Ankit Mittal (13110012)
Concept Builder 21

The article “ Journal Censors 'Second Law' Paper Refuting Evolution “ by Brian Thomas puts forward a very debatable discussion whether the second law of Thermodynamics is universally accepted/ applicable or not. In one form, second law of Thermodynamics can be stated as the nature's universal tendency to lose orderliness over time. But the question here is, is it true in each and every process happening around or happened in the past? The answer given by the writer of the article was that the second law doesn’t hold true universally. He justified his testimony with two very basic but fundamental examples.
The first one is formation of DNA (in simpler words, evolving of life from non-life), which is highly organized structure, and yet it exists, which contradicts the fact that the nature tends to be in less orderly state always. The second example is of building a computer (or any complicated machine, which is highly organized and yet doesn’t lose …show more content…
This argument was proved wrong/ fallacious by Sewell in his newspaper. The counter argument given was “the fact that order is disappearing in the next room does not make it any easier for computers to appear in our room”. But I personally disagree with Sewell at this argument. There can be such an arrangement in universe, such that when orderliness increases at one place (for e.g. DNA formation or setting the computer), at the same time, the compensation is going at some other place with some extra entropy increment. Hence, the total entropy of the universe gets increased. And it is the universal fact that the entropy of the universe keep on increasing every moment, which justifies the universal nature of the second law of