Is the assumption that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics a minority view even among Young...?

Only someone who doesn't know squat about the second law would argue that it does.

And I still see ignorant people making that argument quite frequently here on Y!A.

Added

And I see that one such ignorant person just gave me a thumbs down.

Well, if that person will explain why he thinks evolution violates the second law, I will show him why he doesn't know squat!

Added:

I don't know if @A Real Truthseeker is the person who gave me the thumbs down and responded to my challenge, but I'll respond to him.

>>"Undirected energy just speeds up destruction."

So how does an orderly six-pointed snowflake crystal form from disorderly water molecules in the air?

>>"Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy."

In answer to that piece of stupidity, I will just direct you to go back to the answer that @tylertxanreborn gave.

The primary source of energy for living things here on the earth is the sun. Plants use the sun's energy to grow. And some animals eat the plants to get the sun's energy second hand. And other animals eat those animals to get the sun's energy third hand.

And using lying creationist web sites to prove your point only shows that you don't know squat in the first place.

And here is my refutation of the argument regardless of who gave me the thumbs down.

The laws of thermodynamics deal strictly with the dynamics of energy. (Thermo = heat.) The creationists confuse the issue by equating the Second Law with information theory. They both use the term entropy, but they are not equivalent.

So here are the first two Laws of Thermodynamics stated.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but may change from one form to another.

The Second Law states that, in a closed system, there can be no net increase in available energy and that any process that occurs in a closed system will result in less available energy (the degree of the non-availability of energy in a system is called entropy).

Another way of looking at it is that any increase in order--or for that matter, any process occurring--in a closed system must be balanced out by a corresponding decrease in available energy. Since the earth is not a closed system, but gets its energy from the sun, any increase in entropy is balanced out. (What the Second Law prohibits is perpetual motion machines.)

Here is the mathematical expression of the Second Law.

Delta Q <= T Delta S

Where Delta Q = the change in heat (change in available energy), T = temperature (stated as degrees above absolute zero), and Delta S = change in entropy (non-availability of energy).

Or, solving it for entropy:

Delta S >= Delta Q / T

So, ignorant person, please use that mathematical expression to show why evolution violates it.

Some say that the Second Law also applies to open systems. That is true, but the fact that the system is open must be taken into consideration or any conclusions made will be fallacious.

For example, a car, in and of itself, is a closed system. If a car runs out of gasoline, it will stop running because it no longer has a source of energy. If you fill up the gas tank with gasoline, it is no longer a closed system during the act of the filling. Once the filling is completed, it again becomes a closed system. If you glue the gas cap in place so it cannot be removed to refill the tank, the car is permanently a closed system and after the gas in the tank runs out the car will no longer function. That is an example of what the second law is all about.

Since the laws of thermodynamics deal strictly with the dynamics of energy, evolution does not violate the Second Law. As long as energy is available, evolution can occur just as any other natural process can occur.

One might think that the Second Law is violated by evolution because of the use of the term "disorder" that is sometimes used instead of "entropy" in referring to the Second Law. That usage can cause confusion and misapplication of the law.

However, in scientific usage, terms have specific meanings. In thermodynamic systems, "order" and "disorder" refer to the ordering of energy in the system. A system with high order means that there is a large amount of usable energy compared with unusable energy so that energy can flow and processes can occur. A system with high disorder means that there is more unusable energy compared with usable energy so that little or no energy can flow for processes to occur.

And here is what some physicists say on the matter.

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.h...

http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/old/evoluti...

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/thermodynam...

And here are a couple of religious sites.

http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-se...

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/thermo.h...

It is not nonsense.

The 2nd law typically is applied to isolated systems, which the earth is not.

Evolutionists typically appeal to the fact that earth is on open system, as if that helps their cause.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

There are excellent articles here

http://creation.com/evolution-creation-thermodynam...

http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynami...

The people that say that creationist organisation say 'do not use' the 2nd law as an argument against evolution, are either being deceitful, or careless, or can't read.

What they actually recommend is to avoid claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.

Perhaps expecting such evolutionist sheep to read is an expectation too far.

I'm betting that anyone a YEC hasn't a clue what the Second Law even says, much less applying it to anything.

Talk with some of these folks... in one line, evolution is religion, and creationism is science. In the next line, they are both religions, and in the third, they are both science. As just an added little something, some say that science has no definition....

All fundamentalist Christians have rarely finished hs with any class in physics. And fewer still have finish any college with any science as a major. All are too short sighted to understand the wonders of the universe, and that our human history and its history are one in the same. We can trace our beginnings to the beginning of the universe....That's outside the realm of their comprehension.

You are correct. I'm mostly a YEC, yet I don't buy into that because thermodynamics doesn't relate to living organisms slowly becoming more complex over time.

im not a scientist, but though evolution and archeology are conclusively corrupted, so is science and the scientists that work for the federal government. especially with the revelation of "climate-gate"

i actually believe that science if not corrupted by men or censored by government would actually prove Creation, as spoken by Greg Braden and even Kent Hovind or others. many scientists before the 20th century believed that creation was scientifically done.

its only the evil people who dictate to us what is true and refuse the right to teach creation science that prove how corrupt science has become nowadays. anyone can be bought for a price, and everyone that cannot be bought and paid for, they just get fired and replaced.

most everything that would prove there is God therefore is not allowed to be taught, while at the same time children are taught that being Gay is a birthright, when God and specifically spoken and has called it the equivelant of an Abomination

Let me put it this way: Answers-in-Genesis (arguably the most popular creationism website) even admits that the argument is bogus.

Of course, even that doesn't stop some creationists from using the argument. I even saw it show up here just a few days ago. In fact, here's a commentary on a creationist recently doing it on his radio show:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/bryan_f...

It's pretty sad when you can debunk a creationist argument using a creationist website!

From what I've seen, it's only a "view" among those who haven't got a clue what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is.

Peace.

lol well if the yec community really believed that they'd have a very difficult time explaining how photosynthesis builds complex sugar molecules from less complex carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight.

The argument appears here and then, but I think it's useful cause it serves very well as evidence that the party making the claim has no clue what they're talking about.

Scientific Creation is the latest as scientist are using high tech equipment to prove what they

cannot see.