Forum: OPEN FORUM: American Journal of Physics

Posts: 58

Subject: American Journal of Physics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ

On the website of the Skeptics Society, in a moderated blog topic ("Evolution and Religion”), I said Richard Dawkins was wrong when he said this:

"When creationists say, as they frequently do, that the theory of evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they are telling us no more than that they don’t understand the Second Law (we already knew that they don’t understand evolution). There is no contraction, because of the sun!” (Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, p. 415)

The Deputy Director of the National Center for Science Education, Glenn Branch, said that I was wrong and cited an article by Emory F. Bunn titled, "Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics,” published in American Journal of Physics [(2009) 77(10):922-925]. This article does indeed present calculations involving the sun showing that evolution does not violate the second law.

I think the American Journal of Physics erred in publishing this article it for two reasons.The first reason is that the insight evolution violates this law comes from biologists, and only biologists are qualified to discuss it competently. The second reason is that the author has an understanding of the second law that is different from my understanding of it. One of us must be wrong.

If a gas in a container is connected with a valve to a vacuum and the valve is opened, the gas will flow into the empty container. There is more knowledge of the location of the gas molecules in the small volume than in the large volume. There is an increase in disorder or a decrease in complexity. Entropy is another word for order. Entropy always decreases in nature, according to the second law.

If a gas in a container has a piston that can compress the gas, an animal can increase the complexity of the gas by pushing the piston. This does not violate the second law because the gas is not an isolated system. The idea that the complexity of the gas increases because the complexity of the animal decreases by a greater amount strikes me as being flat out wrong. The idea of calculating the decrease of the entropy of the animal and showing it is greater than the increase of the entropy of the gas strikes me as absurd. I don’t see any difference between such a calculation and the calculation offered by Emory F. Bunn.

Statistical mechanics explains why a gas will fill up a container. If a gas consists of N molecules, there are N! = N x (N - 1) x (N - 2)… possible ways the molecules can be distributed in the container. The chance of getting any particular distribution is 1 in N!. I don’t know how to complete the proof. But I know Maxwell’s distribution of velocities in a gas and the bell-shaped curve are derived using Stirling’s approximation: log N! = Nlog N.

The primary structure of a large protein can have 600 amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids. Biologists imagine that the 600 amino acids are non-interacting particles, just like in a gas. Just as in statistical mechanics, biologists ask how many different ways there are of arranging 600 amino acids? The answer is 600 to the 20th power instead of N!. Thus, it is impossible to get a protein by random chance since there is only 3 billion years available for the protein to evolve. This is why biologists say evolution violates the second law. It is the same kind of reasoning that explains why a gas will fill up the entire container.

Signature:
David Roemer

1/26/2012 at 3:32:58 PM GMT

C. Austerberry

Posts: 1

David concluded with:

The primary structure of a large protein can have 600 amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids. Biologists imagine that the 600 amino acids are non-interacting particles, just like in a gas. Just as in statistical mechanics, biologists ask how many different ways there are of arranging 600 amino acids? The answer is 600 to the 20th power instead of N!. Thus, it is impossible to get a protein by random chance since there is only 3 billion years available for the protein to evolve. This is why biologists say evolution violates the second law. It is the same kind of reasoning that explains why a gas will fill up the entire container.

First, I could be wrong, but I think the number of different 600 amino acid-long sequences using 20 different amino acids would be 20 to the 600th power rather than 600 to the 20th power. If so, the number is (much!) larger.

Regardless, I don't see what biological relevance such a calculation would have, because protein sequences don't assemble randomly.

Nor do I and my fellow biologists say that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Chuck

1/27/2012 at 1:49:30 AM GMT

Posts: 58

Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the second law is absolutely true. It is like saying the odds of getting heads when you flip a coin is 50%.

Biologists imagine that proteins or their DNA assemble by random chance when evolving. Biologists do probability calculations that show proteins or DNA could not have evolved by random processes in 3 billion years. This is why natural selection explains only adaptation, not the increase in the complexity of life.

It is perfectly reasonable to say evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics because they both use probability calculations. The supposedly peer-reviewed article I am criticizing implies that natural selection explains the increase in the complexity of life. This is pseudoscience.

My YouTube video at the top of this post gives the references and quotes from peer-reviewed articles and scholarly works that explains this in more detail.

Signature:
David Roemer

1/29/2012 at 11:16:23 PM GMT

R. Isaac

Posts: 80

David, I think a few clarifications are in order. You said "Entropy always decreases in nature, according to the second law." I think you mean "...always increases in a closed system..." Of course, in open systems with an energy flux, entropy can increase or decrease, according to the second law.

