Clough Evolution Lesson 9

Problems of the Evolutionary Hypothesis (1) Law and/or Matter at Creation

We are now going to deal with the fourth great block of material in this series on the Bible and evolution. The first block of material was the preliminary definition of cosmic, macro, micro evolution definitions and so forth. The second block of material was the philosophical backgrounds of evolution in which we dealt with the three great human viewpoint ideas. By the way, these ideas are now going to come into play. The third block of material was the study of the Bible and six passages in the Bible relating to the Bible and science.

Now we come to the fourth block of material and now we begin to deal with the problems of the theory of evolution. And at this point I want to clarify where we are and where we are going because this fourth block of material will deal only with those problems raised by the evolutionary hypothesis; they will not deal with the facts of historical geology. The facts of historical geology will be discussed in a fifth block entitled geological evidences, the problem of geological evidences. But we’re not dealing with the problem of geological evidences at the moment because these are far more certain and sure; one can accept, for example, the geological column in its entirety without being an evolutionist, but on the contrary one cannot be an evolutionist without accepting the validity of the geological column. So therefore the evolutionary hypothesis is more tenuous, more nebulous, less solid than the geological facts underlying it. So this fourth block of material will deal only with the evolutionary hypothesis.

For example, to illustrate the difference, one knows there are fossil evidences in various rock strata and these are facts of geology, and one has to interpret these. However, when you go beyond the mere description of the fossils as they are found and you begin to engage in biological speculation of how one group of fossils may represent, say the animal kingdom at one point in time, and the second group of fossils represent the animal kingdom at another point in time and you begin to speculate on how you transition from one state to the next state by some sort of evolutionary mechanism, then you are engage din the evolutionary hypothesis.

So at this point we want to deal with only the evolutionary hypothesis and so therefore this fourth block of material will be concerned solely with this information. And we are going to discuss five sections, just as under the study of Scripture we dealt with six problems in Scripture, under this section we are going to deal with five separate areas under the general topic: problems with the evolutionary hypothesis.

The first major section will deal with the concept of Chance, for this truly is the god of all evolutionary speculation. And at this point we want to examine Chance and before we examine Chance we want to do two things. First we want to review once again the definitions of evolution and we want to discuss in particular, at least indicate to you that we are discussing not micro evolution or variations within bounds in the animal kingdom but we are discussing cosmic and macro evolution. So when we discuss problems with the evolutionary hypothesis we are discussing problems of the cosmic and macro evolutionary hypothesis.

The first section will be discussing the problem of Chance. Now why Chance? How does Chance get into the picture? Well, it starts, if one understands the human viewpoint ideas outlined in the second block of material, namely that when you reject the Bible, when you discount the Bible’s testimony and the entire picture of the universe given to us in Scripture then you have to create an alternate picture of the universe and you remember the first human viewpoint idea that we discussed was in answer to the question, what is the universe. And the human viewpoint systems say the universe is an independent machine closed to divine manipulation and run by Law or Chance, and basically it’s Chance because as we shall see, even if you posit Law you still have some sort of a problem there and usually it dissolves in an argument about chance, so we could say, safely, that most people, if they are logically consistent, when they deny Scripture are forced to the alternate explanation and that is the universe as an independent machine closed to divine manipulation and run by Chance.

The third human viewpoint idea, we’ll omit the second one for the moment, the third human viewpoint idea outlined previously was in answer to the question why suffering, sorrow and death. And the only answer that you can give if you depart from the Scripture is the answer that all of this, the suffering, the sorrow and the death, is an inherent part of reality. And upon these two ideas, then, basically hangs the entire evolutionary hypothesis. It hangs on these two axioms, namely that the universe is some sort of machine that goes on by itself and secondly that it’s an inherent feature of this machine to include sorrow, sickness, disease and death and so on. And the key dynamic behind it all is Chance; Chance is held accountable for all things.

