According the evolutionary theory, all matter came into existence by itself. At a later time on our planet, living creatures quite literally "made themselves." Such views sound like Greek myths. But if they be true, where then did the laws of nature come from? Too often these are overlooked. There are a variety of very complicated natural laws. How did these come into existence? People assume that they too just sprung up spontaneously. But they are assuming too much.

INTRODUCTION This Chapter is of such importance that after reading it, someone will say, "Why did you not place it at the beginning of the book?" Some else might add, "All you need is this chapter and you can omit the rest!"

The earlier portions of this volume met evolution on its own ground. When given a hearing, common sense combined with scientific facts will always tear the theory of evolution to pieces.

Evolutionary theory is built on two foundational pillars. But there are two laws which crush those foundational pillars of evolution to powder. Let us look at the two evolutionary pillars and the two laws which destroy them:

(1) Evolution teaches that matter is not conservative but self-originating; it can arise from nothing and increase. The First Law of Thermodynamics annihilates this viewpoint.

(2) Evolution teaches that matter and living things keep becoming more complex, end continually evolve toward greater perfection. Just as inorganic matter becomes successively more ordered and perfect (via the Big Bang and stellar evolution), so living creatures are always evolving into higher planes of existence (via species evolution). The Second Law of Thermodynamics devastates this theory.

DESIGNS AND LAWS In our civilizations, we find that the most intelligent people are the ones who design the machinery and make the laws that govern each nation. Because of our human limitations, much time needs to be spent in improving man-made mechanical designs and rewriting human laws.

But in nature we find that it has already been done. Every bird and animal is perfectly designed, and fossil evidence indicates that each one has had the same design all the way back to its first appearance in the fossil record. The laws of nature are perfect also. If we need evidence about the perfection of natural laws, now and in the past, all we need do is gaze upon the planets, moons,

stars, and galactic systems. The perfect balancing of their rotations on their axes, and revolutions (orbits) around still larger spheres or star complexes is astounding. The laws are operating with total precision. Any aberration of those laws in the past would have brought the suns and stars and systems--and our own world--crashing in upon each other. So we can know that in the most distant past the laws have accurately operated.

 WONDERFULLY DESIGNED The law of gravity should hurl our planet into the sun. But instead our world rotates at just the right speed around the sun in relation to its distance from it. This brings into play the opposite law of centrifugal force.

Scientists have a difficult time keeping manmade satellites in orbit. What keeps our planet in orbit? Merely the slightest slowing down of its revolution about the sun, and it would fall into that flaming ball. Just the slightest acceleration would hurl it outward where it would eventually crash into another body or just wander alone into space forever.

Several years ago scientists discovered that the "life zone" of our planet is far narrower than had before been suggested. This means that if our world was just a few hundred thousand miles closer to the sun, or just a few hundred thousand miles farther away from it, all life on earth would quickly perish from a variety of causes, only one of which would be temperature.

The wise man recognizes that the perfect orbital balance of planets around the sun, moons around the planets, and stars around their centers is sufficient proof that evolution cannot be true. It is an intriguing fact that astronomers know of no star anywhere in the universe that is alone! All are in orbits around galactic centers, and often mutually circling other stars as well. How can such mathematically precise orbits exist apart from careful planning by a super-Intelligence?

 NO SELF-MADE LAWS Evolutionists work on three basic assumptions: (1) laws automatically sprang into existence out of design-less confusion, (2) matter originated from nothing, and (3) living things came from non-living things.

But just as matter and life did not make Itself, so law did not make itself either.

"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed . . Actually it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent." *W.H. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 180, June 1898, p. 1287.

"Even if one day we find our knowledge of the basic laws concerning inanimate nature to be complete, this would not mean that we had "explained" all of inanimate nature. All we should have done is to show that all the complex phenomena of our experience are derived from some simple basic laws. But how to explain the laws themselves?." *R.E. Peierls, The Laws of Nature, (1958), p. 240.

 THE LAW OF MANUFACTURE A law is a principle that is never, never violated. Let us for a moment postulate a couple candidates for new laws: A cardinal rule of existence is this and we shall call it the Law of Manufacture. We could word the law something like this: "The maker of a product has to be more complicated than the product:"

Here is an example: Pick up a bolt and examine it. It has a steel shank, external threads, and a squared head that a wrench can grasp. Examine the nut; it has matching internal threads and is likewise squared for a wrench to grip and thread onto the bolt. Surely that is not a complex product in itself, yet we well know it required complicated production procedures to make. The equipment needed to make the bolt and nut had to be tar more complex than the bolt and nut! Let us call that the First Law of Products.

