http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2106
God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective
[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P.’s staff scientist. He holds M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
Texas at Arlington and Auburn University, respectively, with emphases in
Thermal Science and Navigation and Control of Biological Systems.]
“[T]he principles of thermodynamics have been in existence since the
creation
of the universe” (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 2, emp. added). So states a
prominent textbook used in schools of engineering across America.
Indeed, these principles prove themselves to be absolutely critical in
today’s engineering applications. Much of the engineering technology
available today is based on the foundational truths embodied in the Laws
of Thermodynamics. As the writers of one engineering thermodynamics
textbook stated: “Energy is a fundamental concept of thermodynamics and
one of the most significant aspects of engineering analysis” (Moran and
Shapiro, 2000, p. 35). Do these laws have application to the
creation/evolution debate as creationists suggest? What do they actually
say and mean? How are they applied today in the scientific world? Let
us explore these questions.
The word “thermodynamics” originally was used in a publication by Lord
Kelvin (formerly William Thomson), the man often called the Father of
Thermodynamics because of his articulation of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics in 1849 (Cengel and Boles, p. 2). The term comes from two
Greek words:
therme, meaning “heat,” and
dunamis, meaning “force” or “power” (
American Heritage...,
2000, pp. 558,1795). Thermodynamics can be summarized essentially as
the science of energy, including heat, work (defined as the energy
required to move a force a certain distance), potential energy, internal
energy, and kinetic energy. The basic principles and laws of
thermodynamics are understood thoroughly today by the scientific
community. Thus, the majority of the work with the principles of
thermodynamics is done by engineers who simply utilize the already
understood principles in their designs. A thorough understanding of the
principles of thermodynamics which govern our Universe can help an
engineer to learn effectively to control the impact of heat in his/her
designs.
THE FIRST AND SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
Though there are many important thermodynamic principles that govern
the behavior of energy, perhaps the most critical principles of
significance in the creation/evolution controversy are the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics. What are these laws that not only are
vital to the work of an engineer, but central to this debate?
The First Law
The First Law of Thermodynamics was formulated originally by Robert
Mayer (1814-1878). He stated: “I therefore hope that I may reckon on the
reader’s assent when I lay down as an axiomatic truth that, just as in
the case of matter, so also in the case of force [the term used at that
time for energy—JM], only a transformation but
never a creation takes place” (as quoted in King, 1962, p. 5). That is,
given a certain amount of energy in a closed system, that energy will
remain constant, though it will change form (see Figure 1). As
evolutionist Willard Young says in defining the First Law, “Energy can
be neither created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one
form to another” (1985, p. 8).
 |
Figure 1
|
This principle, also known as the “conservation of energy principle”
(Cengel and Boles, p. 2), can be demonstrated by the burning of a piece
of wood. When the wood is burned, it is transformed into a different
state. The original amount of energy present before the burning is still
present. However, much of that energy was transformed into a different
state, namely, heat. No energy disappeared from the Universe, and no
energy was brought into the Universe through burning the wood.
Concerning the First Law, Young further explains that
the principle of the conservation of energy is considered to be the single most important and fundamental ‘law of nature’ presently known to science, and is one of the most firmly established.
Endless studies and experiments have confirmed its validity over and
over again under a multitude of different conditions (p. 165, emp.
added).
This principle is known to be a
fact about nature—without exception.
The Second Law
In the nineteenth century, Lord Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius (1822-1888)
separately made findings that became known as the Second Law of
Thermodynamics (Suplee, 2000, p. 156). The Second Law builds on the
first, stating that though there is a constant amount of energy in a
given system that is merely transforming into different states, that
energy is becoming
less usable. Extending our wood
burning illustration above, after the wood is burned, the total amount
of energy is still the same, but transformed into other energy states.
Those energy states (e.g., ash and dissipated heat to the environment)
are less retrievable and less accessible (see Figure 2).
 |
Figure 2
|
This process is irreversible. The implication, to be discussed below,
is that the Universe is running out of usable energy. Lord Kelvin stated
that energy is “irrevocably lost to man and therefore ‘wasted,’ though
not annihilated” (as quoted in Thompson, 1910, p. 288). This principle
is known as entropy. Simply put, entropy states that nature is tending
towards disorder and chaos. Will the paint job on your house maintain
its fresh appearance over time? Will your son’s room actually become
cleaner on its own, or will it tend toward disorder? Even without your
son’s assistance, dust and decay take their toll. Although work can slow
the entropy, it cannot stop it. Renowned evolutionary science writer
Isaac Asimov explained:
Another way of stating the Second Law then is “The universe is
constantly getting more disorderly!” Viewed that way we can see the
Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but
left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily.
Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to
maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working
order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is
nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out,
all by itself—and that is what the Second Law is all about (1970, p.
6).
Entropy is simply a fact of nature. Entropy can be minimized in this
Universe, but it cannot be eradicated. That is where engineers come in.
We must figure out ways of minimizing energy loss and maximizing useful
energy before it is forever lost. Thousands of engineering jobs are
dedicated to addressing this fundamental fact of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. Your energy bill is affected directly by it. If the
Second Law was not fixed, engineers could not develop the technology
necessary to maximize usable energy, thereby lowering your energy costs.
This concept is analyzed and quantified by engineers using what
thermodynamics textbooks call “efficiencies.” Efficiencies reduce to
“energy out” (desired output) divided by “energy in” (required input)
(Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 249). For instance, a turbine is the “device
that drives an electric generator” in steam, gas, or hydroelectric
power plants (p. 188). By taking the actual work done by the turbine and
dividing it by the work required to operate the turbine, an engineer
can calculate the turbine’s efficiency. Discovering or designing ways to
maximize that ratio can be lucrative business for an engineer.
Another type of efficiency is called “isentropic efficiency.” For a
turbine, isentropic efficiency is essentially the ratio of the amount of
work that is done by the turbine to the amount of work that could be
done by the turbine if it were “isentropic,” or without entropy. Again,
the closer an engineer can approach 100% efficiency, the better.
However, engineers know they cannot reach 100% efficiency because of the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. Energy loss is inevitable. As the
engineering textbook
Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach
states: “Well-designed, large turbines have isentropic efficiencies
above 90 percent. For small turbines, however, it may drop even below
70%” (Cengel and Boles, p. 341).
Some engineers devote their entire careers to minimizing entropy in the
generation of power from energy. All this effort is based on the
principles established by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These
principles are established as fact in the scientific community. The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “law” as “a statement describing a relationship observed to be
invariable
between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified
conditions are met” (2000, p. 993, emp. added). Since laws are
invariable, i.e., unchanging and constant, they have no exceptions.
Otherwise, they would not be classified as laws. Tracy Walters, a
mechanical engineer working in thermal engineering, observed:
It has been my experience that many people do not appreciate how
uncompromising the Laws of Thermodynamics actually are. It is felt,
perhaps, that the Laws are merely general tendencies or possibly only
theoretical considerations. In reality, though, the Laws of
Thermodynamics are hard as nails, and...the more one works with these Laws, the deeper respect one gains for them (1986, 9[2]:8, emp. added).
Evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin stated that “the Entropy Law will preside as
the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein
said that it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington
referred to it as the ‘supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe’”
(1980, p. 6). God designed it. Creationists believe it. Engineers use
it. Evolutionists, as will be shown, cannot harmonize it with their
theory.
ENGINEERING EXAMPLES EXHIBITING THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES
Some evolutionists argue that creationists take the Laws out of context
when applying them to the creation/evolution debate. Mark Isaak, the
editor of the
Index to Creationist Claims, for instance,
alleges that creationists “misinterpret” the Second Law of
Thermodynamics in their application of the law to the creation/evolution
controversy (Isaak, 2003). So what
is the proper
context for the Laws of Thermodynamics? Do these principles apply to the
debate or not? Are creationists “misinterpreting” the laws?
A host of examples could, of course, demonstrate how mechanical
engineers use the Laws of Thermodynamics in design today. Without these
laws being fixed and well-understood by the scientific community, such
designs would be impossible. As explained earlier, the vast majority of
the work engineers do with the laws today is in their
application
to nature, rather than the study of the laws themselves. The laws
already are thoroughly understood. To determine if creationists are
“misinterpreting” the Laws of Thermodynamics or inaccurately applying
them to the creation/evolution debate, consider three engineering
examples that demonstrate the Laws in action.