Also, you said "Entropy is another word for order." Yes, the two are related but it isn't always easy to quantify the two. Entropy is really defined by the number of possible states or configurations.

When you say "It is perfectly reasonable to say evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics because they both use probability calculations," I would caution that they use probability very differently and it does not follow that evolution violates the second law. As Chuck rightly points out, no biologist I know thinks that. Probability calculations are useful in assessing various paths for natural processes but none that I know of says that evolution couldn't have or didn't happen.

Your comment that "...natural selection explains the increase in the complexity of life" isn't quite complete. While the selection process is an important part, one must also include the source of variation, in which, usually through energy influx, there is replication with variation as the source of increased information and complexity, with selection as the vital feedback constraint. Rather than being pseudo-science, it's a very successful and thriving area of science, seems to me.

1/29/2012 at 1:49:13 AM GMT

Posts: 58

I emailed the following letter to the DI (advocates of intelligent design) and NCSE (against intelligent design):

Robert L. Crowther, II
Director of Communications
Discovery Institute

Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education

I am planning to write a letter of complaint to the editor of the American Journal of Physics for publishing an article by a physics professor, Emory F. Bunn, titled "Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics,” in 2009 [77(10):922-925]. As your organizations claim to be dedicated to truth in science, I am asking for your support.

The article reports calculations purporting to show that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. This is true, but it can’t be proven the way the author says.

What is inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics is the false idea that natural selection explains the increase in the complexity of life as it evolved. Biologists think of a protein as being a system of non-interacting amino acids and perform probability calculations similar to those performed by physicists. Such calculations and a knowledge of the complexity of living organisms is why natural selection only explains the adaptation of living organisms to the environment.

The fake calculations in the article imply that natural selection does indeed explain the complexity of living organisms. The author or the American Journal of Physics should take whatever steps are necessary to undo their mistake.

I made a YouTube video titled, "The Truth About Evolution and Religion,” with references to peer-reviewed articles, biology textbooks, and scholarly works.

Very truly yours,

David Roemer

Signature:
David Roemer

3/10/2012 at 12:51:28 PM GMT

Posts: 58

I just posted the following comments on the forums of Christians in Science. The latest turn of events in my dispute with the American Journal of Physics is at http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/23/american-association-of-physics-teachers/. I'v also attached one of the AJP articles. This is the post:

I am under the impression that 90% of the members of the Christians in Science are not orthodox Christians, who believe in the trinity, but liberal Christians, who think believing in life after death is irrational. One reason for this is that no one on this website or that of your sister organization, the American Scientific Affiliation, are supporting my efforts to get the American Journal of Physics to put an end to the damage being done by the two articles criticizing creationism and promoting Darwinism.

In the light of Christian doctrine, "the Word” in John’s gospel can be a reference to Jesus and the doctrine of the trinity. However, talking about the trinity in front of atheists is like speculating about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

The interpretation that gives atheists a reason to believe in God is that the "Word” is the concept of the universe in God’s mind before God created the universe. The discovery of the Big Bang in the 1960s is a sign that God was the primary author of the Bible.

Attached Files:

AJPIAS_76_11_1031_1.pdf (63.13 KB)

Signature:
David Roemer

3/11/2012 at 11:27:54 PM GMT

G. Cooper

Posts: 24

Subject: RE: American Journal of Physics

D. Roemer said:
The primary structure of a large protein can have 600 amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids. Biologists imagine that the 600 amino acids are non-interacting particles, just like in a gas. Just as in statistical mechanics, biologists ask how many different ways there are of arranging 600 amino acids? The answer is 600 to the 20th power instead of N!. Thus, it is impossible to get a protein by random chance since there is only 3 billion years available for the protein to evolve. This is why biologists say evolution violates the second law. It is the same kind of reasoning that explains why a gas will fill up the entire container.

This is confusing to me. Are you sure the statistical approach is restricted to non-interacting particles? That doesn't sound very biological. If we combine helium and oxygen in a gas chamber experiment, similar to the one you described earlier, then try the same experiment with carbon and oxygen, won't we see a significant variance in the results due to variables not considered in a simple statistical gas analysis? As long as a given structure somehow benefits from any change, and the new structure can be replicated, why would statistics claim otherwise? I don't see evolution violating the 2nd law any more than a refrigerator might, though I am neither biologist nor physicist.

[I too think it will be 20 to the power of 600 in possible mathematical combinations.]

The tenet of natural selection is a general term, not a specific process. Indeed, it wasn't until genetics came along that Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection became respected.