Here is another "law" to consider. We will call this one the Law of Originator, and describe it in this way: "The designer of a product has to be more intelligent than the product." Let us return to the bolt and nut for our example of, what we shall call, our Second Law of Products:

We closely examine the structure and details of that bolt; its straight shaft, the precision of its threading, the carefully-designed arrangement of its squared head. Then we turn to the nut and observe that its inner threads perfectly match in both width and pitch the threads on the bolt. It took an intelligent person to make this! Neither the bolt nor the nut made themselves. But more: the person who made this bolt and nut had to be far more intelligent than the bolt and nut, and far more Intelligent than the production methods used to make it.

 PERFECTION EVEN IN THE SMALLEST The present writer recalls a book he looked at several years ago which consisted of extremely high-magnification electron microscope photographs. Here was one sequence: The first picture showed a blob. The next showed a close-up of a part of that blob, with a dot on ft. The next sequence showed a close-up of the dot: it was some type of living creature. The next showed another close-up: this creature looked something like a tiny salamander. Another close-up, and we are shown its foot. Still another close-up, and now we see the bottom of one paw. And what do we find there? very distinct, but exquisitely small, perfect rows of suction cups! That is how that miniature creature holds on to things. Not until the electron microscope was invented could those suction cups be seen.

Think about that awhile. Who made those suction cups? Who made the creature? Be honest with yourself; it did not just make itself. The creature could not have manufactured itself, and it could not have made the suction cups on its feet.

 Fortunately there is a way to scientifically test this: If that minuscule creature made suction cups on its feet, then with your vastly larger intelligence you should be able, by careful planning and force of will, or by relatively simple manipulation, be able to grow suction cups on your feet!

This may sound humorous, but it is true and quite serious; that is, IF evolutionary theory be correct.

 First, we are so much more intelligent than submicroscopic lizard-like creatures, that we should be able to rather easily--by sheer mind power or physical actions--produce suction cups on our feet, adapt them to various sizes and locations as needed, or eliminate them again. That is how that sub-microscopic lizard is expected to have done it. (Technically, evolutionists claim the suction cups grew there by mindless "accident and chance." Therefore, when intelligent planning and directed activity is brought in, the process should be accomplished with relative ease and rapidity.)

Second, we have already learned that, because of DNA limitations, changes would have to be completed within one generation! There is no half-way business with living things; they are either structured correctly and the job is completed in its entirety fast--or they will quickly perish by poor adaptation or because of DNA inter-network coding problems.

Why can we not do it if those other creatures could do it, and if they had to do so rapidly? The truth is we cannot do it and they did not do it either. Only a super-colossal Intelligence can produce living suction cups on living feet. These are simple facts; facts which evolutionists refuse to face.

 MANY LAWS There are many, many laws operating in the natural world. It is intriguing that there are also moral laws operating among human beings: laws of honesty, purity, etc. We get into trouble when we violate moral law, the Ten Commandments, just as when we violate natural laws, such as the Law of Gravity.

"Facts are the air of science. Without them a man of science can never rise. Without them your theories are vain surmises. But while you are studying, observing, experimenting, do not remain content with the surface of things. Do not become a mere recorder of facts, but try to penetrate the mystery of their origin. Seek obstinately for the laws that govern them!" *Ivan Pavlov, quoted in Isaac Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 99.

Let us now consider the two special laws which we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter the two laws of thermodynamics.

As with other laws, these two laws operate throughout the universe. The first is a law of conservation that works to preserve the basic categories of nature (matter, energy, etc.). The second is a law of decay that works to reduce the useful amount of matter, energy, etc., as the original organization of the cosmos tends to run down. Let us now closely examine each of these laws:

 2 - THE TWO LAWS Of THERMODYNAMICS

THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS Simply stated, the First Law of Thermodynamics (hereinafter called "the First Law" is also called the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy. It says this: "Energy cannot by itself be created nor destroyed. Energy may be changed from one form into another, but the total amount remains unchanged."

Einstein showed that matter is but another form of energy, as expressed in the equation: E=MC². (E = Energy, M = mass, C² =velocity of light squared) A nuclear explosion (such as we find in an "atomic" bomb) suddenly changes a small amount of matter into energy. But, according to the First Law, the sum total of energy (or its sister, matter) will always remain the same. None of it will disappear.

