While the theist is surrounded by evidence to support his belief system, the atheist must constantly and consistently appeal to “unknown” circumstances or unsubstantiated scientific claims in order to wallow happily in his muddy worldview. One such example, is the 2nd law of thermodynamics or what is more appropriately called the law of increasing entropy.
Simply put, the 2nd law states that: “In any closed system, the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase.”
In other words, in a closed system like the universe, the natural world will decrease in complexity rather than increase in complexity. We see this all the time and consistently, the 2nd law is one of the most strongly verified laws of nature (along with the 1st law). It is a law that is never broken- things break down. Take a look at abandoned cars- they decay, rust, corrode, and fall apart as the wind and the rain take their toll. Or look at our roofs as they bask constantly in the sunlight- they fade away and gather debris which eventually requires a good cleaning or a replacement. Even our own natural bodies are constantly dying away. The body must constantly produce new cells to replace the old and dying cells that cause us to age and the new cells are less complex and less vibrant than the ones they replace. How can this be if (as we are taught in the education system) that life is constantly “evolving” in some Darwinian sense to more complexity? After all Big Bang Cosmology and Darwinian evolution stand firm that everything came from nothing (note: today’s cosmology is slowly accepting M-theory which supports an infinite or eternal universe of sorts.) and that the most complex life came from a simple non-living chemical. It would appear that the basic scientific law of thermodynamics abrasively contradicts the theory of evolution.
What do evolutionists think?
The evolutionist must appeal to some unknown mechanism in order to continue with their belief in atheism. These explanations however are not refutations nor should they be considered as such. Perhaps the most common explanation is the “added energy” fallacy as made popular by Richard Dawkins (a mediocre scientist at best). His argument asserts that while the universe is a closed system (meaning that no energy is being added to the universe), our earth is an open system as it receives energy from the sun. Therefore, the 2nd law of thermodynamics would not apply. In this case, Dawkins (and many atheists especially of the type who comment on Youtube videos) asserts (without evidence by the way) that by simply adding energy to a part of the system, the 2nd law-while applying to the whole- would have a reverse effect on the part. If that’s true then life on earth would be increasing in complexity rather then decreasing (which is what evolution claims). The argument uses the example of plants and sunlight. As plants receive energy from the sun, they increase in complexity.
Here is the problem with this position. It has no basis in reality. Naturally, life on earth in NOT increasing in complexity despite the massive amounts of energy we receive from sunlight. Plants do not generate complexity in a vacuum. Rather, a highly complicated process called photosynthesis is taking place on a chemical level to convert that energy into a useable form. Similar to solar panels without the technology inside, a plant without chlorophyll and the photosynthesis process would simply dry up and die. Solar panels are just simple materials without the complex technology built into them. Without the technology, the glass would decay, crack, and the pieces would whither just like the abandoned car.
So we see that adding energy does nothing without a machine to convert that energy. Think of it this way, the US added a whole lot of energy to Germany in WWII and was the result more complexity or less complexity? Did the US leave Germany more orderly or less orderly? The answer seems obvious- unless you’re an atheist.
Professor Andy Macintosh puts it this way:
“The principle of energy loss for useful work still applies in an open system, since there is no benefit unless there is a machine to use the energy added. Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory by adding loads of sunlight or electricity unless the machinery is available to use that energy to build Boeing 777s. Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines just by adding energy if there is no machinery available to do this. Spontaneously forming of such machinery will not happen.”
While the atheist will appeal to unknown natural factors, unsubstantiated scientific claims, and usually resort to name calling and elitism, they have no factual basis on which to build their case. They simply preach to their converted who cheer and shout in complete oblivion to their own ignorance. Christians do this too. As believers we must always be ready to answer their objections. In some cases, this might be as simple as asking them to clarify their position so you can do your research. You will find that while there are some challenges worth advanced study time, the opposition the 2nd law is not taken seriously in real science. It’s only the atheist who holds to his faith. We as Christians may be certain that this painting-though marred and vandalized by sin and sinners- will always bear the signature of it’s painter.
Some additional resources: