Reflectorites
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:41:17 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
This is probably my last post on this topic of the SLoT with Richard. I have
found it very difficult trying to have a meaningful dialogue with Richard on
most topics, but I expect it would be *especially* difficult on the subject of
the SLoT, which Ratzsch has observed is "Perhaps the most prevalent of
the misconstruals of creationism" (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of
Beginnings," 1996, p.91).
[...]
>SJ>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.
RW>My thanks to Stephen for posting this, as rebutting Johnson's nonsense makes
>an interesting change from rebutting Stephen's.
Richard doesn't seem to realise there is something strange (and almost
pathetic) about a position which needs to claim that its rival's position is
"nonsense".
It sounds to me like Richard is desperately trying to convince *himself*
and not succeeding.
[...]
>SJ>"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'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)
RW>My thanks to Stephen again, for posting this. Richard Feynman is a hero of
>mine.
Good to hear! Now maybe Richard might start trying to emulate his
"hero"? I am sure Feynmen would not have approved of Richard's ad
hominem tactics of declaring opponents' arguments as "nonsense" and
the opponents themselves as "irrational"!
RW>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.
Agreed. But Feynman's point was that the scientists are in a position to
bluff the layman but not vice-versa.
RW>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.
Disagree about needing to be a "saint" or that it is an "ideal" in the sense of
unattainable. Feynman says it is the scientists "*responsibility* as scientists".
What's so hard about just being plain honest and telling the truth?
RW>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.
Now Richard completely contradicts the spirit of his "hero" Feynman said.
Feynman would just state the facts and not worry about prefacing them
with ad hominem `priestly' put downs of laymen.
>SJ>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.
RW>If creationist/ID references to the Second Law are a colloquial way of
>speaking about a genuine issue, then what's the genuine issue?
Johnson states what he meanit is lower down. BTW the scientist who
wrote the email (or letter) to Johnson wrote back agreeing with Johnson!
The "genuine issue" of the Second Law is not that it preludes biological
evolution but that it precludes *pre-*biological evolution. That is, the
Second Law prevents the *origin* of life, not its ongoing maintenance
once it has started.
Here are several quotes that should be read carefully by Richard and not be
skipped over if he wants to find out what *really* is the creationist (and
my) position on the SLoT:
"For animals, energy flow through the system is provided by eating
high energy biomass, either plant or animal. The breaking down of
this energy-rich biomass, and the subsequent oxidation of part of it
(e.g., carbohydrates), provides a continuous source of energy as
well as raw materials. If plants are deprived of sunlight or animals
of food, dissipation within the system will surely bring death.
Maintenance of the complex, high-energy condition associated with
life is not possible apart from a continuous source of energy. A
source of energy alone is not sufficient, however, to explain the
origin or maintenance of living systems. The additional crucial
factor is A MEANS OF CONVERTING THIS ENERGY into the
necessary useful work to build and maintain complex living
systems from the simple biomonomers that constitute their
molecular building blocks. An automobile with an internal
combustion engine, transmission, and drive chain provides the
necessary mechanism for converting the energy in gasoline into
comfortable transportation. Without such an "energy converter,"
however, obtaining transportation from gasoline would be
impossible. In a similar way, food would do little for a man whose
stomach, intestines, liver, or pancreas were removed. Without
these, he would surely die even though he continued to eat. Apart
from A MECHANISM TO COUPLE THE AVAILABLE
ENERGY to the necessary work, high-energy biomass is
insufficient to sustain a living system far from equilibrium. In the
case of living systems such a coupling mechanism channels the
energy along specific chemical pathways to accomplish a very
specific type of work. We therefore conclude that, given the
availability of energy and AN APPROPRIATE COUPLING
MECHANISM, the maintenance of a living system far from
equilibrium presents no thermodynamic problems." (Thaxton C.B.,
Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin," 1992,
p.124. Emphasis mine)
"While the maintenance of living systems is easily rationalized in
terms of thermodynamics, the ORIGIN of such living systems is
quite another matter. Though the earth is open to energy flow from
the sun, THE MEANS OF CONVERTING THIS ENERGY into
the necessary work to build up living systems from simple
precursors remains at present unspecified. The "evolution" from
BIOMONOMERS to fully functioning cells is the issue. Can one
make the incredible jump in energy and organization from raw
material and raw energy, apart from SOME MEANS OF
DIRECTING THE ENERGY FLOW through the system?"
(Thaxton, et al., 1992, p.125. Emphasis mine)
"In existing living systems, the coupling of the energy flow to the
organizing "work" occurs through the metabolic motor of DNA,
enzymes, etc. This is analogous to an automobile converting the
chemical energy in gasoline into mechanical torque on the wheels.