Example #1.
Perhaps one of the most celebrated—and appreciated—engineering designs
of the 20th century pertaining to thermodynamics is the air-conditioning
system. Briefly explained, an air-conditioning unit is a machine that
was designed to acquire a large quantity of air from a system (e.g., a
home or the interior of a car), remove heat from that air, and then
release the cooled air back into the system, while disposing of the heat
into a “heat sink” (e.g., the outdoors). Simply stated, this process
occurs through what many engineers call a vapor-compression
refrigeration cycle (Moran and Shapiro, 2000, p. 517)—a cycle heavily
rooted in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In this cycle, a fluid
(called a “refrigerant”) in “super-heated” vapor form flows through a
pipe and into a compressor where it is compressed into a hotter gas with
a higher pressure. From the compressor, the gas moves into the next
phase of the cycle, composed of a set of coils (a condenser). As the
refrigerant flows through the condenser, some of the heat is removed,
and the refrigerant condenses into a liquid. Moving through an expansion
valve, the refrigerant is “throttled” into a colder, lower-pressure
mixture of liquid and vapor.
One principle of thermodynamics, as noted originally in 1824 by the
French physicist Sadi Carnot (Suplee, 2000, p. 156), indicates that in a
system, heat will move from higher temperature sources to lower
temperature sources until an equilibrium temperature is reached
(Incropera and DeWitt, 2002, p. 2). This principle is directly utilized
in the final step of the cycle. In this step, the low temperature
refrigerant exiting the expansion valve moves through a set of coils
called the evaporator that absorbs heat from the refrigerated area. At
this point, the refrigerant has absorbed enough heat to return to its
initial vapor state, and is ready to repeat the cycle.
In what way did the thermodynamic laws come into play in this process?
One of the major responsibilities of the engineer is to take the
principles stated by the laws of science and understand them enough to
be able to apply them in new designs. In order to apply scientific laws,
engineers must formulate ways to quantify the concepts articulated by
those laws. In the case of the above example, engineers must take the
principles stated in the Laws of Thermodynamics in particular and
quantify them. To apply the First Law of Thermodynamics to design,
engineers must first quantify the energy that is or will be present in a
system (work, potential energy, kinetic energy, heat, internal energy,
etc.). As the First Law states, the amount of energy present in the
system remains constant during a closed system process—a system that
“consists of a fixed amount of mass, and no mass can cross its boundary”
(Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 9). The engineer must calculate the amount
of energy utilized within a system
before a process and set it equal to the amount of energy present in the system
after
the process. The energy may change forms (i.e., work is partially
transformed into heat), but the total amount of energy in the system
remains constant.
Considering the above example again, engineers would quantify the
energy that is being inserted into the system (such as the electrical
energy required to run the compressor) and the energy that results from
the processes in the system (such as the heat released into the “heat
sink”). The energy would then be equalized, with a primary concern being
to achieve the optimum
usable energy as an output,
understanding that there will be a certain amount of wasted energy due
to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see Figure 3). The more usable
energy achieved in the system processes, the more financially desirable
the process, and the less energy wasted.
 |
Figure 3
|
In order to facilitate this endeavor, a quantification of the
principles inherent in the Second Law of Thermodynamics is essential. As
noted earlier, efficiencies are essentially a measure of the usable
energy achieved during a process. Achieving optimum energy efficiencies
in the design of different machines helps to reduce the inevitable
entropy implied by the Second Law.
Again, in the above example, in order to accomplish the refrigeration
cycle, a compressor is used. To run the compressor, work (energy) must
be used to compress the refrigerant to the right pressure to go through
the condenser. Engineers must design these compressors to yield optimum
efficiency, taking the Second Law into account, since the
refrigeration/air conditioning process is not an isentropic one (i.e., a
process with no entropy). The amount of energy required to operate the
compressor to pressurize the refrigerant is
more than
the heat transfer that will occur from the hot room to the hotter
outdoors due to the presence of the Second Law. In other words, usable
energy is lost along the way (see Figure 4). This unalterable principle,
which governs and permeates all of nature, will be shown to contradict
the theory of evolution. Available energy is gradually being consumed.