A minor nit: Big Bang Theory was not discovered in the 1960s, though the cosmic background radiation was discovered in 1964, which gave huge credence to the original, but less structured, theory by Lemaitre from his 1927 paper. His "primeval atom" was introduced, I think, in 1931 while in England.

Last edited on 3/11/2012 11:28:09 PM GMT

3/13/2012 at 3:54:22 AM GMT

Posts: 24

Subject: RE:

D. Roemer said:
. . .

I am under the impression that 90% of the members of the Christians in Science are not orthodox Christians, who believe in the trinity, but liberal Christians, who think believing in life after death is irrational. One reason for this is that no one on this website or that of your sister organization, the American Scientific Affiliation, are supporting my efforts to get the American Journal of Physics to put an end to the damage being done by the two articles criticizing creationism and promoting Darwinism.

In the light of Christian doctrine, "the Word” in John’s gospel can be a reference to Jesus and the doctrine of the trinity. However, talking about the trinity in front of atheists is like speculating about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

The interpretation that gives atheists a reason to believe in God is that the "Word” is the concept of the universe in God’s mind before God created the universe. The discovery of the Big Bang in the 1960s is a sign that God was the primary author of the Bible.

While I appreciate your efforts to hold the American Journal of Physics accountable for an unnecessarily narrow view, I would caution you against characterizations of the doctrinal positions of the members of ASA or any other organization without thorough investigation. I think you might find, as I have, that there are many Trinitarians that also endorse evolutionary theory.

If someone were to ask me if I believe in the Trinity I would answer in the affirmative. I am not a scholar of theology but as I understand it, the Trinity became part of orthodoxy in AD 325 at the Council of Nicea. At that time even in orthodoxy there were various conceptions of what it meant. I would not be surprised if you found, as I have, quite a few very thoughtful views on the Trinity that would fall as much within the bounds of orthodoxy as those at the Council of Nicea.

I, for one, would like to support you in your efforts to encourage the AJP to avoid aligning themselves with narrow views on a cross disciplinary topic like this. I seems to me that physicists are experts in the Second Law of Thermodynamics and biologists work to understand the implications of that law in biological organisms. Complexity scientists and systems scientists also have important perspectives. That's one of the things I love about ASA. The conversation between these parties, in my opinion, would be better served if doctrinal positions on the Trinity were not used to stifle the conversation.

I think there may be others here that are essentially in your corner and would like to see your arguments refined and strengthened through conversations and debate. Please accept my apologies if I am overstepping on behalf of anyone here. For the record I work in the field of learning science and the psychometrics of learning analytics.

Last edited on 3/14/2012 3:56:50 AM GMT

3/21/2012 at 10:39:29 AM GMT

Posts: 58

Subject: Trinity and the AJP hoax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ

The American Journal of Physics and the American Association of Physics Teachers are not guilty of having an "unnecessarily narrow view," they are guilty of lying in order to cause people not to believe in the Bible.

According to the Bible, God created the universe from nothing and keeps it in existence. A reason to believe in the Bible is that science has not yet been able to explain the Big Bang, the origin of life, and evolution.

Natural selection only explains adaptation, not common descent. Biologists have a thermodynamic model for the primary structure of a protein. It is like an English sonnet. The odds of getting an English sonnet in 3 billion years by the random selection of letters is close to zero. This is why it can be said that evolution violates the second law. It is not really the law that is violated, but the model biologists use to understand evolution. The theory of natural selection doesn't violate the second law because biologists, not laymen, understand the limitations of the theory.

What the AJP articles do is calculate the entropy of the biosphere using Boltzmann's constant to prove that evolution does not violate the second law. The equation is a hoax. It is like calculating the entropy of a deck of cards or the temperature of a deck of cards.

By the way, my understanding of the trinity is this: When humans communicate with each other, the communication is imperfect. You never perfectly understand what the other person is saying. But when God communicates Himself to mankind the communication is perfect. God communicates Himself to us in three ways. He created us and keeps us in existence (the Father). He gave us everlasting life (the Son). He answers our prayers (the Holy Spirit).

Signature:
David Roemer

3/21/2012 at 8:05:04 PM GMT

Posts: 24

Subject: AJP and the Bible...

To be clear I take you to be saying that AJP, and the portion of the academy it represents, and not a particular author, are specifically targeting the Bible by publishing this article. Again, I am not an expert in the field but it seems to me that they are publishing the view of an author (or perhaps authors) who contends that evolution does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It appears to me that there are folks that are part if ASA, who are Trinitarians, take the Bible to be God's word, are career biological scientists who tend to share the perspective presented in the AJP article.