"The Law of Energy Conservation 'Energy can be converted from one form into another, but can neither be created nor destroyed,' is the most important and best-proved law in science.

"This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make." *Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even," Journal of Smithsonian Institute, June 1970, p. 8.

Evolution is a clear violation of this law. The evolutionist teaches that complex things at some earlier time came from simpler things, and they from simpler, going back finally to only matter and energy, and that matter and energy ultimately came from nothing. In science, that concept is known as "reductionism." *Isaac Asimov describes the process:

"Where did the substance of the universe come from? . . If 0 equals ( + 1) + (-1), then something which is 0 might just as well become + 1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of these globs between nothing and nothing and wondering about it." *Isaac Asimov, ".What is Beyond the Universe?" in Science Digest, 89 (1971), p. 69.

*Fred Hoyle, a prominent British scientist, has theorized that, away off in space, matter is simply "blooping" into existence here and "blooping" into existence there.

"The total rate for the observable Universe alone is about a hundred million, million, million, million, million, tons per second." *Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe, (1980), p. 128.

But, as with other evolutionary scientists, Hoyle did not take the time to think through the two laws of thermodynamics, before speculating. Evolution is said to be "natural" and in accordance with natural law, yet it demands that matter and energy initially made itself out of nothing--contrary to law.

In contrast, Creation is supernatural and would be superior to the laws of nature. All that is of matter and energy cannot create itself. But God could create matter and energy, and at the same time the laws that govern it.

"The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. It further states that although energy (a its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that natural processes cannot created energy. Consequently, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside of and independent of the natural universe. Furthermore, if natural processes cannot produce the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe, then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (or living) portion of the universe." Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 12

 And now we come to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and here we find an astounding proof that the entire evolutionary theory is totally incorrect:

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also called the Law of Increasing Entropy (or disorder). The First Law of Thermodynamics speaks of the quantitative conservation of energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (hereinafter called "the Second Law" refers to the qualitative degeneration of energy. That energy decay is also called "entropy." Entropy increases as matter or energy becomes less usable.

The Second Law may be expressed in several ways:

"It is a very broad and very general law, and because its applications are so varied it may be stated in a great variety of ways." *E.S. Greens, Principles of Physics (1982), p. 310.

Here are the three most important applications of this law:

"1. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant.

" 2. Statistical Thermodynamics: The organized complexity (order) of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random (disorder).

" 3. Informational Thermodynamics: The information conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete." Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987) p. 199.

Basically, the Second Law states that all systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized. To put it in the vernacular, apart from a Higher Power, everything left to itself will ultimately go to pieces.

All science bows low before the Second Law. Genuine scientists do also. The exception would be (1) the evolutionists who, with no hesitation, ignore not only the First and Second Law, but also other principles and laws (such as those which govern matter, life, the DNA species wall, mutations, etc.), and (2) a number of scientists who did not receive an adequate education in basic laws in their university training, and therefore are favorable to deception by Darwinian errors. Such men have no clear conception of the fundamental laws governing nature.

"To their credit, there are a few evolutionists (though apparently very few) who recognize the critical nature of this problem [of the Second Law) and who are trying to solve it." *Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis & Agnes Babloyants, "Thermodynamics of Evolution," Physics Today, Vol. 25, November 1972, p. 23-28. [Professor in the Faculty of Sciences at the University Libra de Belgique and is one of the world's leading thermodynamicists.]

For additional information see the appendix topic, "1. Universality of the Second Law," at the end of this chapter.

Regardless of the excuses that evolutionists may offer, the Second Law rises above the foibles and errors of mankind, and will not be overthrown.

"The Entropy Principle will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as the supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe." *Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View (1980), p. 8.

 THE INEVITABLE ARROW It was *Sir Arthur Eddington, a leading astronomer, who coined the term "Time's Arrow" to succinctly describe this second law. He said the arrow points downward, never upward. Evolution requires an upward arrow; the Second Law says, "No, an upward arrow is not permissible. "

"There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformationthe law of increasing entropy." *R. R. Kindsay, "PhysicsTo What Extent is it Deterministic," in American Scientist 58, (1988) x p. 100.

For additional information see the appendix topic, " 2 - Entropy is Always Increasing."

EVOLUTION SAYS NO Evolution teaches an upward arrow all the way from nothingness to the present and on into a glorious future when mankind will eventually evolve into godlike creatures with fantastic minds, engaged in intergalactic space trips, while founding intergalactic space empires.

