After leaving atheism for theism more than 40 years ago, I’m answering some of the most-asked questions from atheists: What happened to me? Did I lose my mind? Was I on drugs? How can an atheist possibly become a theist? Was I just a bad atheist? Is that what happened?
I admit that I brought this on myself. In 1970 I “dared” God to appear on my radio talk show if He “really” existed. God did not appear on my show that day, but He did several months later. I asked God to convince me He existed and He did just what I asked Him to do. He began the process of revealing Himself to me on my radio show.
I interviewed Dr. Henry Morris in early 1971 for the purpose of making fun of his belief in a worldwide flood and the existence of Noah’s Ark on a mountain range in Turkey. What Dr. Morris shared with me that day led to months of investigation to find out if what he told me was true.
We’ve already looked at serious questions about the Theory of Evolution and considered the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, Cosmic Fine-Tuning, and the Law of Causality. Today, we’ll look at The Laws of Thermodynamics.
I used to trust in science for answers to my questions about the universe, the earth, and life. That’s what I learned in school and it seemed to be a solid way of thinking and living. However, even though I trusted science for information about life, I knew little about science. So, when I heard that science might support belief in the existence of God I wanted to know more. Even though I was an atheist, I was a journalist and searching out the truth is what a journalist does – wherever truth takes them.
Dr. Morris spoke about the Laws of Thermodynamics and its importance to understanding origins. Thermodynamics is the “physics that deals with the mechanical action or relations of heat” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,1991).
The history of Thermodynamics as a scientific discipline goes back to the 17th century, but took off in the 19th century with scientists like Sadi Carnot, William Rankine, Rudolf Clausius, Emile Clapeyron, and William Thomson.
I learned that there are four basic laws or principles for Thermodynamics – starting with Zeroth and moving to the First, Second and Third Laws. What I remember learning was that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant and though it can change from one form to another, it cannot be created or destroyed. Dr. Morris called it the “principle of conservation.”
What I found most interesting was the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that disorder increases (also known as the Law of Increased Entropy). Dr. Morris called it the “principle of disintegration.” While the quantity of of energy remains the same (First Law), the quality of energy deteriorates gradually over time (Second Law). Entropy increases as usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases. That leads to an increase in disorganization, randomness and chaos. Dr. Morris believed the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproved “evolution.”
“The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word “evolution” is of course derived from a Latin word meaning “out-rolling”. The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral, an unrolling from an infinitesimal beginning through ever broadening circles, until finally all reality is embraced within. ”Entropy,” on the other hand, means literally “in-turning.” It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning “in”) and trope (meaning “turning”). The concept is of something spiraling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept to “evolution.” Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward.” (Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy, by Henry Morris, Ph.D., icr.org)
So, what does this have to do with proving the existence of God? I was taught in high school and college that the universe is eternal and infinite. However, I learned from a study of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that energy deteriorates over time. If the universe was truly eternal, it would have already run out of energy and we would not exist. Since the universe is running out of energy every second but still has energy left for heat and work in our universe, it goes to prove that it had a beginning.
Evolutionists were not sitting idly by as the Laws of Thermodynamics were being discussed by theists as proof for God’s existence. For example, biologist Harold Blum wrote in the early 1950′s about reconciling the Second Law of Thermodynamics with organic evolution (Time’s Arrow and Evolution, Princeton University Press, 1951). Even earlier than Blum was Dr. Alfred Lotka, who wroteElements of Physical Biology in 1924 dealing with evolutionary thermodynamics. The 1965 article by Jack Kirkaldy, Thermodynamics of Terrestrial Evolution, is also good to read for background.
