Group
Further to the Entropy thread on the Calvin Reflector, here is an excerpt
from an email by Phil Johnson on the topic, which was posted to the
other List I am on, and re-posted (with some minor changes) with
permission.
Johnson's main point is that layman who think that a `downhill' Second
Law is a problem for an `uphill' Evolution to explain are expressing a real
and genuinely felt concern that something is being `lost in the translation' .
This won't go away and should not be dismissed by scientists with
patronising or even hostile arguments that "evade the real issues with
technical or semantic objections" (as has happened on the Calvin
Reflector).
The *attitudinal* standard for scientists in trying to explain technical
matters to laymen has been classically stated by the late Richard
Feynman:
"I would like to add something that's not essential to the science,
but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool
the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell
you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your
girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a
scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave
those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a
specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, out bending over
backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to
have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen."
(Feynman R.P., "Cargo Cult Science," in "`Surely You're Joking,
Mr Feynman!'", 1990, reprint, p.343)
I have cross-posted this to egroups.
Steve
=========================================================================
A scientist wrote to Phillip E. Johnson:
>I have heard many times from creationists that evolution necessarily
>violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is absolutely incorrect.
>Perhaps I am telling something you know already; if so, you should
>correct people like [two well-known creationists] so that they stop
>making this incorrect assertion. I feel that creationists who are
>expounding this falsehood are doing a real disservice, not only to their
>cause, but to the community to whom they are preaching by dumbing
>down science understanding in this country.
Prof. Johnson replied:
Thanks for your comments. I would say that references to the Second Law
in this context should be understood as a colloquial way of speaking about
a genuine issue, certainly not a "falsehood." People who invoke the Second
Law are making a rational point, even if they do not express it in a
precisely accurate manner.
Consider this example from a Time Magazine cover story, dated December
28, 1992, Pg. 38, by Robert Wright. Here is the relevant paragraph:
Various scientists are pondering the prospect that a basic physical law lies
waiting to be discovered, a law defining the circumstances under which
systems infused with energy become more complexly structured. This law
would carve out local exceptions to the general tendency of things to
become more chaotic and bland -- higher in "entropy" -- as dictated by the
famously depressing second law of thermodynamics. Charles H. Bennett, of
IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center, who has deeply shaped the
modern understanding of the second law, suspects there is indeed a law
that if known would make life's origin less baffling. Such a law, he has said,
would play a role "formerly assigned to God."
I am sure that both Charles Bennett and Robert Wright would define the
Second Law as you do, but they have no difficulty making sense of the
claim that there is no known natural process that can explain the
complexity of living organisms in light of the Second Law. It takes more
than saying that the earth is an open system receiving energy from the sun
to explain why we see such enormous increases in complex ordered
systems on the earth. Of course the Second Law does not prevent _all_
local increases in order; that would be absurd. Physical laws do produce
simple, repetitive forms of order, but this is quite different from the highly
complex forms of organization present in e.g., a jet airplane, a computer
program, or a living cell. Hence the perceived need for what Bennett and
Wright think of as a new basic physical law "that if known would make
life's origin less baffling." [Of course I think that something more potent
than a physical law will be required to play the role "formerly assigned to
God."]
I frequently advise my friends and supporters not to refer to the Second
Law in this context, because those words always evoke from scientists just
the kind of response you gave. It is similar to what happens when anti-
Darwinists insist that "evolution is only a theory." They mean something
very sensible, which is that a highly speculative claim (molecule-to-man
macroevolution) is continually presented as if it were as well supported as
the fact that the earth goes around the sun rather than vice versa. But
representatives of the scientific establishment respond only with arguments
about the precise meaning of "theory," making the abstract point that it is
possible for a theory to be supported by overwhelming evidence. This is
correct but not responsive to what the people are trying to say.
The better way to state the entropy argument is to say that the functional
organization of living systems requires the presence of complex specified
aperiodic information, which does not appear to be produced either by
chance, or by physical law, or by a combination of chance and law. For an
elaboration of this argument see
my review of Paul Davies book _The Miracle of Life_,
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/fifthmiracle.htm
or the recent article by Steven Meyer in _First Things_, "DNA and Other
Designs," http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0004/articles/meyer.html
or the recent book by William Dembski, _Intelligent Design_ (Intervarsity
Press 1999).
Perhaps you and I should form a partnership. I could urge my allies not to
make casual references to the Second Law, and you could urge your
scientific colleagues to address the substance of the main arguments rather
than to evade the real issues with technical or semantic objections.
Best wishes,
Phil Johnson
=========================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the
biologist by the fact of life's complex organization. We have seen that
organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest
for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the
simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain
order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor
maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow
specifications; it requires information on how to proceed." (Simpson G.G.
& Beck W.S., "Life: An Introduction to Biology," [1957], Routledge &
Kegan Paul: London, Second Edition, 1965, p.467)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 26 2000 - 20:01:23 EDT