Learn Why Evolution Is Impossible

The Discovery Institute has dredged up a really ancient clunker this time. At their creationist blog we found Physicist Eric Hedin: The Challenge from Thermodynamics to an Unguided Origin of Life. The thing has no author’s by-line.

You know who Eric Hedin is. Years ago he was at the center of a storm when it was revealed that he was introducing Oogity Boogity into his course on the “Boundaries of Science” at Ball State University. We called it the Ball State Imbroglio. Now he’s found a haven at the Discovery Institute. If you need more background, take a look at Eric Hedin Leaves Ball State, Goes to Biola.

Anyway, Hedin is featured in the Discoveroids’ new post. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

On a new ID the Future episode [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], host Eric Anderson sits down with Canceled Science [Link omitted!] author and physicist Eric Hedin to discuss Hedin’s new book and, in particular, the book’s take on the origin-of-life problem. Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!]

Sounds exciting! What does Hedin have to say about the origin-of-life problem? We’re told:

Hedin says the second law of thermodynamics poses a serious problem for the idea of a mindless origin of the first single-celled organism from prebiotic materials.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Creationists have been babbling about the second law of thermodynamics for decades! We started posting about it in the first year of this humble blog — see Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Also, there are several entries about it at the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims. For example, see The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution.

Okay, back to the Discoveroids. They tell us:

Such an event [origin of life, presumably] would have involved a breathtaking increase in new information [Gasp!], and physics tells us pretty clearly that mindless nature degrades information; it doesn’t create it.

Let’s return to Talk Origins for that one — see The second law of thermodynamics, and the trend to disorder, is universal. Okay, what else do the Discoveroids have about Hedin? Their brief post ends with this:

Are there workarounds? Listen as he explains why he’s not optimistic. And grab a copy of his new book [Link omitted!] to get his extended take.

Sure. Go ahead and get a copy of Hedin’s book. You might come away from it actually believing that like everything else, the Discoveroids are also trending toward disorder.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

9 responses to “Learn Why Evolution Is Impossible

  1. Dave Luckett

    I would be the last person on Earth to explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the nature of information. I can only understand either concept in the crudest layman’s terms, something like, (for the former) “In any closed system, the number of states of the elements of the system, and the differentials in energy states between them decreases over time. This situation is called increasing entropy”. “Information” is roughly defined as “that which decreases uncertainty”.

    There is no reason why an open system could not increase the differentials in energy states among its elements, or increase information within them.

    I can only conclude that creationists, even those with advanced degrees, who make play with either the Second Law or with what they call “Information”, are even more ignorant of the physics and mathematics than I. And brother, that is saying something.

  2. If the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is incompatible with the origin of life by natural means, that means that the laws of nature are not fine tuned for life.
    One can only wonder why God chose to design nature with this flaw, but, of course, we cannot understand God’s ways.

  3. My question is always: “Tell me specifically which chemical reaction violates the 2nd law.”

  4. Give an example where design can
    work past a violation of the 2nd law..
    Indeed, doesn’t design entail taking account of the laws of nature.

  5. docbill1351

    Hedin is on the creationist glide path to obscurity. It starts with an interest in science poisoned by religion and goes downhill from there. Lisle is a good example. Got into grad school, did cool stuff, got a PhD (and I will grant these idiots a kudo for jumping through all the hoops of taking classes, doing research, writing it up, dealing with admin and getting Piled Higher and Deeper. Well done, brother!) But, then they throw it all away by working and getting fired from creationist scam outfits, finally ending up hosting a GoDaddy blog and hawking CD’s. Biola is like a whistle stop to oblivion. A Willoughby, so to speak, an imaginary stop on a train ride to nowhere courtesy of … the Twilight Zone.

  6. Apparently Discovery Institute physicists understand neither biology nor physics.

  7. Doesn’t biochemistry make use of thermodynamics in understanding chemical reactions?

  8. TomS: yes, so you can add biochemistry (and chemistry in general) to the things some DI physicists don’t understand.

  9. docbill1351

    Three Minute Physics

    Life is a cartoon .