Other arguments I remember that opposed the idea of the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproving evolution were:
- Exceptions to the Second Law are possible because it’s only a statistical statement
- Second Law doesn’t apply to living systems
- Second Law doesn’t apply to open systems
- Second Law doesn’t apply to other parts of the universe
The Laws of Thermodynamics did not prove to me that God exists, but were a strong argument that the universe had a beginning. Interestingly, the Bible starts with that very point – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Dr. Morris and other scientists who believed in God used the Laws of Thermodynamics as part of their argument for the existence of God. If God did not Create the heavens and the earth, what did? What started everything? I was pointed to these words from the ancient Bible to answer that question – “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” (Hebrews 11:3)
I needed a lot of convincing and God had much to show me. In our next study about the existence of God – we’ll look at the Law of Morality.
well mark, i suggest you never become a physicist for if i, who have only degrees in music can see the fallacies you are laboring under (like the energy is not degrading), i shudder to think what would happen if you met someone well versed in the subject of thermodynamics.
Hi, Julio. Here’s a summary from the post. Please let me know what’s wrong with it and references to support would be helpful.
“While the quantity of energy remains the same (First Law), the quality of energy deteriorates gradually over time (Second Law). Entropy increases as usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases. That leads to an increase in disorganization, randomness and chaos.”
Thanks!
Mark
energy does not deteriorate, just diffuses, when the original amount of energy expands to fill the ever enlarging volume. and your premise depends on the earth matching in size the rest of the universe. there is nothing that can change in the entropy of earth that can match the 300,000 times larger sun’s increase in entropy. there is nothing in thermodynamics that precludes a small decrease in entropy in some small area as long as the entire system gains in entropy. in some 5 billion years whatever change in entropy on earth will be moot when the earth will be be vaporized when the sun enters its red giant phase.
it is fine to believe in god, but that should be as far as it goes. just don’t try and justify your belief by way of thermodynamics, or you will fail miserably.
The purpose of this series of articles is to explain the investigative process I went through in becoming convinced in the existence of God. I’m doing it because what convinced me has been the most-asked question by atheists during the past 41 years.
The scientific laws that I studied during that investigation were part of a process of opening my mind to the possibility of God’s existence, but no individual finding by itself convinced me or could convince me. Therefore, I wouldn’t use a single piece of evidence as the sole support for believing in God.
I was convinced by a large body of evidence and believe that is the best way to consider something as important as the existence of God.
thermodynamics have no end point. if you put a glass with a thermometer in it, how long would it take for the temperature recorded by the thermometer in the glass to be 10 degrees kelvin? that is only a few degrees more than the temperature now of interstellar space. it would be billions of years. you seem to neglect that.
How would you rewrite my basic summary based on your understanding?
“While the quantity of energy remains the same (First Law), the quality of energy deteriorates gradually over time (Second Law). Entropy increases as usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases. That leads to an increase in disorganization, randomness and chaos.”
Thanks!
Mark
i would only make a small change: “while the quantity of energy remains the same, the usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases. this can be referred to an increase in entropy, and an eventual increase in disorganization, randomness, and chaos, even though that increase can take as long as billions of years.”
Thank you. Why did you add “even though that increase can take as long as billions of years”? I didn’t mention time in my post and haven’t seen that included in other definitions of Thermodynamics. Here are some examples. All are from non-religious references.
“The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.”
“A law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy.”
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that when energy is transferred, there will be less energy available at the end of the transfer process than at the beginning. Due to entropy, which is the measure of disorder in a closed system, all of the available energy will not be useful to the organism. Entropy increases as energy is transferred.”
“The second law of thermodynamics states that for any process occurring in a closed system, the entropy increases for an irreversible system and remains constant for a reversible system, but never decreases. The second law can be written as ΔS ≥ 0, where ΔS is the entropy change. Another statement of the second law is that heat will not flow spontaneously from a colder body to a warmer body (work must be done to accomplish this, which is why refrigerators must be plugged in!). In the real world, almost no processes are perfectly reversible, and so the entropy of closed systems undergoing real processes must increase. The second law forbids perpetual motion machines and means no engine can be 100% efficient.”
“The second law is concerned with entropy (S). Entropy is produced by all processes and associated with the entropy production is the loss of ability to do work. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases. An increase in overall disorder is therefore spontaneous. If the volume and energy of a system are constant, then every change to the system increases the entropy. If volume or energy change, then the entropy of the system actually decrease. However, the entropy of the universe does not decrease.”
