2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Order in the Universe

While I'm on a roll I'll add this conclusion to my three part trilogy on science and metaphysics. I'll throw it out there before I kick the bucket and move on like the Aging Rebel and everyone else who has come and who has yet to come to this earth. Let it be my mark on society and the carbon footprint I leave behind. After all, we all cast shadows on the horizon so we do.

In my last post I mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states in a closed system order does not increase. The actual wording can be a bit confusing. It states "the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time." Entropy is a state of disorder so when they say entropy will always increase it's a double negative. It really means in a closed system order will not increase without energy added to it. So what does that really mean?

It means over time things tend to deteriorate. For example, If I throw a stack of lumber and nails on my front lawn, in a million years it won't magically build a house all by itself. If I build a house on my front lawn, in a million years it will deteriorate it won't improve. We can plant a garden and it will grow but order in the universe doesn't increase all by itself. It needs energy but it needs more than that. If you add light into a closed system the garden will grow but will DNA mutate into a more advanced form or less? Some people claim the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves the theory of evolution. I'm not saying that. The theory of evolution is a theory because it hasn't been proven or disproven. That's why it's not a law or axiom. I'm not going to argue creation versus evolution. I'm just going to say both are theories. Neither is proven or disproven.

For me personally, order in the universe points to a creator. Take the Mona Lisa for example. Look at the top picture. What is that? That is the Mona Lisa. How do you know that? Everyone knows that. Who painted it? Leonardo Da Vinci. How do you know that? Everyone knows that.

Did you see him paint it? No. How then do we know Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa? Let's start with the obvious. We have the evidence right in front of us. We can see the Mona Lisa. It's at the Louvre in Paris. We cannot deny that it exists. It didn't appear out of nowhere. Someone had to paint it. What evidence do we have that Leonardo Da Vinci painted it? We have his signature on the painting. Experts verify the signature matches his signature on other paintings. Experts verify that the style and composition matches Leonardo Da Vinci's other paintings.

The Mona Lisa was commissioned by her husband Francesco del Gicondo. It was painted at his studio in Florence. Agostino Vespucci witnesses Leonardo painting the portrait of Lisa del Giocondo. Some claim there were two paintings not one. The bottom line is that for all practice purposes we can confidently prove Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa. We know someone had to. We know it didn't paint itself. That's my point. Paintings have painters. Buildings have builders. Creation has a creator. Order in the universe doesn't prove the existence of God but it points to an architect. A Grand Geometrician so to speak. Like I said I don't care whether or not someone believes in God. I care what they do and don't do. Actions speak louder than words.