You may recall a statement by a confirmed evolutionist, quoted earlier in this set of books, that the marvelous powers of evolution brought man out of dust, through microbes and monkeys to his present state, and that, hereafter, we may next change into clouds.

 Although evolution is contrary to many physical laws, including the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, we will here primarily concern ourselves with tire Second Law.

Evolutionary theory stands in obvious defiance of the Second Law, but the evolutionists declare that this is no problem, for they declare their theory to be above law! They maintain that, yes, the Second Law does indeed apply to all the rest of the universe, but not to evolutionary operations on our planet. Even though Lord Kelvin developed the law by studying our world, and such great scientists as Einstein declared that the Second Law would never be overthrown, yet the evolutionists are determined to do so. In order to explain away the problem, they tell us that our planet is an "open system," not subject to the Second Law which only applies to "closed systems." 

 For additional information see the appendix topic, " 3 - Evolution Claims to be Above the Law."

3 - EVOLUTIONARY EXCUSES

"OPEN SYSTEMS" ARGUMENT Their argument goes this way: Energy from the sun flows to our world and makes it an open system. As long as the sun sends this energy, it will fuel evolutionary development here. In contrast, a closed system is one which neither gains nor gives up energy to its surroundings. Therefore, sunshine negates the Second Law, and that law does not operate on Planet Earth, in spite of what Einstein and all the other physicists say!

It is obvious that their neat denial denies too much. They have effectively nullified the Second Law everywhere in the universe, except in the cold of outer space and on planets distant from stars. Evolution is apparently progressing even on our moon, for it is receiving as much energy from the sun as we are! In addition, there ought to be a lot of evolution going on inside stars, for they have the best "open systems" of all!

 The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that all things gradually and ultimately decay, not improve. The arrow is downward, not upward. Yet evolutionary theory requires an upward arrow, which is scientifically impossible.

This one principle alone dooms all evolutionary theories, whether they be stellar, botanical, or biological, to oblivion.

 ERROR IN "OPEN SYSTEM" Here is the answer to this naive argument: An influx of heat energy into a so-called "open system" (in this case, solar beat entering our planet) would not decrease entropy. The entropy continues apace, just as the scientists said it would. Heat energy flowing into our world does not decrease entropy, it increases it!

The greater the outside heat energy that enters the system, the more will its entropy and disorder increase. Energy by itself increases entropy, therefore random energy or heat will increase entropy.

Opening a system to random external heat energy will Increase the entropy in that system even more rapidly than if it remained closed. Oxidation is increased, chemical actions speed up, and other patterns of degeneration quicken.

In contrast, energy that is brought into a system from outside, AND which is intelligently controlled and directed, can temporarily interfere with the operation of the Second Law. It can for a time apparently stop entropy. Consider the following:

There are many systems, especially artificial ones (buildings, machinery) and living systems (plants, animals) which appear to run counter to the Second Law. We walk down the street and stand in front of a house: A higher intelligence (intelligence higher than that which the building has) carefully constructed the building, keeps it heated, air conditioned, humidified, and in good repair. In spite of this, the building gradually ages. Eventually the higher intelligence steps back and stops repairing, replacing, and repainting, and the building decays much more rapidly and finally falls to pieces.

A living organism is quite similar. A Higher Power produced it, for the organism could not make itself. Life continues apace for a time amid gradual decay, and then comes death and rapid decay.

It is of interest that in a building or life form that is thus watched over for a time, entropy (decay) inside the system for a time is slowed, but at the expense of entropy outside which is increased. Keeping the building warm took extra energy from outside the house. Keeping the body fed, clothed, housed, and warm uses up much energy outside the body.

Yet no system will show an apparently decreasing entropy, unless it possesses a highly specific program to direct its growth, AND it has a very (very!) complex mechanism within it to convert OUTSIDE energy into heat, strength, etc. The entropy is slowed inside only at the expense of greater entropy loss outside.

Evolution teaches that life increases in complexity. But when a person is born, he has all the complexity built into him to start. It unfolds as he goes through his life process. Adult organisms are only an expression of their genes and initial order of DNA. At birth you are the most physically perfect you will be in this life.

After that you keep developing more and more blemishes and imperfections until you finally die.

(Someone may suggest that plant and animal breeding disproves the Second Law, since apparent improvements are made. But (1) these changes are based on inherent factors already in the genes (the exceptions would be some mutational changes, nearly all of which are harmful), (2) these changes were made by intelligent men guiding the breeding, (3) breeding improvements can only be carried on for a short time before the genetic limitations are reached, and (4) afterward, the plants and animals tend to fall back toward the original averages.)