Engineers can slow the process, making the loss as efficient as
possible, and maximizing energy usage. However, energy loss cannot be
stopped due to the existence of the exceptionless Second Law of
Thermodynamics.
 |
Figure 4
|
Example #2. A second thermodynamic
engineering example is seen in much of today’s electronic equipment. For
example, a computer has many microchips (see Figure 5). Due to an
understanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics, when work is done
within a computer by a microchip, an extremely high amount of heat is
released to its surroundings. As noted earlier, the Laws stipulate that
the amount of energy that goes into a process must equal the amount of
energy that results after the process. As computers get more powerful,
the heat energy output becomes a more serious problem, especially
considering that the computer components are moving closer to each other
as computers become more compact. The intense heat that radiates from
chips must be transferred away from the computer, or melting will occur
among the system components. Faced with this significant problem,
engineers are called upon for solutions. How can we continue to decrease
the size of computers, increase their power, and still have the ability
to transfer enough heat out of them to preserve their components? By
adjusting the amount of power input and the rate at which heat is
released in the First Law equation, engineers can ensure that the system
will not be overloaded with heat.
 |
Figure 5
|
Example #3. A third example of how engineers
use thermodynamic principles in design is demonstrated by the
examination of a vapor power plant that produces electrical power (see
Figure 6). Similar to the air conditioning system, the vapor power plant
cycle also often is composed of four components. According to Moran and
Shapiro, in this cycle liquid water is passed through a boiler which
has a heat input. The water then changes phase to a vapor and enters a
turbine, where it expands and develops a work output from the turbine
(electrical power). The temperature of the vapor drops in the turbine
and then goes through a condenser where heat is passed from the vapor
into a “cold reservoir.” Some of the vapor condenses to a liquid phase.
The water then passes into a pump (compressor) where the water is
returned to its initial state before repeating the cycle (2000, p. 229).
Again, engineers recognize the limitations imposed by the Second Law,
and must minimize entropy as much as possible when designing the turbine
and pump (recognizing entropy cannot be eliminated). The more efficient
the cycle components are designed, the more power the world gets and
the less wasted energy there will be.
 |
Figure 6
|
To recap, the engineering community utilizes the simple concepts
inherent in the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics—laws which
govern nature in a very straightforward manner. The First Law: Energy in
any closed system is constant. The amount of energy in a system before a
process must equal the amount of energy that is in the system after the
process (though it will change form). The Second Law: The energy in a
given system is becoming less usable. Some of the usable energy
inevitably will be lost, no matter what measures are taken. It would be
beneficial if entropy were zero for an automobile’s fuel system. We
could buy one tank of gas and simply reuse all of its energy
indefinitely! The fuel would not transform into wasted, less usable
forms (heat, exhaust, etc.).
IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAWS
When understood properly, the Laws of Thermodynamics apply directly to
the creation/evolution controversy in precisely the same way they apply
in the above examples to the work of engineers. In fact, these
foundational truths utilized daily by the engineering world, have
eternally significant, spiritual implications in that they prove that
God exists. How so?
If there is no God, the existence of the Universe must be explained
without Him. The Big Bang theory claims that all matter in the Universe
initially was condensed in a sphere the size of a period at the end of
this sentence (see Thompson, et al., 2003, 23[5]:32-34,36-47). However,
this theory offers no explanation for the origin of that sphere. The
only logical possibilities for its existence are that it popped into
existence out of nothing (spontaneous generation), it always existed, or
it was created (see Figure 7).
 |
Figure 7
|
Possibility 1: Spontaneous Generation of the Universe
Consider the entire physical Universe as a system consisting of all
mass/matter/energy that exists in the Universe. Without a God, this
Universe would have to be a
closed system. Since our
system encompasses the entire Universe, there is no more mass that can
cross the system’s boundary, which necessitates our system being closed—
without the existence of God. If mass, matter, and energy could enter and/or exit the system, the system would be an
open system—which is the contention of a creationist. However, without a God, the entire physical Universe as a system logically would
have to be a
closed system. Atheists must so believe in order to explain the Universe without God.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, the
amount of energy present in that system is constant, though it
transforms into other forms of energy, as in the case of the above
compressor. So, if the Universe as a whole initially contained no
mass/matter/energy (energy input is equal to zero), and then it
spontaneously generated all of the mass/matter/energy in the Universe
(energy output is unequal to zero), the First Law would be violated.