I'm sorry but I have a hard time jumping to the conclusion that this biological position on the 2nd Law constitutes an attack on the Bible. Seems to me it is an attack on a particular interpretation of the biological implications of the 2nd Law and open for healthy debate regardless of a faith position. Perhaps the problem is that a scientific question like this doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of faith, a little like discussing marriage in heaven. The author obviously takes a position against creationist positions who claim that the 2nd Law is violated by evolution.

For me the Trinity boils down to the passage in 1 John 4 "God is Love." For God to be Love, there must be the authority and will to love, the power to love, and a physical presence express it to the beloved. Love is fundamentally relational and the Trinity flows from the relationship between the Father, Holy Spirit and the Son. That God would choose to invite us to be part of that family and make it possible through Jesus Christ is the Good News of the Bible. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, except to say that the 2nd Law expresses God's amazing love for us because it makes life, consciousness and breath possible.

Last edited on 3/21/2012 8:07:29 PM GMT

3/23/2012 at 12:27:01 PM GMT

Posts: 58

The second law of thermodynamics states that a gas will fill up its container because this is the most probable configuration. To do these calculations, physicists give each one of the identical molecules in the gas a label (No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, etc.). One might say, the model for a gas is a deck of playing cards because the playing cards are identical, non-interacting, and isolated.

Biologists use the English sonnet as a model for a protein. The letters in the sonnet represent amino acids and biologists calculate the probability of getting a sonnet by the random selection of letters and dictionary words. This calculation and the fact that the primary structure of the protein doesn’t even begin to describe the complexity of life is why natural selection explains only adaptation, not common descent. In other words, natural selection explains why giraffes have long necks, but does not explain how giraffes evolved from bacteria. This is the sense in which evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

The American Journal of Physics articles are nonsense for three reasons:
1)   The articles ignore the correct sense in which evolution violates the second law.
2)   The articles imply that adding heat to a system can decrease entropy.
3)   The articles use Boltzmann’s constant to calculate the entropy of the biosphere. This is like calculating the entropy of a deck of playing cards.

The articles may have been written in good faith. However, I recently pointed out the errors in the article. Now, the AJP is acting in bad faith. They are lying about science in order to discourage people from believing in the "Good News of the Bible.” The "Good News of the Bible” is not that we should love our fellow man and not tell lies. It is that we might have to pay for our sins when we die.

Signature:
David Roemer

3/24/2012 at 6:59:45 AM GMT

Posts: 24

I am familiar with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as well as the logical leap involved in extending the implications of adaptation beyond the confines of each individual species. I am also familiar with complexity theories in general and the idea of irreducible complexity. There is this general problem we all face in the sciences of sorting out how everything we observe now came from what appears to us to be a Big Bang. I have done some thinking about these issues but I must admit in the following paragraphs I am going to trespass into territory that I do not have the qualifications to tread. I am happy to invite those of you with proper credentials to jump in with enhancements and corrections if necessary.

One observable phenomenon that I find to be fascinating from a common origins perspective is the way a number of oxygen atoms and twice as many hydrogen atoms can become constrained to each other in a very particular relationship and become something entirely different than anything suggested by either oxygen or hydrogen. Only a tiny portion of the properties of water can be induced from the properties of oxygen and hydrogen. Water is only one such substance that makes life possible. The relationships in the water molecule create whole new possibilities.

This instantaneous emergence of entirely new possibilities throws an interesting twist into the common origins discussion, because it introduces the notion that a vast range of possibilities that could not be anticipated do occur as a result of a natural process. Presumably some time after the Big Bang water did spontaneously emerge.

As I understand it there are surprisingly small differences in the DNA structures between apes and humans. If we focus not on the overall complexity but the relatively small number of differences, it begins to resemble the emergence of new possibilities from a few constraints found in the water molecule. Small differences in the relationships found in the DNA that result in huge differences in the resulting organism.

I probably would not include this idea as part of evolution, but another observed phenomenon that explains why relatively large increases in possibilities for an organism could happen quite quickly if the process is directed by something. I'm not sure that natural selection would be the directive mechanism here, or adaptation. On the other hand I don't think it needs to be a miracle of God as a typical creationist views it. Perhaps a search for such a mechanism would bear some fruit. Or perhaps someone has already discovered something.

Having reviewed one of the articles in AJP, I agree with you that the articles were probably written in good faith. I still fail to see how refusal to publish a rebuttal directly relates to an attack on the Bible and Christianity. It still feels like speculation to me.