Ordered systems, such as a kept-up building or a human body, are working within the Second Law, not outside of it.

"Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems." *John Ross, Chemical Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 40 (Harvard University researcher.)

*Harold F. Blum, a biochemist at Princeton, wrote an entire book on this topic. He maintains that the Second Law does indeed apply to our world and to everything in it, including living creatures.

"No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems, we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles [the First and Second law], but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world." *Harold Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 14.

A plant or animal is far more complex than a stone or a pool of water. Yet just as each rock and water pool keeps degenerating, so also does the plant or animal during its lifetime.

The Laws of Thermodynamics apply to all systems, open or closed. This great concern about "open systems" is a smokescreen to hide the fact that evolutionary theory is foolishness in light of those laws. Actually, because of sunlight, most everything is in an open system, whereby energy is flowing toward it. But in spite of the fact, everything is decaying also. And solar energy frequently speeds up the decay process. It fades paint, rots plastic, kills bacteria, and weathers buildings.

Here is a statement by a creationist:

"Creationists have for over a decade been emphasizing that the Second Law really applies only to open systems, since there is no such thing as a truly isolated (closed) system. The great French scientist and mathematician, Emil Borel, has proved this fact mathematically, as acknowledged by Layzer:

"'Bore) showed that no finite physical system can be considered closed.'" Henry Morris, "Entropy and Open Systems," in Up With Creation (1978), p. 235.

Here is a companion statement by Morris that nicely summarizes the situation:

"The mere influx of external heat into an open system (such as solar energy entering the earth-system) would not increase the order (or 'complexity' or information) in that system, but would actually increase its entropy (or 'disorder' or 'randomness') more rapidly than if it were a closed system! If 'order' or 'complexity' is actually to increase in any open system, the latter must first be programmed to utilize the incoming energy in some organizing fashion and then be provided also with a complex energy storage-and conversion mechanism to transform the raw heat influx into the specific useful work of increasing the organized complexity of the system. Since the imaginary evolutionary process on the earth possesses neither such a directing program nor organizing mechanism, the second law of thermodynamics does indeed conflict with it and, to all intents and purposes, renders it impossible." -Henry Morris, "An Answer for Asimov," in Creation the Cutting Edge (1982), p. 152153

To summarize the matter, let us put it this way: The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics require an isolated system that outside energy is not entering and replenishing. Our planet is, in a sense, an open system in relation to the sun, for we continually receive energy from that solar orb. But our earth-sun system, together, is essentially a closed system, for relatively little energy enters this system from the planets or other stars. Those other planets and stars are also locked into their own dosed systems, and the entire universe is itself a closed system.

It is merely idle talk and empty excuses to say that the earth is "an open system" because it receives energy from the sun. In reality, both the earth and sun are using up energy. When that energy is gone, it is gone. There is no material way to replace it or renew it.

 For additional information see the appendix topic "4 -The Second Law and Open Systems."

INFORMATION VS. THE LAW Theoreticians have derided that information is a partial disproof of the Second Law. The idea goes somewhat like this: If you were to write down all the sun spot data about a star for ages and ages, the star might be decaying, but your data would be increasing! This fact is thought to mean something, but it really proves nothing. Nevertheless, it is a matter of deep concern to some.

"The processes that define the historical and the thermodynamic arrows of time generate information and entropy, respectively.

"Thus a gain of information is compensated for by an equal loss of entropy." *David Layzer, "The Arrow of Time, "in Scientific American (Vol. 233, December 1975), p. 80.

"Bertalanffy (1968) calved the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." *Charles J. Smith, "Problems with Entropy in Biology, " Biosystems, Vol. 1, 1975, p. 259.

We might mention the following regarding this "information theory" puzzle in regard to entropy: The men gathering the sun-spot data keep dying, and if others do not take their place, the data is eventually lost or rots away. The gathering of data is much like continually repainting a house. As long as we do it, the inevitable decay of entropy is masked over. But set the papers aside for a time and the information becomes out-of-date, and the paper it is on crumbles to dust.

 QUANTITY VS. CONVERSION Of all the arguments defending evolutionary theory against the Second Law, the "open system" argument is the most common. But the problem is that in using this defense, the evolutionists confuse quantity of-energy (of which there certainly is enormous amounts sent us from the sun) with conversion of energy.

 NO EVOLUTION EVEN IN AN OPEN SYSTEM But even if "open systems" negated the Second Law, there could still be no evolution. The question is not whether there is enough energy from the sun to initiate and maintain evolutionary processes. There probably is. The problem is how would the sun's energy begin and sustain evolutionary development? How can sunlight originate life? How can it produce a living cell, or a living species? How could it change one species into another one?

Throughout this set of books we have observed that evolution simply has not operated and cannot operate. There is no mechanism by which life can begin (the primitive environment takes care of that), and no way it can evolve into new species (genetics and 10096 random disorganized mutations with 99% of them lethal takes care of that).

Time produces an actual change from order to disorder in everything, though in living organisms, there is for a while an apparent buildup and increase in complexity. Yet, ultimately decay wins and the organism deteriorates away to rubble.

"The cosmological arrow generates randomness or disorder, whereas the evolutionary arrow generates complexity. A fully reductionism theory of evolution must demonstrate that the evolutionary arrow can be derived from the cosmological arrow." *S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information Theoretical Discussion," in Journal of Theoretical Biology (1979), p. 349.

But it cannot be done. Evolutionary theory can in no way be supported by the Second Law; instead it lies crushed beneath its feet.

Living organisms (and maintained buildings and machinery) can appear to slow the inexorable results of the Second Law only because (1) a definite blueprint or plan of organizational maintenance must exist and be followed. In life forms that blueprint is under the control of genes and DNA. We have learned that evolution cannot touch or change this blueprint. (2) There must be a power converter to energize the growth and activity. Sunlight falling on a building, or water power from a stream flowing beside it, cannot provide the proper care needed for the building. Neither sunlight nor rainwater will fix the roof. Intelligent, directed activity must be applied, and methods of converting raw energy to useful energy must be worked out and consistently used.

"The simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed." *George Simpson and *WS. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (1985), p. 488.

*Prigogine tells us that, even if there were open systems modifying the Second Law, life still could not form by spontaneous generation. Referring to this question of "open systems" vs. the Second Law, he says:

"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly-ordered structures and m the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." *Ilya Prigogine, *Gregoire Nicolis and *Agnes Babloyanis, "Thermodynamics of Evolution, " Physics Today, Vol. 25, November 1972, p. 23.

EVOLUTION IS AN OUTLAW THEORY It should be quite clear to the reader by now that evolutionary theory is contrary to natural law. Interestingly enough, that which we are only just discovering, the evolutionists already knew! In fact, evolutionists do not wish to be subject to law, any law, physical; or even moral.

Regarding natural law (the laws governing physics, biology, genetics, etc.) we are told:

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous." *R.ED. Clark, Victoria Institute 1943, p. 83

Regarding moral law, they declare:

"An ethical system that bases its premises on absolute pronouncements will not usually be acceptable to those who view human nature by evolutionary criteria." *A.G. Motulsky, "Brave New World?" Science, Vol. 185, August 23, 1974, p. 854.

Kaufmann gets to the heart of the matter:

"Most secularized people use evolution to give them the excuse to reject God and His moral lawsthe rules He has given us so that we can lead lives that are pleasing to Him." David A. Kaufmann, "Book Review," Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990. P~ 109.

 Even in regard to figuring out geologic time scales and the age of rocks and the earth, we are told:

"Does our time scale, then, partake of natural law? No." *Edmund M. Spieker, "Mountain Building Chronology and Nature of Geologic Time Scale, " in Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, vol, 40, August 958, p. 1803.

 We are told that our world and life on it began contrary to law.

"The world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover." *Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978), p. 114.

 We are told that the beginnings of life began apart from natural law.

"The combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth." *Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientists (1981), p. 528.

"I do not think that Darwinism can explain the origin of life. I think it quite possible that life is so extremely improbable that nothing can 'explain' why it originated; for statistical explanation must operate, in the last instance, with very high probabilities." *Karl Popper, "Intellectual Autobiography," The Philosophy of Karl Popper 2 (1974), p. 135.

"Monod's suggestion is that we emerged from inanimate matter by an extremely improbable combination of chance circumstances, and that this may not merely have an event of low probability but of zero probability, in fact, a unique fact." *Karl Popper, "Reduction and the Incompleteness of Science," in Studies in the Philosophy of Biology (1974), p. 270.

 We are told that laws governing living things are negated by evolutionary processes:

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous." *R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute 194 p. 83.