Now it is recognized, and I fully recognize, and this will become obvious as we go on, that many evolutionists today are getting very uneasy about the concept of Chance being the ultimate mechanism and so therefore they’re looking around for something else. But in this series we are going to limit ourselves with those forms of evolution that posit Chance as the ultimate principle because this is essentially the structure of both Darwinianism, orthodox Darwinianism, and Neo-Darwinianism. Now as we shall see as we progress through this series both of these views of evolution are under serious fire today. It does not mean men are prepared to throw out evolution entirely; it merely means that the central backbone of the evolutionary theory has been broken, but that men as busily trying to construct something else that will serve as a backbone because they will not take the creationist position since they are in negative volition toward God.

So I would like to discuss Chance in this first section, and in this first section I would like to discuss how Chance applies to three things. First, how Chance explains the creation of the universe or doesn’t explain it. Secondly, how Chance does or does not explain the creation of life from non-living material. Thirdly, how Chance explains or doesn’t explain natural selection and macro evolution. In other words, once you get life going can you derive all of its potential thorugh the medium of Chance.

So we have three items before us in this first section of the fourth block of material, namely, does Chance explain or does it not explain the creation of the universe? Secondly, does Chance or doesn’t explain the creation, the rise of life from non-living material. And thirdly, does Chance explain or not explain the macro evolution, in other words, by natural selection, macro evolution.

Let’s deal with the first section: how does Chance explain the origin of the universe. If you don’t posit a Creator that is the ultimate source of the universe, most people wind up putting Chance in His place; something’s got to be there and so why not put Chance? So in discussing this, remember we are dealing with cosmic evolution or the origin of all things, including the physically, mechanical universe. And before we go any further in this discussion I would like to bring up two basic scientific laws which I feel pretty much shoot down the concept of Chance as a panacea for all things. These two laws are very important and it’s crucial that we understand them. They’re called the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics states that the total energy content of a closed system always remains the same. The total energy content of a closed system always remains the same. A closed system is any mechanism, any biological organism, any mechanical thing that you have, that you isolate from the environment. In other words, you don’t feed any energy in or you don’t extract energy out, and if you could put it in a box and imagine a cubical and its system, whatever it is under study, biological organism or something is inside the cubicle. Then the cubicle is perfectly energy insulated, in other words, there’s no energy passes through the walls of the cubical. So therefore whatever energy is in that cubical now will be in that cubicle say, three hours from now, after you’ve run your experiment. We call it the closed system. And the total energy content always remains the same; it’s not going to disappear during the three hours of the experiment, for example, or it won’t increase during the three hours of the experiment. Of course, matter and energy may interchange but basically the total mass energy content is always the same.

The second law of thermodynamics says that the energy of a closed system is being wasted in every natural process and becoming unusable; there is a movement from order to disorder. This is a natural law. This incidentally is why the United States Patent office will not accept patents for perpetual motion machines; you simply cannot build a perpetual motion machine or a machine that will just run by itself forever, even though theoretically in the first law of thermodynamics this would be possible. If the energy never decreases inside your little cubicle and you had a little motor inside there, if the motor was 100% efficient it could run by itself forever, but no motor is 100% efficient and the reason why no motor is 100% efficient is because of the second law, namely that although the energy always remains the same, if you compare the energy, say before you do your experiment in the cubicle and the energy that is available inside the cubicle after you do your experiment you’ll find something’s happened, namely that the energy has been used, not destroyed, but used and has moved from a position where you can get at it and use it to a position where you can’t get at it and can’t use it. This can also be expressed in the fact that you have movement from order to disorder.