I would suggest that relegating the Good News of the Bible to salvation from sin does not address the reason God decided to save us, why he decided to create us, or why he gave us the ability to sin in the first place. My reading of the Bible reveals the story of a God that created us as people to love, gave us the ability to sin so we could love him back, and sent Jesus to pay the penalty for sin, so our ability to love God back could be restored and we could become part of his family. This love relates to us through the authority of the Father, the power of the Holy Spirit and the sacrifice of the Son.

Again I fail to see how any discussion of common origins, thermodynamics or complexity theory challenges any part of the Good News.

Last edited on 3/24/2012 7:04:01 AM GMT

3/24/2012 at 11:53:34 AM GMT

Posts: 58

@Sutherland- I think your insight that the properties of water can’t be understood from the properties of hydrogen and oxygen is important. You are asking a scientific question that nobody seems to be interested in trying to answer. Not to boast, I had a similar insight about positronium. We can calculate the binding energy of positronium using quantum electrodynamics, which is a mathematical expansion in the fine structure constant. My understanding is that we can’t prove the expansion converges. If this is true, we don’t completely understand the properties of positronium from the properties of electrons and positrons.

Thank you for agreeing with my criticisms of the AJP articles. The authors of the articles were probably not conscious of the absurdity of what they were writing. They were blinded by their desire to refute creationism and the idea the evolution violated the 2nd law. The Executive Board of the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) now knows or should know about the errors in the articles and they should tell the authors and reviewers to undo the damage. The authors should then submit an erratum with apologies.

The AAPT is morally obligated to do this because of their duty to their readers. One of their readers is Glenn Branch, the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education. Glenn Branch cited the AJP articles to prove Richard Dawkins was right about the sun, evolution, and the second law.

I want to ask you to examine your own conscience is this regard. I see in your comments a certain disingenuousness that I suspect is motivated by an unconscious or conscious desire to destroy the good news of salvation. Jesus taught that our purpose in life is to serve God in this world in order to be with Him in the next. We are not guaranteed salvation, but can hope for it with "fear and trembling.”

Your interpretation of Jesus’ message strikes me as being humanistic. You are not preaching the gospel. You are saying that life is good and meaningful even if it ends in the grave in a morally questionable way. What is morally questionable is that you are not admitting it. My guess is that you believe in God in the same way the John Dewey believed in God. Dewey’s idea was that God existed because people, when they behave morally, act as if God existed.

Signature:
David Roemer

3/25/2012 at 4:00:14 AM GMT

Posts: 24

Interesting that you would bring up John Dewey since ideas derived from his philosophy fall squarely within my field of expertise. I am known as a critic of Dewey because his emphasis on experience makes meaning a strictly social construction. I have never been labeled a humanist in any respect by those in my field and in my circles. I am honestly quite interested in your reasons for that label.

I believe that that the work of Jesus Christ on the cross restores the ability of man to love God back. Put another way, sin separates us from God's love leaving us subject to his judgement, eternal separation from him, hell. I do not except the notion found in the Westminster Confession that the "Chief end of man is to serve God and enjoy him forever." The angels were made to serve God. I think God loves us more than that. I think he made us to share a love relationship with him, to love God back. To love him we must be able to choose to reject him and his love, to sin.

Man is indescribably valuable to God. Each one of us is a "pearl of great price." God is willing to sell all he has so we can be his. We are so valuable to God that he gave his only son so he could make us part of his family. Just as Adam and Eve had the choice to obey God and remain in a loving relationship with him, because of Jesus we each have the choice to accept the invitation to join God's family or pursue our own way forever, eternally separated from him.

I think the kingdom of heaven is at hand, that we begin our eternal relationship with God as soon as we accept his invitation to be part of his family, to accept the atoning work of Christ. If we choose not to accept the invitation we remain under God's judgement for eternity.

For Dewey man's value lies in his relationship to society and the way they experience life. For me man has intrinsic value not derived from his relationship to society or to experience, but his relationship to God. I would argue that man's relationship to God separates him from all other creatures in the universe. Perhaps you can see why I have not been labeled a humanist.

Last edited on 3/25/2012 4:27:09 AM GMT

3/25/2012 at 2:02:15 PM GMT

Posts: 58

Yes, I can see why you are not labeled a humanist. However, that does not mean you are not a humanist as I understand the term. There are many people who don't believe in the Westminister Confession, but they keep it to themselves and they give religion to their children. Such people are not humanists. When asked about their lack of faith they will say, "God hasn't given me the gift of faith."

