From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>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.
My thanks to Stephen for posting this, as rebutting Johnson's nonsense makes
an interesting change from rebutting Stephen's.
[...]
> "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)
My thanks to Stephen again, for posting this. Richard Feynman is a hero of
mine.
I would add that, in my opinion, the above applies not just to professional
scientists but to anyone who is sincerely attempting to establish the truth.
Of course, what Feynman describes is an ideal which no-one but a saint could
fully achieve. But I think we should all aim towards this ideal.
Now let's proceed to look at Johnson's post, to see an example that is the
total antithesis of what Feynman was describing. Of course, Johnson is a
lawyer, not a scientist, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.
>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.
If creationist/ID references to the Second Law are a colloquial way of
speaking about a genuine issue, then what's the genuine issue? Is there not
one creationist/IDer who is capable of expressing the argument in a
precisely accurate manner? If there is, then why does Johnson not refer to
that precise argument rather than to the colloquial rendering of it. If, out
of ll the people who have invoked this argument, not a single one has been
able to state it in a precise manner, then I think the reasonable reader
should conclude that there is no valid argument here at all.
Note how Johnson doesn't admit to being a proponent of this argument
himself, but supports it at arm's length through the mouths of unnamed
"people".
>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.
"Making sense of the claim..."? What does that mean? By using such weasel
words, Johnson tries to give the impression that Bennett and Wright would
support the claim, but he carefully avoids saying so.
By the way, we're not told who Wright is, so we don't know if Johnson has
any grounds for appealing to him as an authority on the subject of physics.
(If not, why should we care what his view is on this?) Wright's use of vague
and unscientific expressions like "carve out local exceptions" hardly makes
his account a useful one as the basis for discussing a scientific issue. And
we're not given any quote from Bennett, who presumably *is* an authority.
>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.
Note how Johnson again argues by innuendo. He agrees that the Second Law
doesn't prevent *all* local increases in order, and, in so doing, implies
that it does prevent *some* local increases in order, which is untrue (right
David?). But he carefully avoids stating this specifically.
>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.
More obfuscation. In what way are they quite different? Of course there are
*some* differences, but what do these differences have to do with the Second
Law? Nothing!
>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."]
The Second Law is not an impediment to the formation of complexity, but
perhaps Bennett thinks that some additional law is needed to *explain* the
high level of complexity that we see. That is quite a different matter.
>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.
If only other creationists/IDers (like our Stephen) would take Johnson's
advice!
>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.
In what sense is clarifying the meaning of a word an "abstract" point? Of
course, I know that IDers intensely dislike clear definitions, but disliking
something does not make it abstract.
>This is
>correct but not responsive to what the people are trying to say.
Well, I'm glad that Johnson agrees that evolutionists are correct on this
point. And since Johnson has just claimed that this is a respect in which
the Second Law issue is similar to the "theory" issue, it follows that
Johnson thinks that evolutionists are "correct but not responsive" over the
Second Law issue.
Johnson seems to be saying that the Second Law issue is not a scientific
issue, but one of popular perception. Well, if the popular perception of the
Second Law is incorrect, whose fault is that? Might I suggest that it's the
fault of creationists/IDers who misrepresent the Second Law and erroneously
claim that it is some sort of a problem for evolution.
Perhaps it is simply not possible to present the Second Law in a way that is
comprehensible to the average layperson. And I'm not being condescending
here. I admit that I don't understand the Second Law either. In that case
the blame lies not with scientists for failing to explain it clearly enough,
or with the public for failing to understand it. The blame lies with
creationists/IDers who have brought a very technical issue into the public
arena, provided the public with a misleading oversimplification of it, and
bamboozled some of the the public with a fallacious argument based on this
oversimplification.
>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.
Which "entropy argument"? Is Johnson still talking about the Second Law, or
has he subtly changed the subject? If he's still talking about the Second
Law, than this is yet another misrepresentation of the Second Law. Complex
specified information (as defined by Dembski) has absolutely nothing to do
with the Second Law. If he's changed the subject, then this is a red
herring.
>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
I've had enough of Johnson's rhetoric for one day, but I may take a look at
this review later.
>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.
This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. It is creationists/IDers who
deflect attention from the real arguments with their bogus appeals to the
Second Law.
And Johnson clearly betrays his anti-intellectual, anti-science attitude
when he attacks his opponents for making technical and semantic objections.
Technical objections are what scientific criticism is all about. And clear
definitions of terms are absolutely essential for rational dialogue.
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 27 2000 - 06:39:52 EDT