rejection policies toward supernatural explanations:
universe.

3. Intelligent design, which they say pervades nature. By identifying

design as the handiwork of God they use the idea in two ways. (A) Everything in
1. Supernatural explanations are worse than none at all, because they
nature can be explained as the handiwork of God. (B) They use the same
do the opposite of what explanations should do. Explanations should be
handiwork as evidence that an intelligent designer really exists. [Scientists
considered only if they have the potential for replacing confusion and
find(A) and (B) both circular and vacuous.]
misunderstanding with clear insights and improved understanding. (As when well-
understood, natural mechanisms are shown to explain what once seemed a
4. They claim the law of the conservation of engergy – the first law of
bewildering array of observed phenomena.) But using supernatural agents or
thermodynamics – is evidence that the creation, chronicled in Genesis, was
miracles in an explanation only adds more mystery and bewilderment than was
absolutely complete; i.e., nothing new has appeared since creation week. (Ask
present to begin with. The supernatural, by definition, is always more
about the subsequent appearance of things like evil or the ongoing creation of
mysterious, more unknowable and more bewildering than anything that can be
entropy via the second law, and you'll witness a very fine polemic.)
found or observed in nature.
5. The seduction of Adam and Eve by Lucifer (a supernatural Angel of
2. The track record registered by supernaturalism is even more
Light), we are told, is what unleashed the two-fold, universal curse of death and
pathetic than that of perpetual motion. Every scheme or device based on the
increasing entropy. So creation science credits a second supernatural agent for
idea of perpetual motion has completely failed to vindicate the claims of its
the belated origin of the second law of thermodynamics. (Presumably, entropy
advocates. So it is with all past theories and explanations based on the
did not exist prior to the mythical Fall of Adam.)
supernatural. Indeed, all have since been supplanted by vastly superior
alternatives based exclusively on atheistic mechanisms, atheistic principles
and/or atheistic explanations. This is precisely how science has advanced.
Better yet, no atheistic explanation, however weak, has ever been supplanted by
a supernaturally-based alternative, which makes the track record completely
one-sided. The parallels here are important. First, so valuable has been the
denial of perpetual motion, that it has since been elevated to the status of a
scientific law, namely, the first law of classical thermodynamics. Second, so
valuable has been the denial of supernaturalism that it now defines what science
is: Modern science is simply the search for purely naturalistic descriptions
and explanations for everything in nature.
Is Design Evidence Credible?
A brief digression here on the disingenuousness of creationists as
regards the credibility of their design evidence is in order. Creationists pretend
that nature reeks of intelligent design, but they don’t really believe that this
constitutes genuine scientific evidence for a designer. As proof, you need only
consider this: if design in nature were actually supported by valid evidence, it
could be used as evidence of a supremely advanced (but not supernatural)
extraterrestrial-alien designer. That is, if the so-called evidences for intelligent
design were cast as the handiwork – not of God – but of an alien designer, at
least the idea could not be dismissed forthwith because of supernaturalism.
Certainly, aliens could exist out there and their sciences and technologies,
though not super-natural, could seem so, especially if they had evolved billions of
years before us. So why don’t creationists just drop their fixation on the
supernatural and try an “alien-designer model” instead of their “Inelligent-
Designer model?” Because they want acceptance for their religious agenda, not
for their so-called evidence. When their evidence from design is used to support
the alien/designer idea, even creationists decry the argument as being bogus.
This is a really nasty mess for creationists and more should be made of it,
especially in debates.
The bottom line: Even when observed phenomena defy all attempts at
scientific explanation, science still cannot budge on supernaturalism.
A theory is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises,
the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its
range of applicability. Therefore the deep impression which classical
thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content
which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic
concepts will never be overthrown.
Albert Einstein
(1879-1955) 15
Classical Thermodynamics: A Breed Apart
The most powerful branch of physical theory, and the most certain by
far, is classical thermodynamics. Not surprisingly it is thoroughly atheistic, as
are all viable theories of modern science. What is surprising, is the extent to
which classical thermodynamics is “a-structural” as well as a-theistic. Classical
thermodynamics all but ignores whatever substance or substances may be under
consideration. It focuses instead on work and heat exchanges at the boundary of
the substances in question. This total disregard for internal structural details is
what makes classical thermodynamics so much more general and powerful than all
its lesser siblings. Here in barest outline is a summary of classical
thermodynamics.
The most basic objects in classical thermodynamics are the system, its
surroundings and the boundary between the two. The system is simply that
portion of the universe selected for consideration. Everything else belongs to
the surroundings. The two together can be thought of as making up the entire
universe, which cannot exchange any work or heat across its boundary (because
there’s nothing out there). A thermodynamic system and its surroundings are
separated by an imaginary envelope called the system boundary. It is only
through this boundary that heat and work effects may be communicated to the
system.
As mentioned above, classical thermodynamics cares not one wit about
the fine structure of what’s inside or outside the system. All that matters is
how much heat and work are exchanged and how it is done. The system may be a
solid, liquid or gas, made of atoms, or molecules, or even pure light – the same
calculation methods of classical thermodynamics apply with equal rigor. Not so sequence of individual additions and removals may be. The same is true of energy
for the statistical or information theories of thermodynamics, for they focus on inventories.
the detailed atomic configurations of the substances involved, not on things like
heat and work. Hence non-thermodynamic hypotheses must be introduced so
that things such as “complexity,” can be defined well enough for calculations to
The second Law of Classical Thermodynamics
be made. Unfortunately, even now there is no real consensus among the leading
experts as to the definition of “complexity.”16Without a clear, mathematical
Alas, entropy and the second law are anything but intuitively clear.
definition of complexity available, none of the entropy calculations needed by
Entropy as defined by the second law is as difficult to grasp as any concept in
creationists can be made. Of course, this has not deterred them from conjuring
physics. I cannot do justice to the topic here, but I can convey a feel for how
up an abundance of “whopper-type” claims that evolution contravenes the second
abstruse the idea of entropy is and how counterfeit are the creationists
law of thermodynamics and therefore could never have occurred. So few
thermodynamic arguments against evolution. As regards the abstruseness, kindly
individuals know anything at all about thermodynamics, that creationists have
read the passage quoted below on entropy and the second law of classical
little difficulty exploiting these completely bogus second-law arguments in
thermodynamics. It was taken from a college chemistry book17used years ago as
public. To see what a non-bogus thermodynamic analysis would entail, we must
a text for undergraduate engineering and chemistry students at Iowa State
consider the laws of classical thermodynamics in a bit more detail.
University. Note that it makes no reference to anything like complexity or
randomness, etc., of the system, only to the tiny amounts of heat, dq, exchanged
between the system and its surroundings. Note also the counter-intuitive logic
First Law of Classical Thermodynamics one has to go through to correctly evaluate the entropy changes associated with
irreversible processes.
Very briefly, the first law defines the energy inventory of a system so
that changes in the energy can be calculated in a quantitative fashion.
Specifically, if a system, in going from state 1 to state 2, absorbs a quantity of
heat, q, from the surroundings, while doing an amount of work, w, on the
surroundings, then the energy difference between the two states is simply given
8-6 ENTROPY AND THE SECOND LAW
by

Just as the first law of thermodynamics is a general statement

E2 - E1 = q - w.
about the behavior of the state function, energy, the second law tells us the
general behavior of another state function called entropy. The entropy change of
a system for any change in state is defined by
That’s it. There is no fretting about how much of the energy went into
[Entropy Equasion] (8-27)
which particles, or photons, or whatever, because no such entities are explicitly
assumed to exist in classical thermodynamics. (Adding such hypotheses takes
one out of the realm of classical thermodynamics and into that of statistical or
informational thermodynamics, as mentioned above.) The first law, being a In words, Eq. (8-27) says: take the system from state 1 to state 2
conservation principle, is easily taught to students, because analogous by a reversible path. To compute the entropy change of the system, divide each
conservation principles are familiar from everyday experience. For example, if infinitesimal amount of heat by the temperature T at which it is absorbed by the
to a beaker containing W1 kilograms of water, you add a total of q Kg of water system, and add all these quantities.
while removing a total of w Kg, the final amount of water, W2, will always be W1
plus q – w. Moreover, this will always be true, no matter how complicated the
 Entropy changes must always be computed by taking the system
from the initial state to the final state by means of a reversible path. However,
entropy is a state function, and this DS is independent of the path. Although
these two statements sound contradictory, they are not, since
[another equasion]
The formal statement of the second law of thermodynamics is:
The entropy S is a function of state. In a reversible process, the
entropy of the universe is constant. In an irreversible process, the entropy of
the universe increases.