Now one illustration of this would be alcohol and water. If you took a glass of alcohol and a glass of water and mixed them together in a big jar, the molecules in the two broad categories…for example, let’s say this: suppose you had a tray, say like ice cubes, and you had a petition in the tray, on one side of the petition you poured your glass of alcohol; on the other side of the petition you poured your glass of water. Then you suddenly remove the petition, well the molecules could be divided into two broad categories, that is, the molecules of alcohol and the molecules of water. And of course recognizing alcohol is a solution, but nevertheless the organic base and so on of the alcohol and the water would form two general broad categories. And you then would have, at the instant that you removed the petition, the molecules are well sorted out, the fluids would be well sorted out, but after you get through, after you remove the petition and let them intermix by themselves, not adding energy to the system, they’re just mixing by themselves, you find out now, say after an hour or so, that the alcohol and water are thoroughly mixed with each other. And there’s no way to get back that beautiful separation that you had before you removed the petition unless you add energy from the outside. Now no energy has been destroyed in this mixing process but energy has been used up and you can’t get the alcohol molecules down at one end and the water molecules down at the other like you did before you removed the petition without adding energy to the system. And of course the reason for this is that the second law has been working, as it always works.

In short, the second law says that the universe, when applied to the universe, the first law would say that the total energy content of the universe remains the same. The second law says that that total energy of the universe being wasted, and that gradually the universe is wearing out. Now we can see at least three passages of Scripture that bear testimony to this second law of thermodynamics, namely that the entire creation is wearing out.

The first passage is found in Psalm 102:25-26, “Of old Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. [26] They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall become old like a garment; like a vesture thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed. [27] But thou art the same, and thy years have no end.” And here the Psalmist is simply expressing the fact that all of creation is subject to the second law. The entire creation, the physical creation, the earth and the heavens are slowly wearing out, just like clothes. And here, in an observational sense is the second law of thermodynamics.

Now let’s turn to Isaiah 51:6, “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath; for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall grow old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner; but my salvation shall be forever and my righteousness shall not be abolished.” Again, contrasting the character of God, which is immutable, from the decaying, collapsing character of the entire physical universe.

Turn to 1 Peter 1:24-25, “For all flesh is like grass, and all the glory of man like the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and its flower falleth away, [25] But the Word of the Lord endures forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” And here contrasts the decaying nature of the physical universe versus the immutable Word of God, that is first, last and forever.

Now it’s interesting, by the way, that the authors of Scripture were perceptive enough in their observations to notice that the universe is wearing out. To read some of the modern theologian’s discussions of the Bible one would get the impression that these people were knuckleheads, didn’t have any sense, and couldn’t make accurate observations. And somehow only people living in the last half of the 20^th century have eyes to use and a mind to think with. Another example of the second law would be putting hot steel in cold water. The heat gradually moves from the hot metal by conduction into the water around it and so the water temperature gradually rises, the metal temperature cools. It’s very, very unlikely that you would ever dip hot steel in cold water and suddenly the hot steel gets hotter and the water gets colder. Again, it expresses the force of the second law of thermodynamics.

What about the validity of these two laws. I’m going to use these two laws to discuss Chance as a mechanism for the creation of the universe. And to do this we want to understand that these laws are valid, that these laws are universally valid. For example, G. J. Whitrow writing in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards the editor, under the article entitled entropy, Volume 2, date of this encyclopedia of philosophy is 1967. On pages 526-529 of volume 2, Dr. Whitrow writes: “The statement that the entropy,” entropy is just a fancy word for disorder, the second law says disorder increases or entropy increases, the first law says energy remains constant, the second law says entropy or disorder increases. So Dr. Whitrow writes, “The statement that the entropy of an isolated system never diminishes spontaneously is a universal law justified by appeal to observation and experiment.” In other words, Professor Whitrow is saying that this law is always valid for any closed system. Of course later on the argument is going to come whether the entire universe is a closed system and can be so treated. But nevertheless, at least for a closed system the second law is always valid, as the first law.