We can give a thermodynamic account of how life's metabolic
motor works. The ORIGIN OF THE METABOLIC MOTOR
(DNA, enzymes, etc.) itself, however, is more difficult to explain
thermodynamically, since A MECHANISM OF COUPLING THE
ENERGY FLOW to the organizing work is unknown for
prebiological systems.:" (Thaxton, et al., 1992, p.127. Emphasis
mine).
"Throughout Chapters 7-9 we have analyzed the problems of
complexity and the origin of life from a thermodynamic point of
view. Our reason for doing this is the common notion in the
scientific literature today on the origin of life that an open system
with energy and mass flow is apriori a sufficient explanation for the
complexity of life. We have examined the validity of such an open
and constrained system. We found it to be a reasonable explanation
for doing the chemical and thermal entropy work, but clearly
inadequate to account for the configurational entropy work of
CODING (not to mention the sorting and selecting work). We have
noted the need for some sort of COUPLING MECHANISM.
Without it, there is no way to CONVERT the negative entropy
associated with energy flow into negative entropy associated with
configurational entropy and the corresponding information. Is it
reasonable to believe such a "hidden" coupling mechanism will be
found in the future that can play this crucial role of a template,
metabolic motor, etc., DIRECTING THE FLOW OF ENERGY in
such a way as to create new information?" (Thaxton, et al., 1992,
p.165. Emphasis mine).
Ratzsch summarises the creationist position on the SLoT:
"Morris, for instance, claims in numerous of his writings that a
system being open is not alone enough to cause a reversal of
disorder or a decrease in entropy. There are, Morris claims, some
additional requirements that must be met before that can happen
For instance, the flow of energy coming into the system must be
adequate, and there must be some already-existing "CODE" and
"CONVERSION MECHANISM" by which the incoming energy
can be harnessed, turned into some form that is useful and usable in
the system, and then properly directed and productively
incorporated into the system experiencing increasing order. These
additional requirements are not requirements of the Second Law
itself but are requirements that Morris thinks we have good
empirical grounds for accepting. Simply throwing raw energy into a
system generally does not produce increased order but destroys
some of the order already there. So the view is that special
conditions-CODES, CONVERSION MECHANISMS and the like-
are needed before growths in order can occur even in open
systems." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings," 1996,
p.92. Emphasis mine)
RW>Is there not
>one creationist/IDer who is capable of expressing the argument in a
>precisely accurate manner?
Yes. See the above quotes. The problem with the SLoT is that
evolutionists generally: 1) do not bother to listen to what creationists are
*really* saying; 2) do not address the *real* issue which is the *origin* of
the code-driven energy-conversion systems; 3) respond with irrelevant red-
herrings about open and closed systems, etc; and 4) cloak their answers in
a lot of technical jargon which further obscures the matter rather than
clarifying it.
RW>If there is, then why does Johnson not refer to
>that precise argument rather than to the colloquial rendering of it.
The point is what Richard calls "the colloquial rendering of" the argument
is the *real* argument. And what Richard calls the "precise argument" is
usually a red-herring dressed up in scientific jargon. If a scientist put "the
colloquial rendering of" the argument in the form of a "precise argument"
*that lost nothing in the translation*, then Johnson and I would be happy to
use it.
RW>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,
What exactly is this "precise manner" that Richard is on about anyway?
Richard says of himself below that: "I admit that I don't understand the
Second Law either"!
RW>then I think the reasonable reader
>should conclude that there is no valid argument here at all.
This is Richard's usual trick of trying to silence opposition! His "hero"
Feynman was famous for sitting down and talking with first-year students
(i.e. virtually laymen) and trying to help them. Maybe Richard could try
taking a leaf out of his "hero"'s book?
>SJ>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.
RW>"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.
There are no "weasel words" here and the scientist who wrote this message
to Johnson wrote back *agreeing* with Johnson. What Johnson said about
"that there is no known natural process that can explain the complexity of
living organisms in light of the Second Law" is consistent with what Wright
and Bennett said about the need for "a law that if known would make life's
origin less baffling".
RW>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.
Here goes Richard again, trying to disqualify people from making a
comment, even without knowing who they are!
I presume most people of this List know who Robert Wright is, but for
Richard's benefit he is a senior science journalist with TIME magazine who
writes mainly on evolutionary psychology. He has had at least two books:
"The Moral Animal" and "Non-Zero". He is also a long-time critic of
Gould. I am not sure what his original qualifications are.
Besides, Johnson was not appealing to Wright "as an authority on the
subject of physics". If Johnson is "appealing" to any "authority" it is to
"Charles H. Bennett, of IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center, who
has deeply shaped the modern understanding of the second law" yet who
"suspects there is indeed a law that if known would make life's origin less
baffling."