 Evolutionists do not disregard the erroneous theories which they have elevated to the status of "laws" even though those theories are known to be wrong. For to do so would weaken the basis of evolution:

"The biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars." *W. J. Bock Science 164:684 (1969). (The error of the so-called "biogenetic law" is explained in chapter 22, Vestiges and Recapitulation.)

 EVOLUTION IS ABOVE ALL LAW In fact, evolutionists explain that their theories are above all law!

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." *P. Ehrlich and *LC. Birch, "Evolutionary History and Population Biology" Nature, Vol. 214, April 22, 1967, p. 352.

 Harris states that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is axiomatic, and therefore can neither be tested nor proved.

"I have suggested that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution rests on the axioms that all heritable variations in fitness result from chance mutations and that there is natural selection for fitness. . If the neo-Darwinian theory is axiomatic, it is not valid to creationists to demand proof of the axioms." *C. Leon Harris, "An Axiomatic Interpretation of the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution, " Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Winter 1975, p. 179-184.

 But, in contrast, one scientist who has read some of these high-sounding claims made this comment:

"A hypothesis is empirical or scientific only if it can be tested by experience . . A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science." *Francisco J. Ayala, "Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or Random Walk?" American Scientist, Vol. 82, November/December 1974, p. 7n0.

 EVOLUTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SECOND LAW Evolutionists place their theory as a law that stands above all other laws, including the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists declare their theory to be flawless in six ways:

(1) Evolution is inevitable. It cannot be stayed nor stopped.

(2) Everything animate and inanimate is included in this evolutionary development, people, animals, plants, rocks, elements, suns, stars, and all the universe.

(3) Evolution can only move from simplicity to increasing complexity.

(4) Evolution never reverses itself and moves toward increasing simplicity. It always become more complex. This means that a rat could never evolve into an insect or an amoeba, for that would mean evolving into something less complex.

(5) Evolution is only an upward arrow of ever-decreasing entropy, less and less decay, and more and better organization of everything.

(6) No experimental methods apply to evolution, for it stands above experiment and above law. It need no evidence and no proof.

Evolutionists flatly declare as a cardinal doctrine that evolutionary processes can never go downward from complex to simple; they must always go upward to greater perfection and organization. (At the end of chapter 14, Mutations, we briefly discussed the irreversibility claim of evolutionists. That discussion is reprinted in appendix 7 for this chapter.)

Although in college such men were taught the laws of thermodynamics, yet afterward they disregard everything which opposes their theory, including any and all laws. Here are some of their stated positions:

"In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law to Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expressed an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order. The still more remarkable fact is that this evolutionary drive to greater and greater order also is irreversible. Evolution does not go backward." *J.H. Rush, The Dawn of Life (1962), p. 35.

"Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in nonbiological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect of evolution in general.

"Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolutionary single process of self transformation." *Julian Huxley, "Evolution and Genetics," in What is Science, (1955), pp. 277-278.

"These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet it is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for 'proofs' of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory." *Theodosius Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology," in American Scientist, Vol. 45, December 1957, p. 388.

"Life might be described as an unexpected force that somehow organizes inanimate matter into a living system that perceives, reacts to, and evolves to cope with changes to the physical environment that threatens to destroy its organization." *Mars and Earth, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, p. 5 (1975).

"Most enlightened persons now accept as a tact that everything in the cosmos, from heavenly bodies to human being, has developed through evolutionary processes." *Rene Dubois, "Humanistic Biology, " in American Scientist, 53 (1985), P. 8.

 Here are another example of this strange evolutionary jargon that changes "entropy" into "non-entropy."

"Entropy will not be the nemesis of evolution; on the contrary, the selection of entropy-driven processes in biological systems has been responsible for the evolution of the sophisticated organization of contemporary biota." *J.R. Jungck, "Thermodynamics of Self Assembly: an Empirical Example of Relating to the Entropy and Evolution," in Molecular Evolution, p. 107.

 6 - SOLIDITY Of THE SECOND LAW

ACKNOWLEDGED BY LEADING SCIENTISTS Dedicated evolutionists declare that evolution stands above the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is not subject to it. In contrast, many of the world's leading scientists maintain that everything is subject to the Second Law. *Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944) was a leading British astronomer of the first half of the 20th century. He said this:

"If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it [your theory] but to collapse in deepest humiliation." *Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.