Now the important historical thing to notice about these first and second laws is that they were not well-known and well-established when Darwin wrote his Origin of the Species in 1859. For example, the first law was introduced only in 1842 by a Mr. Robert Mayer, and Mayer proposed it but it was considered speculative when he did. Later a man by the name of Helmholtz, a very famous man, later mathematically formulated it but this was as late as 1847. You see Darwin wrote in 1859 and these laws had not been well-established. The first law was established in 1847 only about ten years before Darwin wrote. The second law was introduced by Carnot, a French physicist, in 1824 but it was not formally introduced until Lord Kelvin in 1851 and Clausius in 1850. So here again these laws were not well introduced until only about ten years before Darwin wrote and I rather suspect Darwin did not comprehend the force of these laws and the implications of them.

Recently these laws have been modified. In the previous century they simply stated that energy in a closed system is constant and entropy constantly increases, but these classical forms of the 19^th century have been recently generalized into probability statements, namely that entropy in a closed system or disorder in a closed system increases but at varying rates, and incidentally, can momentarily decline. For example, one could boil water on a stove and it’s statistically possible that part of the water would freeze while the rest of it boils, but this is very, very, very, very, very, very, very rare and so even the probability statements of the second law say that the main thrust, the most probably condition, is one toward disorder away from order.

Now let’s move to the implications these first and second laws have on our discussion. Is Chance a likely mechanism for the origin of the universe? Let’s look at the implications of the first law. Applying the first law to a closed system here and a closed system there and then averaging it for closed systems infinitely out in space we could say that the energy of the universe must remain constant for the energy of all the sum of the total systems must remain constant. Therefore we are forced by the second law to one of three conclusions. The universe is eternal, now this is important because these first and second laws are proved physically valid and so these are scientific deductions we are making and involve absolutely no speculation, at least in the sense that the evolutionary hypothesis does. And you will shortly see what happens to the evolutionary hypothesis when this is done. The first law says the energy of the universe remains constant and always has remained constant and always will remain constant. All right, now this leaves us with only one of three conclusions. First, the universe is eternal; that is the energy has always remained constant and always will remain constant and therefore the universe has been in existence forever. But the attribute of eternality is the attribute of deity and therefore if the universe is eternal we wind up with pantheism, namely that the universe is a self-sustaining machine going on forever and the machine itself is god with a little “g.” We call this religious belief pantheism and belief in the eternality of the universe logically leads one to a pantheistic position and of course this is totally anti-Biblical and of course this leaves one with a lot of problems. For example, one of the immediate conclusions that the eternal universe theory would leave you is that there’s no base for morality, there’s no such thing as right or wrong because this is beyond good and evil. There’s no such thing as cruelty or non-cruelty, there’s basically tremendous moral and spiritual problems this leaves you with. And as you shall shortly see it also leaves you with some scientific problems. But this is one perfectly logical conclusion from the first law applied to the universe, namely that the universe is eternal.

Secondly, one could say that well, the first law says that energy has always remained constant but couldn’t the universe come into existence at a point in time. In other words, the universe emerged out of a prior chaos and came suddenly into existence. Yes, this is true, however if this happened, the second logical conclusion, if this happened one would also have to say that the first law came into existence also and if the first law of thermodynamics came into existence at the same time the universe came into existence, then basically all scientific law came into existence at the point of the origin of the universe and thus science has nothing to say about what happened before the universe came into existence, namely it is an unknown chaos.

Or we have a third possible logical conclusion of the first law of thermodynamics, namely that a Creator, at a point in past time created the universe and the first law of thermodynamics at the same time. So we have these three conclusions forced upon us by the first law. Either the universe is eternal, in which case it is god and we have pantheism; or the universe came into existence out of Chance; or the universe came into existence by a Creator. Now if the universe is eternal we have pantheism; if the universe came into existence out of Chance then Chance is the ultimate thing of all reality and if Chance is the ultimate, then we have absolutely no guarantee that the universe won’t go out of existence by Chance tomorrow. We have absolutely no guarantee that there will be continuity from moment to moment because after all, Chance is the ultimate cause. So therefore either we have an eternal universe or we have a universe arising by Chance or we have a universe arising from a Creator.