RW>(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.
Richard has a BSc in Statistics and Operational Research, so *by his own
criteria*, "why should we care what his view is on this"? People in glass
houses shouldn't throw stones.
>SJ>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.
RW>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.
Note how Richard ignores the first part of what Johnson said: "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."
And Johnson explained what he means about "_all_ local increases in
order" is in the words following.
>SJ>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.
RW>More obfuscation. In what way are they quite different?
Is Richard *serious* that he doesn't know the difference between "a jet
airplane, a computer program, or a living cell"?
RW>Of course there are
>*some* differences, but what do these differences have to do with the Second
>Law? Nothing!
Richard as usual just tries to bluff his way through without supporting his
claim with any evidence. The fact that the cell is "living" and the other two
things are not, might suggest to him there is at least *one* difference that
has something "to do with the Second Law"!
>SJ>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."]
RW>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.
Here is an example of the problem in trying to discuss the Second Law. A
creationist/IDer says one thing: "life's origin" and the evolutionist replies
with another: "the formation of complexity". This failure by evolutionists to
listen to what creationist/IDers say on the SLoT almost *guarantees* that
no further progress can be made because both sides start are talking past
each other.
>SJ>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.
RW>If only other creationists/IDers (like our Stephen) would take Johnson's
>advice!
Mostly I do. That is why I have posted an FAQ on the subject at:
http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqlslot.html, so I don't have to keep re-
explaining my position on the SLoT.
I have found from long experience it is very difficult trying to have a
rational conversation with an evolutionist on the topic of the SLoT because
the evolutionist *always* refuses to discuss the *real problem* (i.e. the
origin of the code-driven energy-conversion cellular machinery that can
harness the SLoT), but just goes off at a tangent talking about irrelevant
side-issues and/or using scientific jargon to obscure understanding.
>SJ>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.
RW>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.
Notice how Richard confirms Johnson's point?
>SJ>This is
>>correct but not responsive to what the people are trying to say.
RW>Well, I'm glad that Johnson agrees that evolutionists are correct on this
>point.
Since the "point" is that *some* theories "like the earth goes around the
sun rather than vice versa" are "supported by overwhelming evidence"
there never was any disagreement in the first place.
RW>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.
No. Richard should read what Johnson said.
RW>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.
No. Richard should read what Johnson said.
RW>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.
This is an *amazing* admission by someone who has just asserted "what
do these differences [in "a jet airplane, a computer program, or a living
cell"] have to do with the Second Law? Nothing!"! If Richard doesn't
"understand the Second Law" then how does he *know* that?
RW>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.
How does Richard *know* when he has just said of himself: "I admit that I
don't understand the Second Law either"?
The fact is that it is not "a very technical issue" (in the aspect of the SLoT
that the "creationists/IDers" are discussing) but it is *made* into an overly
"technical issue" by evolutionists who tend to confuse the issue with red-
herrings and unnecessarily technical jargon.
>SJ>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.
RW>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.
Remember that Richard has just said of himself: "I admit that I don't
understand the Second Law either"? Yet here he states that "Complex
specified information ... has absolutely nothing to do with the Second
Law"!
What does Richard think the codes are that make and drive the cellular
energy-conversion machinery which enables life alone to maintain its order
in the face of the SLoT's universal tendency to disorder?
>SJ>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
RW>I've had enough of Johnson's rhetoric for one day, but I may take a look at
>this review later.
The problem is that Richard just dismisses any creationist/ID point as mere
"rhetoric" so it is *impossible* for any creationist/IDers to have a
meaningful dialogue with Richard, *especially* on the issue of the SLoT.
I only answer Richard's posts these days: a) for the benefit of any open-
minded persons on this List; and b) to clarify my own thinking.
>RW>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.
RW>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.
As I said, the scientist write back appreciatively to Johnson and agreed
with him. The fact is that there are a lot of relatively open-minded people
out there, including scientists. It is to these people that ID arguments will
(and are) making sense at last.
RW>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.
This from someone who has just said of himself: "I admit that I don't
understand the Second Law either"!
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the face of the universal tendency for order to be lost, the complex
organization of the living organism can be maintained only if work-
involving the expenditure of energy- is performed to conserve the order.
The organism is constantly adjusting, repairing, replacing, and this requires
energy. But the preservation of the complex, improbable organization of
the living creature needs more than energy for the work. It calls for
information or instructions on how the energy should be expended to
maintain the improbable organization. The idea of information necessary
for the maintenance and, as we shall see, creation of living systems is of
great utility in approaching the biological problems of reproduction."
(Simpson G.G. & Beck W.S., "Life: An Introduction to Biology," [1957],
Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, Second Edition, 1965, p.145)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 20:32:24 EST