| On his website, a certain Mr. X has a standing offer | | | | Mr. X requires an empirical prove. In my Oxford |
| of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical | | | | Dictionary, "empirical" is defined as: based on |
| evidence (scientific proof) for Evolution. | | | | observation, experience, or experiment, not on |
| To prove Evolution, there are three main subjects to | | | | theory. |
| consider, being Knowledge, Science and Belief. | | | | As to observation, we have a very interesting |
| Knowledge is about facts. Science is about explaining | | | | physical law, called the Second Law of |
| and working with facts. Belief is about non-facts. | | | | Thermodynamics. The interesting thing is this context |
| Atheist and religious fanatics, being people you can't | | | | is, that this is a purely observational law. This means |
| discuss common sense with, combine these three | | | | that it is not based on any physical principle, but on |
| subjects in one, which they call "Truth". Not A truth, | | | | observations only. Hence If I can prove Evolution on |
| but THE indisputable Truth. If Mr. X would belong to | | | | the basis of the Second Law, Mr. X has to accept it |
| this category, he might want to pay me for deleting | | | | as valid. |
| this article, something I surely would consider. | | | | The Second law has great significance for the |
| Knowledge | | | | mechanisms behind Evolution. Evolution is |
| We can be rather short about this one, unless | | | | characterized by an almost infinite number of random |
| someone can tell us what energy, matter and time is. | | | | events, bringing about unpredictable results over |
| Especially time is a great mystery, but it stands | | | | time, the more unpredictable, the longer the time of |
| central in debates about Evolution versus Creation. | | | | a certain process of consideration is. It is here where |
| How long time ago happened what, how much time | | | | the Second Law comes in, based on our |
| did what development take, etc? Matter is a great | | | | observations that random events indeed do occur. |
| mystery also, no scientist ever saw an electron as | | | | Random events relate to disorder, the very subject |
| yet, just traces it leaves behind in various pieces of | | | | of the Second Law in terms of entropy. The |
| equipment. We only know the mass and electrical | | | | creationists say that the Second Law predicts that |
| charge of an electron, but nothing about its internal | | | | everything develops to greater states of disorder (= |
| structure. Yet, electrons are the main agents in the | | | | higher entropy), which then erroneously is seen as to |
| forming of chemical bonds, matter and life as we | | | | be in conflict with the high order we observe in the |
| know it. Nobody ever "saw" energy either. We only | | | | structure of the galaxies, planetary systems and the |
| know forms of energy, matter being one of them | | | | extremely high organized organisms of life, that thus |
| (Einstein). We can observe those various forms, but | | | | must be created by God. This point of view thus |
| we don't know what the H2O of energy is. In fact, | | | | rejects the Second Law, as it goes against God's |
| when it comes to the basic components of Creation | | | | creative order. |
| and Evolution, we know absolutely NOTHING. | | | | A correct understanding of entropy lets one see that |
| Science | | | | organized matter instead causes an increase of |
| Scientific facts are observed behaviors of matter and | | | | entropy. For example, the Sun (or any star) was |
| energy as functions of time, which can be described | | | | formed by gravity from a chaotic interstellar cloud of |
| in formulas that we can work with. These "facts" | | | | dust, into a more organized concentrated body, that |
| however can change, some even become invalid as | | | | converts matter into heat energy by nuclear |
| new discoveries are made and new "facts" emerge. | | | | processes. This energy disperses in space far more |
| The only "complete" science is that of mathematics. | | | | chaotically than the mass of the original cloud did and |
| What is known of it since thousands of years will | | | | thus the entropy (disorder) has increased. Likewise, |
| never change, never become invalid. Only more | | | | the chemical energy in food is in the body converted |
| sophisticated methods can be developed, but for the | | | | to heat, that is given of to the environment, thus |
| rest, mathematics are stable as a rock. | | | | spreading in a more chaotic manner, causing increase |
| Belief | | | | of entropy. There is order in chaos! |
| When knowledge and science fail, Belief is left to | | | | Evolution leads to more organized forms of matter |
| explain whatever. It is therefore very hard to prove | | | | and so doing increases the total entropy of the |
| any Belief, or to deny it, because it is not based on | | | | universe and is thus a direct consequence of the |
| knowledge and/or science. Nevertheless, we have | | | | Second Law. The amazing complexity of these |
| also common sense, which allows us to judge the | | | | structures is due to the incredibly long time over |
| probability of something to be true. This is the field | | | | which they were formed - billions of years of random |