As we have remarked, the thermodynamic laws are not derived
mathematically, but are general expressions of experimental findings. To “prove”
the first law of thermodynamics, that energy is a state function, we showed that
to deny its validity would be to say that creation of energy is possible, and all our
experience tells us this is not true. To “prove” the second law of
thermodynamics, we will demonstrate that to deny it implies that gases can
spontaneously compress themselves, and that heat can flow spontaneously from
cold to hot regions.
The term “path” (or “process,” the terms are used interchangeably) is
any series of states leading from an initial state, 1, to a final state, 2. In general,
infinitely many paths will connect the two end states. Paths comprised solely of
equilibrium states, are reversible, while all others are called irreversible paths.
The entropy difference so calculated applies to all possible paths, not just the
reversible one, but the entropy calculation will be correct only if carried out
using a reversible path. (Understandably, this statement seems quite
contradictory to most students.) In addition to calculating the entropy change
for the system, as outlined above, one must also calculate the entropy change of
the surroundings for the same change of state. (I’ve skipped that here.) In any
case, the second law goes on to say which changes are possible and which not. If
the entropy changes of the system and the surroundings sum to greater than
zero, the system could proceed spontaneously from the initial to the final state,
without violating the second law. (Whether it does so or not is another matter,
but at least it is not ruled out by the second law.) However if the entropy
changes sum to less than zero – i.e., to an overall drop in the entropy inventory of
the universe – then the system can not pass spontaneously from state 1 to state
2 , because that would violate the law of increasing entropy. In this case the
change in question would be ruled impossible because it would violate the second
law. Creationists proclaim the completely faulty notion, based on their completely
counterfeit arguments that every macroevolutionary change falls in this latter
category, i.e., that macroevolution implies an overall decrease in the entropy
inventory of the universe (which is totally untrue) and that macroevolution can
therefore be ruled impossible by the second law (which it definitely can not.)
They have never provided a definitive calculation to support their claims, only
bogus qualitative arguments based on such ill-defined notions as configurational
complexity and such.
To do the thermodynamics correctly is not at all easy, but none of the
creationists’ supporters understands it anyway, which is all the creationist
purveyors of CRAP need to know. Why should they do correct analysis when it
would only refute their second-law position anyway? Why not resort instead to a
“whopper-filled” version that portends to rule out the possibility of evolution?
And were someone to expose the hoax, who among the believers would be able to
understand it anyway? None, actually, which again is why thermodynamics has
become the apologetic tool of choice for so many creationists.
If creationists really wanted to prove that second law rules out
evolution, there is one way and one way only to do it. Here are the steps:
1. Properly define the initial state of the biosphere, or any part of it,
as it existed at a time before the evolutionary changes in question took place.
Let this be state 1.
2. Then define the final state of the same system as it would exist
after the evolutionary changes took place. This would be state 2.
3. Carefully define a suitable, reversible path joining the initial and
final states defined above.
4. Correctly evaluate DSsysas the integral of dqrev/T over the
reversible path in step 3.
5. Correctly evaluate DSsurr as the corresponding entropy change for
the surroundings.
 6. Evaluate the sum, as DSsys + DSsurr in hopes it will come out less
than zero.
That’s all there is to it. Had the creationists truly proved that evolution
contravenes the second law, one or more such analyses would long ago have been
found in the creation science literature. But no such refutation is to be found
anywhere in their books or tracts. Only the counterfeit “proofs” based on such
vacuous notions as “comparative complexity” and such are to be found, and these
are totally without foundation. Instead of wasting space here on any of their
counterfeit “thermodynamic proofs,” I thought it better to outline a possible
method, partly based on classical thermodynamics, that might be used to show
that the evolution of living organisms, whatever direction it may take, might
never violate the law of increasing entropy.
