Abusing Thermodynamics: Andrew McIntosh

This is an article at Answers in Genesis that abuses thermodynamics.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/02/12/just-add-energy

Andrew McIntosh is Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds. This guy really should understand this stuff, right? Let us see what he says:
The principles of thermodynamics, even in open systems, do not allow a new functional biological structure to be achieved without new machinery already being in place.
Wow. A Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory seriously said that? It is telling that McIntosh does not present any maths with the article; I would love to see how he works this requirement for "new machinery already being in place" into:

S(i) < S(f)

... where S(i) is the initial energy, S(f) is the final energy.

That is all the Second Law says. Entropy at the end is greater than entropy at the start. There is nothing in there about mechanisms or machinery or anything about how the system gets from the start to the end. Hey, the guy pretty much says this too:
The laws of thermodynamics have one law in particular—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—which says that in a closed system the amount of energy that is no longer available for useful work is increasing.
He has worded it rather differently, but the energy not available for work is related to entropy; entropy goes up, the amount of unavailable energy goes up. I see nothing there about machinery of mechanisms. Odd that.

He does go on to say:
The principle of energy loss for useful work still applies in an open system, since there is no benefit unless there is a machine to use the energy added. Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory by adding loads of sunlight or electricity unless the machinery is available to use that energy to build Boeing 777s. Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines just by adding energy if there is no machinery available to do this. Spontaneously forming of such machinery will not happen.
This is clearly so, but it is not the Second Law. And a Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory must surely know that. This is a guy who is deliberately trying to fool people. He is making up stuff to prove his ideology.

ETA (18/Jun/20): Just discovered McIntosh has a website advertising himself as a speak, and besides saying his position as a retired professor, I could find nothing about entropy or thermodynamics on his site, or indeed much elsewhere from the last ten years. Is it too much to hope he has realised he was wrong?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Southern Baptist Convention Position on Abortion

Evangelical Christians in the US are very strongly anti-abortion. However, it was not always so. As recently as 1970 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) - the largest Protestant denomination in the US - advocated for legalising abortion. A Complete Reversal The landmark law case in the US was Roe v. Wade, in 1973, and abortion has been legal since that time. Jane Roe was the pseudonym of the woman wanting the abortion; Henry Wade the district attorney who stood for the state, prohibiting it. Roe was represented by two attorneys; one was Linda Coffee, a member of the SBC. The Baptist Press interviewed her after the successful conclusion of the trial. The decision of Roe v Wade was generally regarded as a good one by the SBC. To evangelicals of that time abortion was seen as a Catholic issue. You can find a list of abortion-related resolutions made by the SBC from 1971 onwards  here . It is clear that in 1971 they saw abortion - quite reasonably - as undesirable, but it ...
Read more

Hinman's "Argument From Transcendental Signifier"

ETA (23/Jun/20): I have just heard Joe is in hospital. I wish him a speedy recovery. All the best, Joe. This is an argument for God that Joe Hinman has presented several times on various of his sites: http://www.doxa.ws/Ontological/TS2.html https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/05/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/06/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/01/premises-4-7-ts-argumet.html The argument is a seven step syllogism: 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops) 2. OP's summed up in TS 3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. 4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe. 5. minds organize and communicate meaning 6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS 7. Concept of God unites TS with universal m...
Read more

Kent Hovind: Third wife in three years?

Kent Hovind is, perhaps the very worst of the creationists, so it is with some interest I note that he is now on this third wife in three years. For many years he was married to Jo Hovind, who ended up going to prison for a year due to her involvement in tax fraud. Once Kent got released from his rather longer prison sentence, it was not long before Jo filed for divorce (early 2016) - possibly to distance himself from any further gaol sentences. A few months later, 24th Sptember 2016, and he married Mary Tocco - not a full marriage, but a covenant before God. It looks like she got various assurances that Kent's new business was entirely honest before she got married. However, she later cam to realise that that was not really the case, and, again to avoid ending up in prison , she left him in November 2017. http://kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind Less than a year later and he has a new wife, Cindi Lincoln, a former friend of Mary's. It is not clear if they ...
Read more