A humanist thinks hoping for personal fulfillment based on human experience by being united with a transcendent reality after we die is irrational or unenlightened. In their view, rational people strive for "self-realization" and the welfare of their fellow man. Being a humanist doesn't mean denying that God exists. This quote is from the humanist John Dewey:

"The idea that "God” represents a unification of ideal values that is essentially imaginative in origin when the imagination supervenes in conduct is attended with verbal difficulties owing to our frequent use of the word "imagination” to denote fantasy and doubtful reality. But the reality of ideal ends as ideals is vouched for by their undeniable power in action.

"These considerations may be applied to the idea of God, or, to avoid misleading conceptions, to the idea of the divine. The idea is, as I have said, one of ideal possibilities unified through imaginative realization and projection. But this idea of God, or of the divine, is also connected with all the natural forces and conditions—including human associations—that promote the growth of the ideal and that further its realization. We are in the presence neither of ideals completely embodied in existence nor yet of ideals that are mere rootless ideals, fantasies, utopias. For there are forces in nature and society that generate and support the ideals. They are further unified by the action that gives them coherence and solidarity. It is this active relation between ideal and actual to which I would give the name "God.” I would not insist that the name must be given."

(http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/philosophers/john_dewey.php)

As you said, humans are superior to angels. But, not because we don't have the duty to serve God in the hope of personal salvation. It is because humans possess sanctifying grace and angels don't. My guess is that you try to disabuse people of this belief. To you, humans are superior to angels because we can serve our fellow man.

I think the Executive Council of American Association of Physics Teachers, who I have been contacting, is not taking responsibility for the pseudo-scientific articles because they are humanists. The articles were written with the goal of discrediting belief in Heaven and Hell. If the authors apologize and recant, that will promote religious faith. This will make the American Association of Physics Teachers very unpopular with their fellow humanists.

Signature:
David Roemer

3/26/2012 at 8:35:26 AM GMT

Posts: 24

Wow. I have obviously not been able to clearly communicate my understanding of the Gospel, who God is and what our relationship to him is like, if you still think I know God as a human construction of the imagination, experience or social interaction. Perhaps I have not understood you well enough. Also, I do want to clarify mistake I made in a previous post. The quote from the Westminster confession actually reads: "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." I substituted the word "serve" in error.

Here are the ideas that I think we agree upon based upon our previous posts:

Humanists believe in some form that God is entirely a product of human imagination, beliefs, etc.
The AJP article pushes back against creationists that say evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Man sinned by disobeying God and suffered eternal death (defined as separation from God) as a consequence.
Jesus Christ's death and resurrection paid the penalty of eternal death on our behalf, making eternal life available to all who would receive it.
We receive eternal life by faith and not because of anything we can do to earn it.
Those who reject the free gift are condemned to eternal separation from God, hell.

The confusion seems to lie come from just few differences that I seem to misunderstand. Perhaps I could better explain my thoughts if I first asked you to respond to a few questions:

Why did God make sin possible?

Can you walk me through how "perfect communication" works without at least two perfect communicators (send and receive)?

Why does our eternal relationship with God have to wait until we physically die?

Who essentially is God? What is his essence?

Jesus said, "If you love me you will keep my commandments." Were Jesus commandments new? If they were, how did they change things? If they were not, why did he call them "my commandments" rather than God's commandments?

Last edited on 3/26/2012 8:48:50 AM GMT

3/26/2012 at 5:35:15 PM GMT

Posts: 58

We certainly do not agree about item # 2. The AJP articles give incorrect entropy equations and imply that adding heat to a system can decrease its entropy.

To the question, "Why did God make sin possible?, there are three answers depending on who is asking.

There is a higher good that God is achieving, like parents who let their children play outside for the sake of their character development even though they might get hurt. We don’t know what this higher good is, but it must be there. This answer is for people who believe in God and are trying to get to heaven.
Sin has no status in being. Being is good and evil is just the absence of good. For people trying to refute the cosmological argument for God’s existence.
For someone who is explaining why they don’t believe in God, this is a good reason. Most people who don’t believe give bad reasons. When someone gives a good reason, it should be acknowledged.

An example of perfect communication is when God reveals truths to mankind. The communication is perfect because all human beings believe exactly what God wants them to believe.

For people who are not baptized and don’t have mystical experiences, union with God comes after death.

Finite beings are a composition of essence and existence. Our existence is the principle that makes us exist. Our essence is the principle that limits our existence and makes us the particular being that we are. God is a pure act of existence without a limiting essence.

Signature:
David Roemer

3/26/2012 at 7:51:19 PM GMT

Posts: 24

Subject: RE:

D. Roemer said:
We certainly do not agree about item # 2. The AJP articles give incorrect entropy equations and imply that adding heat to a system can decrease its entropy.