The Local and Global Entropy Effects of Living Organisms
According to creationists, the entropy of highly complex and organized
configurations must be lower than the entropy of less complex, less organized
ones. Clearly, if one cell is a highly complex, highly organized configuration in its
own right, then surely an assemblage of, say, several trillion or so such cells
should exceed the complexity of its individual cells by a factor of trillions, or so.
This being the case, the entropy inventory of the assemblage must therefore be
far, far below that of any of the individuals that make up the assemblage.
That this is definitely not the case, follows from the well-known fact
that entropy, like energy, is an extensive thermodynamic property, which means
that the entropy of n cells should be roughly n times the entropy of each
individual cell. In the case of our example, the assemblage should have an
entropy inventory that is several trillions of times larger than that of each
individual cell. In other words, the entropy inventory does not go down with size,
as the creationists’ complexity arguments would imply; rather it increases
roughly in proportion to the number of individuals contained in the assemblage!
There is no hint in the creationist literature that their thermodynamicists have
addressed this seeming contradiction, which derives from the extensive nature
of such thermodynamic properties as energy, entropy, enthalpy, Gibbs free
energy, and many more. Now for the last idea of this article, which may prove
the most interesting of all.
Were I a physiologist, I might explore this line of argument with more
verve. As it is, I shall content myself to merely rough out the basic ideas. In the
past, opponents have noted, quite correctly, that local entropy decreases – such
as may be due to an evolving community of complex organisms – need not be
regarded as violations of the second law. As long as entropy increases elsewhere
overwhelm any local decreases, the entropy of the universe overall would go up,
so that no violation of the second law need be considered. Rather than rehash
those kinds of “closed system vs open systems” arguments yet again, I prefer to
consider a more aggressive frontal attack on the creationists’ basic claim. Why
take seriously their unproven, bald assertions that evolution to a more complex
form implies a local reduction in entropy? They have asserted it, to be sure, but
have never provided a quantitative calculation of any sort to support it, and I,
for one, see no reason to take any part of it seriously. In fact, I suspect that
no living organism, whether alone or in an evolving community, is capable of
lowering any overall entropy inventory – local or otherwise – under any
circumstances. This may seem a bit bold, but the chain of reasoning is rather
simple at least in outline, if not in detail.
In every living organism, even those at rest, every cell has countless
thousands, perhaps millions or billions, of irreversible processes going on inside.
These are needed just to maintain a status quo. Some digestive processes would
be going on, as would some respiratory processes and so on. (This is where
knowledge of physiology would be handy, because I am not sure how many
processes might be going on at any time, how rapidly their rates, or how
irreversible each of them would be.) But the point is this, every one of them
must be spontaneous, otherwise they could not proceed spontaneously without
violating the second law of classical thermodynamics. But if they are proceeding
spontaneously, as they surely must, then each of them must be churning out
entropy at a net positive rate, as the second law dictates. And the more
irreversible and rapid the ongoing process, the greater is the net rate of
entropy production. Adding up over all the millions of such microscopic processes
going on in each cell and then again over all the cells in the organism, we come to
a startling realization: every organism even at rest must be continually
generating incredible amounts of entropy inside its own cells and hence inside its
own body. Moreover this must be going in every living organism, every second of
every day of its life. Hence, the local environment – the one in which the
biosphere is itself embedded – must truly be “bubbling over,” so to speak, with
excess entropy being generated from within. And where is the local reduction in
entropy to overcome all this – the one that creationists insist can not be
adequately compensated for? The burden is on them to not only prove that their
claimed local decrease actually takes place, but also that its magnitude is
sufficient to overwhelm all that bubbling forth from inside all the organisms that
make up any local ecology. I’m convinced they can’t do it, for the simple reason
that it’s just nowhere to be found.

If every living organism continually churns out substantially more

entropy than it consumes – as in backward running internal processes, say – then
we are assured that the second law is conformed to by every organism every
second it is alive. This assures us that every living community must also be in
conformance, whether evolution by natural selection is going on or not. In other
words it doesn’t matter one bit how natural selection may be pruning the gene
pools at any given time. The internal processes required to sustain life from
minute to minute automatically guarantee that all life will, individually and
collectively, will conform to the second law, no matter what kinds of weird new
species may evolve from the old.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/thermodynamics.htm