Applying the earlier example of the compressor, this circumstance would
be equivalent to saying that the sum total heat loss and compressor work
is greater than the electrical input—which is impossible. Without
intervention from an outside force, the amount of mass/matter/energy in
the Universe would have remained constant (unchanged) at zero. As was
mentioned earlier, there are
no exceptions to laws, or
else they would not be laws. The First Law of Thermodynamics has no
known exceptions. As previously explained, the Law is accepted as fact
by all scientists in general and utilized by engineers in particular.
Therefore, the Universe, composed of all mass/matter/energy, could not
have spontaneously generated (popped into existence on its own) without
violating the exceptionless and highly respected First Law of
Thermodynamics. The energy level of the Universe would not have been
constant. Spontaneous generation would be the equivalent of a zero
energy input to a system and a non-zero output (see Figure 8). The
Universe could not have come into existence without the presence and
intervention of a Force outside of the closed system of the entire
physical Universe. The Universe therefore must be an
open system that was created by a non-physical force (not composed of mass/matter/energy)
outside
of the physical boundary of this Universe (above nature, or
supernatural) with the capability of bringing it into existence out of
nothing.
That Force can be none other than the supernatural God of the Bible. Scientifically speaking, the Universe could not and did not spontaneously generate.
 |
Figure 8
|
Unfortunately, though this truth is so glaringly obvious, there has
been a recent surge of sentiment in the impossible notion that this
Universe could have created itself—that something could come from
nothing. British evolutionist Anthony Kenny (1980), physics professor
from City University in New York, Edward Tryon (1984), and physicists
Alan Guth from MIT and Paul Steinhardt of
Princeton (1984) are just a few who are open proponents of this notion.
However, the truth still stands. Until the First Law of Thermodynamics
ceases to be a fundamental law explaining this Universe, the spontaneous
generation of this Universe from nothing is impossible.
Possibility 2: Eternal Existence of the Universe
Again, considering the entire Universe as a system necessitates that it
be a closed system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that though
energy in a closed system is constant (First Law of Thermodynamics),
that energy is transforming into less usable forms of energy (i.e., the
Universe is “running down”). This process is irreversible. There is a
finite amount of usable energy in the Universe (which explains the
widespread interest in conserving energy). That usable energy is
depleting according to the Second Law, as illustrated by the less usable
heat output in the examples cited earlier. Engineers strive to slow
this inevitable depletion of energy, but it cannot be stopped. If the
Universe has always existed (i.e., it is eternal), but there is a finite
amount of usable energy, then all usable energy already should be
expended (see Figure 9). Yet, usable energy still exists. So, the
Universe cannot have existed forever. It had to have a beginning. The
eternality of matter would be the equivalent of a system with an energy
input and 100% usable energy output (see Figure 10).
 |
Figure 9
|
 |
Figure 10
|
No wonder the evolutionists, themselves, sometimes concede this truth. In his book,
Until the Sun Dies, renowned evolutionary astronomer Robert Jastrow stated:
The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the
world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its
birth, but the impact is the same: modern science denies an eternal existence of the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, p. 30, emp. added).
In his book,
God and the Astronomers, Dr. Jastrow reiterated
this truth: “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies,
the laws of thermodynamics, the life story of the stars—pointed to one
conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning” (p. 111).
Possibility 3: The Inevitable Implication
To repeat, there are only three possible explanations for the existence
of matter in the Universe. Either it spontaneously generated, it is
eternal, or it was created. Atheists use the theory of evolution in an
attempt to explain the existence and state of the Universe today. In
order for the theory of evolution to be true, thereby accounting for the
existence of mankind,
either all of the mass/matter/energy of the Universe
spontaneously generated (i.e., it popped into existence out of nothing), or it has
always existed
(i.e., it is eternal.). Without an outside force (a transcendent,
omnipotent, eternal, superior Being), no other options for the existence
of the Universe are available. However,
as the Laws of Thermodynamics prove,
the spontaneous generation and the eternality of matter are logically
and scientifically impossible. One possible option remains: the Universe
was
created by the Creator.