 *Albert Einstein (1879-1955) is generally considered to have had one of the outstanding scientific minds of our century. He made this highly significant statement:

"[A law] is more impressive the greater is 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, quoted in *M.J. Klein, "Thermodynamics in Einstein's Universe, " in Science, 157 (1967), p. 509; and alternately given in Isaac Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 78.

 Einstein said that the Second Law was so inviolate because it applied to so many things. By the same rule, we could speak of another law, the Law of Creatorship, and declare that it is even more inviolate. Everything in the skies above and the earth beneath witnesses to the fact that God made it all!

"The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have bean subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigation without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy." *G. N. Lewis and *M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961) p. 87.

"There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances." *A. B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (t968), p. 100.

 For additional information see the appendix topic, "-The Second Law Destroys Evolutionary Theory."

THE SECOND LAW POINTS TO THE CREATOR According to this law of increasing entropy, everything is decaying, falling apart, wearing out, going to pieces. No matter is being lost, but its available usefulness is inexorably diminishing.

"The second law of thermodynamics predicts that a system left to itself will, in the course of time, go toward greater disorder." *Harold Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution, (1968), p 201.

 It is a striking fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics points mankind to its Creator. The greatest scientists acknowledge the universality of this law. But if everything, everywhere is running down, who originally got it started? If everything is moving toward an end, then it had to have a beginning!

"Although it is true that the amount of matter in the universe is perpetually changing, the change appears to be mainly in one direction-toward dissolution.. The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying embers, and everywhere in the cosmos heat is turning to cold, matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being dissipated into empty space.

"The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate 'heat death' or as it is technically defined, a condition of 'maximum entropy.'. . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves just one way." *Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.

 If there is no Creator, this gloomy picture of the destiny of our universe is all too true. But the First and Second Law point back to Creation, just as they seem to point forward to death. This remarkable fact dispels the gloom.

"Everything indeed, everything visible in nature or established in theory, suggests that the universe is implacably progressing toward final darkness and decay.

"There is an important philosophical corollary to this view. For if the universe is running down and nature's processes are proceeding in just one direction, the inescapable inference is that everything has a beginning: somehow and sometime the cosmic processes were started; the stellar fires ignited, and the whole vast pageant of the universe brought into being . . So all the evidence that points to the ultimate annihilation of the universe points just as definitely to an inception fixed in time." *Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103:

The Second Law testifies to the fact that there was a beginning to everything.

"The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally. How did the cosmos get wound up, if the second law of thermodynamics predicts asymmetric unwinding towards disorder?" *Paul C.W. Davies, (1979)

"The only contribution of dynamics to theoretical biology is absolute negation of automatic commencement or automatic maintenance of life." *Lord Kelvin, "On the Age of the Sun's Heed" in Popular Lectures and Addresses (1889). p. 415.

For additional information see the appendix topic, "7 - The Second Law Requires a Beginning."

All the stars and all of nature testifies that there is a Creator. The perfect designs of nature and the precision of natural law, both point us to the One who prepared all these things. Look at a pansy or a rose; pet a gentle rabbit; consider the awesome wonders of island universes with their complex inter-orbiting suns. There is One who stands above and beyond all of this. One who made it all, who is thoughtful of the needs of the universe, and cares for His own.

"It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it... One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe." *P.A.M. Direr, "The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature," in Scientific American, May 1983, p. 53.

"The authors see the second law of thermodynamics as man's description of the prior and continuing work of a Creator, who also holds the answer to the future destiny of man and the universe." *Sonntag and *Van Wylen, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, 2nd Ed. Vol. f (1973), p. 248.

 For additional information see the appendix topic, "8 - Laws and their Maker."

Very important in order to round out your understanding of this topic, you will want to read the section, "Six Strange Teachings of Evolution" in chapter 14, Mutations. It presents several aspects of evolutionary theory which run strikingly counter to the laws of thermodynamics, and also to commonsense:

1. Evolution operates only upward, never downward;

2. evolution operates irreversibly;

3. evolution operates from smaller to bigger;

4. evolution only operates from less to more complex;

5. evolution only operates from less to more perfect;

6. evolution is not repeatable.

1 - Universality of Second Law

Only a power outside of all energy and matter could overrule the Second Law. Only such a power could make such laws. *Blum of Princeton University has written:

"The second law of thermodynamics predicts that a system left to itself will, in the course of time, go toward greater disorder." *Harold Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution, (1988), p 201 (emphasis ours).

You have just completed

Chapter 25 LAWS  OF  NATURE

Next:  APPENDIX 25