To the question, "Why did God make sin possible?, there are three answers depending on who is asking.

There is a higher good that God is achieving, like parents who let their children play outside for the sake of their character development even though they might get hurt. We don’t know what this higher good is, but it must be there. This answer is for people who believe in God and are trying to get to heaven.
Sin has no status in being. Being is good and evil is just the absence of good. For people trying to refute the cosmological argument for God’s existence.
For someone who is explaining why they don’t believe in God, this is a good reason. Most people who don’t believe give bad reasons. When someone gives a good reason, it should be acknowledged.

These comments help me a great deal. I can now more easily see how we differ and perhaps that will lead to a better understanding of each other, at least for me.

Regarding #2 I would suggest from our previous posts that we both see the AJP article I read as a case being made against the creationist position that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I realize that you see the argument as not only flawed but intentionally misleading. I can't honestly agree or disagree without investigating it further. But I still think we agree on #2, that the articles were written with the intent to argue against the typical creationist position.

I find this answer to be most helpful: "An example of perfect communication is when God reveals truths to mankind. The communication is perfect because all human beings believe exactly what God wants them to believe."

It appears to me from this passage that you take a more restricted view of grace than I. Essentially you seem to me to be saying that man cannot resist God's grace. If God chooses to make him believe, he will believe. Those that God does not choose are eternally doomed. If I am incorrect in this assumption I would appreciate an explanation.

If people believe exactly what God wants them to believe, why all the effort to convince the caretakers of AJP to change their position? Do they really have a choice in the matter?

In your discussion of God's essence, and throughout your most recent message, I see you saying that God is good . How do you do interpret 1 John 4? "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love (1 John 4:8)." and "And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him (1 John 4:16)."

Last edited on 3/26/2012 7:56:53 PM GMT

3/27/2012 at 5:30:39 AM GMT

Posts: 58

I’m criticizing the moral values of the Executive Board of the American Association of Physics Teachers. While the articles may have been written in good faith, they contain egregious errors in physics and an erratum should be published. These errors are promulgated every time someone says evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, and every time someone says natural selection explains evolution. I’m not criticizing them for being non-believers.

I believe that our freedom is before God. When we die our past is some how gathered up and becomes the defining moment of our lives. We can hope for salvation, but we are not guaranteed it. I believe sinners and non-believers may be eternally doomed.

You seem to be asking the question: How can we be free when God knows what we do? Either God knows our actions because God acts upon us, or we act upon God. If we act upon God, then God is contingent upon our actions and is not self-sufficient. If God acts upon us, then in what sense are we free? The solution I got in my metaphysics class in college is this: When we make a decision to do something, we are deciding against the alternative course of action. God know what we decide because it is His power flowing though us that enables us to do what we decide. Our freedom consisted of deciding the direction God’s power will take.

I have no insight into the idea that God is love. All religions teach that we should love our fellow human beings. Humanists also say this, but are in fact a danger to their fellow human beings. Humanists are prone to irrational political causes.

Signature:
David Roemer

3/27/2012 at 11:05:42 AM GMT

R. Isaac

Posts: 80

David,

I don't see that you have responded to a number of posts several of us made previously about your claim. Let me simply repeat as clearly as I can. It is not an error to say that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. It is an error to say it does. I'd be happy to take you through the details of thermodynamics any time. For an open system, like biological organisms, which imports and exports energy, the second law of thermodynamics does not dictate whether entropy increases or decreases. There is no violation.

May I also suggest that one of your earlier posts calling into question the Christianity of the members of Christians in Science because they don't agree with your view on this issue, is out of order. In the ASA, we respect each other's diverse opinions in that we do not question each other's spiritual status because of differences in scientific matters.

Randy

3/27/2012 at 12:19:21 PM GMT

Posts: 24

@Dave Roemer - The Bible happens to be the only scripture that I know of that asserts that "God is Love." Not that God is loving, but God actually is in His essence love. Based upon my lay person's knowledge Christianity is unique amongst all religions in this assertion. Ernest Valea explains it well on his comparative religions website:

"Likewise, when the Apostle John proclaims that "God is love" (1 John 4,8) this should not be interpreted as an expression of the impersonal primordial energy, but as form of expressing the supreme unity of the tri-personal communion. It doesn't just mean that God has love, as a quality, but that he is love, which is the way of being in the Trinity, each person existing not for himself, but for the others, in a perfect communion of love." http://www.comparativereligion.com/god.html#10

My conception of the Trinity begins with the notion that "God is Love." God made man in His own image. It makes sense to me that He would want man to experience that love. Love desires the beloved to love in return. I lean toward C. S. Lewis conception in this regard. I think God gave man real choice, the kind that changes its mind. Without choice it wouldn't be possible to love God back. So God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden so humans could have a choice. God knows all the possible outcomes, but He leaves the choice up to us. Quite a bit like indeterminacy in physics.