CONCLUSION
Evolutionists claim that science and the idea of God are
irreconcilable. “Only one of them can be the truth,” they say, “and you
cannot prove there is a God.” However, the Laws of Thermodynamics, which
science itself recognizes in its explanations of the phenomena in the
Universe, were designed by the Chief Engineer. As expected, they prove
to be in complete harmony with His existence, contrary to the claims of
evolutionists. God, Himself, articulated these laws centuries ago. At
the very beginning of the Bible, the First Law of Thermodynamics was
expressed when Moses penned, “Thus the heavens and the earth, and all
the host of them,
were finished. And on the seventh day, God
ended
His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all
His work which He had done” (Genesis 2:1-2, emp. added). After the six
days of Creation, the mass/matter/energy creation process was
terminated. As evolutionist Willard Young said regarding the First Law:
“Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only be converted
from one form to another” (Young, 1985, p. 8). Through the hand of the
Hebrews writer, God also articulated centuries ago what scientists call
the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the
foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands;
they will perish, but You remain; and
they will all grow old like a garment” (1:10-11, emp. added).
The inspired writer wrote in Hebrews 11:3, “By faith we understand that
the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are
seen were not made of things which are visible.” Paul declared in Acts
14:17, “Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that
He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our
hearts with food and gladness.” The psalmist affirmed, “The heavens
declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1).
Paul assured the Romans, “For since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are
without excuse” (1:20, emp. added).
In closing, we return to Lord Kelvin, the Father of Thermodynamics, for fitting final thoughts.
I cannot admit that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being [Acts 17:28—JM],
but in the creating and directing Power which science compels us to
accept as an article of belief.... There is nothing between absolute
scientific belief in a Creative Power, and the acceptance of the theory
of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.... Forty years ago I asked Liebig,
walking somewhere in the country if he believed that the grass and
flowers that we saw around us grew by mere chemical forces. He answered,
“No, no more than I could believe that a book of botany describing them
could grow by mere chemical forces”.... Do not be afraid of being free
thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion (as quoted in Smith, 1981, pp. 307-308, emp. added).
So, according to the Father of Thermodynamics, evolutionists are
failing to “think strongly enough.” No wonder the psalmist asserted:
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (14:1).
REFERENCES
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
Asimov, Isaac (1970), “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,”
Smithsonian Institute Journal, pp. 4-10, June.
Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002),
Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.
Guth, Alan and Paul Steinhardt (1984), “The Inflationary Universe,”
Scientific American, 250:116-128, May.
Incropera, Frank P. and David P. DeWitt (2002),
Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (New York: John Wiley & Sons), fifth edition.
Isaak, Mark (2003), “Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution,” The
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy,
[On-line], URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof.
Jastrow, Robert (1977),
Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).
Jastrow, Robert (1978),
God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton).
Kenny, Anthony (1980),
The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God’s Existence (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).
King, A.L. (1962),
Thermophysics (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman).
Moran, Michael J. and Howard N. Shapiro (2000),
Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons), fourth edition.
Rifkin, Jeremy (1980),
Entropy: A New World View (New York: Viking).
Smith, Wilbur M. (1981),
Therefore Stand (New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing).
Suplee, Curt (2000),
Milestones of Science (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society).
Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part 1],”
Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47.
Thompson, Silvanus P. (1910),
Life of Lord Kelvin (London: Macmillan).
Tryon, Edward P. (1984), “What Made the World?,”
New Scientist, 101:14-16, March 8.
Walters, Tracy (1986), “A Reply to John Patterson’s Arguments,”
Origins Research, 9[2]:8-9, Fall/Winter.
Young, Willard (1985),
Fallacies of Creationism (Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Detselig Enterprises).
The
Islamic world has not distinguished itself over the centuries in its
respect for and kind treatment of women (Austen, 2012; Thompson, 2011;
Kotz, 2009; “Melbourne Islamic…,” 2009; “Missouri Couple…,” 1991;
“Father of…,” 2008; Schoetz, 2008; “Raped…,” 2007). This observation is
unprejudiced and hardly novel. Around the world for centuries, Islamic
women have endured a subpar status with Islamic men. As General George
S. Patton observed, having witnessed the impact of Islam on the
countries of North Africa during World War II:
Michael J. Behe (1996), Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press), hardbound, 307 pages, $25.00.