| of philosophy, which is considered a science, but it is | | | | events, finally resulting into a perfect system, perfect |
| not an exact one and therefore it can be categorized | | | | by necessity, in order to exist as the only sustainable |
| under Beliefs. Religion is a special category within | | | | solution - anything else would not be possible to last |
| Belief, because it usually is dogmatic. In religions | | | | over (long) time. There is no "intelligent" design behind |
| indisputable postulates are made to be "facts" and | | | | these structures, none that could be proven, nor |
| "truths", which rules out "common sense". Hence, it is | | | | would be required to explain them. |
| rather useless to want to prove whether God exists | | | | Hence, already at this point I can say to have proven |
| or not. Those who try to do that, are no longer | | | | Evolution on basis of the Second Law |
| dealing with religion, but with science. If God ever | | | | Mr. X's third event to prove: |
| would become a scientific fact, we can close all holy | | | | 3. Matter created life by itself. |
| books and churches, fire all priests and instead ask a | | | | The prove of this is largely the same as of event 2, |
| computer what God's will is, by letting it make | | | | just the scene is a different one. Again, consider the |
| "divine" calculations. If it then answers with "syntax | | | | time factor. Hundreds of millions of years of an |
| error", the computer proves that God does not exist | | | | almost infinite number of random events, chemical |
| - a scientific fact. | | | | experiments, finally resulting in something that was |
| However, there are false gods and false beliefs, | | | | sustainable, again later developing into something that |
| which can be discovered by "common sense". | | | | could reproduce itself - life. This reproduction requires |
| Common sense must be based on a logic that | | | | chemical energy (food) to be converted to ambient |
| everybody can agree with and this is not always the | | | | heat, increasing entropy, which was the driving factor |
| case, so even "common sense" is not always | | | | behind the probability for it to occur - the Second |
| "convincing". | | | | Law. Evolutional development is about 100 million |
| This brings us on Mr. X's first event to prove, without | | | | errors against one success, finally resulting into |
| the need of a God Creator: | | | | something that is without errors, "supreme" |
| 1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by | | | | perfection. Hence, the extreme complexity and |
| themselves. | | | | perfection of natural systems, including life, talks in |
| Because we don't know what energy, matter and | | | | favor of Evolution, rather than against it. Anything |
| time is, there can be no empirical prove on the origin | | | | less perfect could not survive over time. Evolution |
| of them, but theories only. What we can say about | | | | can do "miracles", by virtue of the Second Law. |
| time though is, that nothing can be infinitely old, | | | | Mr. X's fourth event to prove: |
| because whatever would be (God), cannot become a | | | | 4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves. |
| second older than it is already - you can't add | | | | This statement suggests that there could be life |
| anything to infinity. From this follows that time does | | | | forms not learning this. That would be in conflict with |
| not flow from the present into the future, but the | | | | the definition of life, being the ability to reproduce |
| other way around, from the present into the past | | | | itself. Something that cannot reproduce itself, is not |
| and the future does not exist. This means that only | | | | life. |
| the present moment exists and indeed, tomorrow | | | | Mr. X's fifth event to prove: |
| never comes, it is always today and always right | | | | 5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life |
| now. The present moment then becomes ageless | | | | forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians |
| and so both Creation and God are ageless. In that | | | | changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or |
| case there is no origin in time, but in Evolution only, | | | | mammals). |
| changing the conditions of the present moment. This | | | | In view of said above, there is nothing peculiar for |
| neither includes nor excludes a God Creator, just the | | | | life to have spread over the planet, by which major |
| perception of God would become a fundamentally | | | | changes between the various life forms occurred. |
| different one from the Abrahamic view of the Bible. | | | | Naturally, migrating to new environments with |
| We are thus totally confined to the field of belief and | | | | different conditions for survival, needed the migrating |
| speculation here and therefore I deem this point to | | | | life forms to adapt to that. This just follows from |
| be invalid in respect to proving Evolution. | | | | common sense. An empirical prove of this event lies |
| Mr. X's second event to prove: | | | | alone in the observations of paleontology, fossil |
| 2. Planets and stars formed from space dust. | | | | findings of previous life forms. |