3/27/2012 at 1:55:03 PM GMT

Posts: 58

Randy,

A biological system is not a system of non-interacting particles. I don’t understand what a biological system has to do with the second law of thermodynamics except in the way biologists say it is connected to the 2nd law.

According to the 2nd law, a gas will fill up the entire container uniformly. The reason is that this is the most probable configuration of molecules. To calculate the probabilities, physicists label each of the identical molecules No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, etc. In other words, a deck of playing cards is a model for a gas because playing cards come automatically labeled, are identical, non-interacting, and isolated from any other system.

In their effort to understand evolution, biologists use an English sonnet as a model for the primary structure of a protein. Just as every letter in the sonnet has to be in the right place, every one of the 20 amino acids has to be in the right place. Biologists calculate how long it would take a computer to generate a sonnet with the random selection of words and letters and compare this number with 3 billion years.

These calculations and the fact that the primary structure of a protein doesn’t even begin to describe the complexity of life mean that natural selection acting on innovation does not explain how evolution occurred over a period of only 3 billion years. Innovation includes, I suppose, random mutations, genetic engineering, and facilitate variation. But not enough is known about these sources of innovation to explain evolution. Natural selection only explains adaptation, not common descent. In other words, natural selection explains why giraffes have long necks but does not explain how giraffes evolved from bacteria.

The only theory that explains common descent is intelligent design, but there is no evidence for this theory. This is why it is not in peer-reviewed journals. Biologists don’t care about, or shouldn’t care about, the irrationality of intelligent design. Most advocates of intelligent design are Protestants, not Catholics.

If you have a gas in a closed container and you add heat to the gas, the temperature of the gas will increase. On the microscopic level, the average kinetic energy of the molecules will increase and the knowledge of the energy of molecules will decrease. On the macroscopic level, entropy increases. If you compress a gas by performing work on the gas and extracting heat, entropy will decrease. The American Journal of Physics articles imply that adding heat to a system can decrease its entropy.

I don’t think the American Scientific Affiliation is a Christian group. My guess is that your members believe in God in the way that John Dewey believed in God. One of the reasons I think this is because of their belief in Darwinism, which I consider pseudo-science. I’m unaware of any "differences in scientific matters.” You learn science by reading textbooks and peer-reviewed articles, and you prove you are right about science by quoting peer-reviewed articles. This is what I have done here.

Signature:
David Roemer

3/27/2012 at 5:29:14 PM GMT

Posts: 24

Hi David,

I've decided to do a little investigating so I have a question. I know something about atmospheric conditions, currents, weather, etc. Activity in the atmosphere starts with energy from the sun that enters from outside the influence of the gravitational field of the earth. Uneven heating of the surface of the earth leads to air masses that differ in temperature, moisture, density and pressure. Some energy is also lost from the earth's atmosphere via light emissions, and reflected light. Does uneven heating of the atmosphere lead to increased or decreased entropy? Does the heat move the atmosphere toward order or away from order?

Thanks.

Last edited on 3/27/2012 5:30:07 PM GMT

3/27/2012 at 6:13:30 PM GMT

R. Isaac

Posts: 80

David,

The second law of thermodynamics is not limited to a gas of non-interacting particles. It is a much broader, all-encompassing law that applies to all physical systems. The law says, quite simply, that the Gibbs free energy is minimized in every event. That applies everywhere. In the general case, adding heat to a system may or may not decrease the entropy. For a non-interacting system of molecules, the entropy would increase but in the general case of more complex systems, it may lead to a lower entropy. The second law doesn't preclude that.

As for probability, I think it is important to note that biologists do not calculate the probability of a protein in the manner you suggest. Proteins do not assemble that way. As in every complex multi-step chemical reaction, the detailed steps in formation of any molecule must be considered when assessing probabilities. We simply do not know all those steps adequately to be able to calculate any probability at all. We do know, however, that they are not assembled in one step of amino acids condensing into a chain, a la a deck of cards. Hence, the probability you suggest is not relevant.

You are right that in science we can do the study and analysis and usually determine what is the correct answer. Many scientists have considered this issue in detail and it is rather clear that evolution is not at all precluded by the second law of thermodynamics. Again, your extrapolation to the assessment of spiritual status is unwarranted and out of order, as well as inaccurate.

Randy

3/27/2012 at 1:19:38 AM GMT

Posts: 58