Ok, here are the first two Laws of Thermodynamics.
The First Law of Thermodynamics:
In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
There is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.
Evolution is not a theory; Special Creation is not a theory.
Both are models for explaining the origin of life on Earth. Neither can be proved scientifically, Evolution would occur far too slow to be observed and the bulk of evolution would have occurred in the distant past, and Special Creation is said to have occurred in the past and is also said to have been brought about by process that are not functioning today. So neither model can be "proven" scientifically. In the end, by scientific evaluation, both could be considered wrong, and a new model formulated. Because neither model can be "proven" this means that neither model can be "disproved". Because of this status (being neither able to prove nor disprove either model) both should be considered outside the realm of "science"
The basic postulate of Evolution is a "law" of increasing organization, which introduces new systems into higher systems; The Principle of Naturalistic Innovation and Integration would be a suitable name.
The basic postulate of Special Creation is that in the beginning God formed a complete and perfect, as well as purposeful, primeval world. God then set in place laws and principles of conservation. The Principle of Naturalistic Conservation and Disintegration would be a suitable name.
All scientists agree that the universe is running down (entropy). This is accepted as a universal fact in The Second Law of Thermodynamics. All observed scientific evidence agrees with and upholds this law. The evolution model postulates an increase in useable energy, information, and complexity of living organisms. The Special Creation model postulates a running down of the universe (Any change in an originally perfect environment must be in the direction of imperfection). (entropy) By applying the information observed by science, it can be seen that the Special Creation model predicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, whilst the Evolution model proposes a contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that energy becomes unavailable for use, disorder increases and information becomes garbled. Evolution requires that energy be gained, order increases and information added. Clearly, this is a contradiction to the current Evolutionary model. A correct model would not contradict one of the basic laws of nature. (there are two basic laws of nature, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics) In fact, a correct model SHOULD predict the basic laws of nature. These two laws can also be called The Law of Conservation and The Law of Disintegration. If a current model does not predict the two basic laws by which the entire universe is governed, then how can it predict all other laws. A CONCLUSION BASED ON INCORRECT PREMISES IS INCORRECT. If a model contradicts widely accepted laws of science, then the model either has to be edited to comply with the scientific data, or the model has to be trashed. The thing with these two models, is not that we find seperate evidence for each model, both models use the same evidence, but, both models propose differing First Causes. For Creationists the First Cause is a surpreme being creating life on Earth. For Evolutionists, the First Cause is accidental random processes leading to the rise of life on Earth. NEITHER MODEL CAN BE CALLED SCIENCE, THE MODELS ARE JUST WAYS OF EXPLAINING INFORMATION GATHERED BY SCIENCE. IF NEITHER ARE SCIENCE, NEITHER CAN BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN BY SCIENCE. IF NEITHER CAN BE PROVEN/DISPROVEN, THEN NEITHER SHOULD BE STATED AS HAVING BEEN PROVEN BY SCIENCE AND NEITHER ARE LEGITIMATE THEORIES OR EVEN HYPOTHESIS. Science doesn't prove/disprove either argument, science merely supplies the information on which the models are based. So in the end, it comes down to faith. Thats right, I just said that both models require FAITH. Special Creation requires faith in the Creator Being; Evolution requires faith in Father Time. A postulate of Evolution is that, given enough time, the impossible becomes the possible, the possible becomes the probable, and then the probable becomes certain. So if evolutionist say that "given enough time, anything is possible." then that pronounces time to be what the evolutionist puts his faith in.
I'm sure that you are all familiar with Louis Pasture's law regarding abiogenesis (spontaneous generation). This law basically states that non-life cannot give rise to life. The way that the Evolutionary model proposes life arose on Earth, is that in some unknown conditions, in some unknow period of time in the distant past, life accidentally arose from non-living chemicals. The Special Creation model proposes that a divine creator being, through omnipotence and omniscience, created life Ex Nihilo (out of nothing) and Fiat (by divine decree). Stanly Miller carried out an experiment with synthesizing simple amino acids in the laboratry. Full credit to him, he managed to synthesize some amino acids in an environment designed to "simulate" conditions of primeaval Earth. However, as soon as the amino acids were synthesized, Miller trapped them so as to save them from the own atmosphere that had created them. (if the amino acids had not been trapped and isolated they would have been destroyed fairly quickly.) Sidney Fox experimented with linking amino acids, his experiments produced "blobs" of molecules that had neither order nor utility. Furthermore, these molecules would not have survived in the proposed conditions of primeaval Earth. Whilst synthesizing life in a test tube would be a remarkable acomplishment, and whoever manages to do it is truly amazing, it whould not prove that life could develop on its own through random processes. Rather, it would show that intelligence was needed to make life. (If someone did manage to synthesize life in a test tube, no-one would dare say that the life arose spontaneously in that test tube, this would be a huge insult to the synthesizer.) Like I have previously stated, neither Evolution nor Special creation can be proven scientifically. Therefore, neither are legitimate as sciences, evidence is merely applied to the model, if the results of an experiment are predicted in the model, then the evidence is supportive of the model. Not once, has there been a documented case of biological evolution occuring, (its the same for Special creation, no one was there to witnes it) no one has ever seen it happening, all that can be done is interperet the model through the evidence. This is what science should and must do, science should not percieve the evidence through the model, science should percieve the model through the evidence. How can a model that doesn't even predict the most fundamental laws of nature be trusted to predict other laws? IT CAN'T.
From the evidence that we see, either one happened or the other happened. They cannot both have happened. The Special Creation model presupposes that there is a supreme intelligent being that is controlling biological process, both now and in the past when the surpreme being created life. The Evolution model presupposes that outside of the physical universe there is nothing, everything is the result of long ages of biological evolution with no outside intervention. If there is a surpreme being, would not that being be able (because it posesses omnipotence) control the physical universe, and therefore have control of biological processes. Evolution would require that there be an amount of omnipotent matter capable of giving rise to all that we see around us, and therefore controlling biological evolution. Both models require a certain amount of faith.
I think I have covered everything that I desired to at the moment. The tread can now be started if you please. Thanks, Own3D.
™ Version 4.2