“The second law of thermodynamics states that heat cannot be transferred from a colder to a hotter body within asystem without net changes occurring in other bodies within that system; in any irreversible process,entropy always increases.”
“The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature. The second law declares the impossibility of machines that generate usable energy from the abundant internal energy of nature by processes called perpetual motion of the second kind.”
None of these or other references I’ve checked mention any timeframe for the 2nd Law, so curious why you included it in yours.
Thanks!
Mark
i added time because the expanse of time seems to be often forgotten. systems reach equilibrium after however long it takes, just that they will eventually reach equilibrium. if it takes five billion years to reach equilibrium then it takes five billion years. like the so-called “old man of the mountain” rock formation once in new hampshire reached a higher level of entropy when it collapsed; how long after it’s creation did it’s collapse occur?
also, when did the amount of energy change? if it makes sense, when before creation did the total amount of energy change from zero to the amount available today? was it at the instant of creation? at a point in time after, though that would negate the first law. and who determines usable work? if all you have is an internal combustion motor and a solar source, is any work to be done? see why thermodynamics fails as a proof for god?
Thermodynamic Laws are what they are. If they are true, then we accept them as truth. If they are not true or our understanding of them are not true, then we do not accept them or our understanding as truth.
You mentioned that your training is in music. My career training is in journalism and martial arts, so I approach thoughts, ideas, beliefs from those perspectives.
I learned early in both careers that there is no way for one person to know everything about everything. In martial arts we study many systems with many teachers to grasp the wider understanding of what is martial arts. In journalism we interview many people and read large amounts of reference materials for each story. That is the process I used to investigate the possibility of God’s existence. I began from a position of strong unbelief and slowly moved toward strong belief, which I’ve held to for more than 40 years.
The reason I asked you earlier to respond to my understanding about Thermodynamics is to see what light you might be able to shed on it.
“While the quantity of energy remains the same (First Law), the quality of energy deteriorates gradually over time (Second Law). Entropy increases as usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases. That leads to an increase in disorganization, randomness and chaos.”
i was a christian for some 50 years and been an atheist for about two years and am now profoundly disabled. before college i was thinking to study physics and my study of thermodynamics was a prelude to my study in physics, and you brought up basic concepts. as is attributed to daniel patrick monyhan, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
I agree! Facts are what matter. I’ve been fascinated with Thermodynamics since the early 70s and am always interested in learning more about it. Appreciate your help understanding where I’m wrong with the basics.
“While the quantity of energy remains the same (First Law), the quality of energy deteriorates gradually over time (Second Law). Entropy increases as usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases. That leads to an increase in disorganization, randomness and chaos.”
Thanks!
Mark
you are trying to use a principle that can encompass billions of years to counter a principle that can encompass thousands of years. seriously?
I agree with the argument, but can someone spell out in terms that an old simpleton with a liberal arts education can understand? I keep stumbling over the premise that if the universe were eternal it would have run out of energy and we would not exist. I’d like to be able to explain this to others but I need to get my mind around it …Thanks
An unsaid point within this article is that the idea of an eternally existent universe and the degrading of usable energy create a conceptual absurdity that cannot be grasped since the degradation would be a time related phenomena. But how can you have a time related phenomena arise from an infinite past? Now, you could have a causal agent that brings energy into existence at a point and then that energy begins to degrade over time going forward, but how do you have a universe without energy, usable or otherwise? See the problems that arise when you try to reconcile the two? I think that you need to approach it from the other side of things. Since we know that energy is coexistent with the universe, and we know that the usable amount energy is steadily eroding, we can know that the universe with its energy must have had a beginning and not be eternal.
Thanks Garry
That clarifies it
Regards
you are wrong. energy can not erode. energy can change form, become more diffuse as it fills a larger volume, but it can’t erode.
Julio, please re-read my post. I said “useable energy.” For instance, the universe is on course for complete energy equilibrium (heat death) where the causally effective energy will have been depleted.
you stumbling over something that is wrong. the amount of energy is the same, but the volume that contained it has increased, so the energy has dissipated.