Now it’s interesting to notice that the only…the first and the third alternatives give a base for science. If you take the second base, that the universe came into existence out of Chance, this is the only logical conclusion you can’t possibly tolerate as a scientist because if the universe came into existence out of Chance there is no basic rationality to the universe whatever. And therefore you’ve destroyed the base of science. So either you have to say the universe came into existence out of Chance and undercut the whole structure of science or you have to say the universe itself is god or is a creation of God, in which case you can uphold the base of science. So these are the three logical conclusions of the first law of thermodynamics.

Now the second law of thermodynamics. What are some of the implications of the second law of thermodynamics applied to the universe? Suppose we apply the second law of thermodynamics to a closed system anywhere in the universe, then we make up the universe and compartmentalize it into many, many different closed systems, and then we take the average and therefore we can apply the second law to the sum of the average of the closed systems making up the universe. And the entropy of the universe, the entropy of all these closed systems must always increase; though there be local exceptions, the average entropy must increase. Yes, you can have exceptions but the average must increase. And this leaves us now, with one of three conclusions.

Again, we face the same three conclusions shoved upon us by the first law but they’re slightly different. First we have the familiar first conclusion, namely that the universe has existed from all eternity. But if this is true, we’ve got a problem because if the second law is true and energy is constantly being used, then we face the problem that the universe, unless it’s infinitely large, must have run down by now. In other words, if the universe has a certain amount of energy and this energy is gradually being wasted, moment by moment, year in and year out, then certainly if the universe was eternal it would have used up all its energy by now. There’s only two ways to argue around this. First, say the universe is of infinite size in which case you wind up with pantheism again. Or, two, you can say that the entire universe is one of those very improbable fluctuations, one of those exceptions. [Tape turns]

…of the general thrust of the second law; exceptions like when you boil water on a stove, part of the water might freeze while the rest boils and the entire universe might be such an exception, it might be a fluctuation. But it seems to me that the implication of the second law is that it cuts down the probability of this first alternative. In other words, the idea that the universe can be eternal seems to be to be drastically cut down in probability by the second law of thermodynamics.

The first law left us with the idea that the universe could be an independent self-sustaining machine going on for eternity. The second law, however, forces us to add to that statement and say yes, but if this is true, if it is really true that the universe is a self-sustaining independent machine that has gone on for all eternity, the only way the universe could exist today and be running and have energy available to use would be if the entire universe in one split second of time suddenly fluctuated and if it was running down, say three billion years ago, all of a sudden it fluctuated and wound itself up, just as though it is statistically possible but very, very improbable that as you boil water in your kettle some of it might freeze while the rest boils. It’s statistically probable but very, very improbable. And thus it seems to me that the eternal universe concept runs into severe probability difficulty when the second law is considered.

Now we are left with Chance again and we are again saying that the universe could have come into existence, including the first and second laws of thermodynamics themselves, at some point in the past, out of a chaos by Chance. And again this second idea, the second logical implication of the first and second laws apply leaves one with destroying the base of science. The base of science depends upon the fact that not Chance but rationality, reason is ultimate. However, if the entire universe sprung out of a chaos, there’s no guarantee that the universe won’t fall back into that chaos a second from now. So therefore we undercut the base of science by saying this universe came out of Chance.

Or we are left with a third concept, and that is the concept of a Creator, one who created the universe at a point in past time. And thus we have three, only three options available when you consider the first and second laws which themselves are well proved and are not part of the mass of speculation, like evolution is, namely that either the universe is eternal, which is very improbable; two, the universe arose out of Chance in which case modern science is destroyed; or three, the universe arose by a Creator giving an adequate base for modern science.

So thus we have dealt with the concept of Chance as the mechanism for bringing the entire universe into existence. And it is, as we have seen, far more intellectually respectable to consider a Creator who created the universe and gives it order, and therefore gives us a base for scientific study than it is to posit some sort of ethereal Chance that somehow, for some reason, brought the entire universe out of a chaotic existence and… [tape ends abruptly]