A Journal Imposes Order, Rejects High Entropy Submission

Posted 28 February 2011 by Wesley R. Elsberry

Asserting that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) means that evolution is false is a perennial favorite out of the ensemble of religious antievolution arguments. It takes a subsection of the Index to Creationist Claims to cover the various ways it most often gets presented by a religious antievolutionist. The TalkOrigins Archive has a series of longer responses to the sometimes bizarre range of 2LoT folderol coughed up by religious antievolutionists. Even "Answers in Genesis" notes that one variant, that 2LoT started with "The Fall", is among arguments that should never be used. So what can one make of a recent attempt to publish a batch of 2LoT religious antievolution as if it were a genuine scientific contribution? E. Granville Sewell, a mathematician at the University of Texas at El Paso and "intelligent design" creationism (IDC) advocate, submitted a manuscript to Applied Mathematical Letters (AML) titled, "A second look at the second law". AML apparently indicated acceptance of the manuscript to Sewell, leading to gloating on an IDC blog. That in turn led to action by David vun Kannon from the "After the Bar Closes" forum, who wrote the editors at AML to point out the problem. AML responded to vun Kannon, saying that they were withdrawing the manuscript. More below the fold. Let's take a bit and consider the content of Sewell's essay. I've found three other texts by Sewell related to this topic starting back in the year 2000. [S2000] 2000, Granville Sewell, A mathematician's view of evolution, The Mathematical Intelligencer. [S2001] 2001, Granville Sewell, Can ANYTHING happen in an open system?, The Mathematical Intelligencer. [S2005] 2005, Granville Sewell, Evolution's thermodynamic failure, The American Spectator. [S2011] 2011, Granville Sewell, A second look at the second law, submitted to Applied Mathematics Letters. It isn't like Sewell wrote this sequence in a vacuum, as searching for these items also shows critics having their say about the texts. Notable among these would be PT contributor Mark Perakh's thorough demolition of [S2005] in a 2006 PT post (also posted to TalkReason). So there is a record of forceful corrections of manifold errors on Sewell's part prior to the latest outing. Here's a question: did Sewell manage to account for the criticisms and deliver something more substantive this time? And here's an answer: No. I ran the text from each of the sources through my matching text finding script. I did this a few years ago for several related texts from Stephen Meyer, as you may remember.

	Sources
	[S2005]	[S2001]	[S2000]
[S2011]	24%	15%	6%
[S2005]		11%	2%
[S2001]			2%

A whopping 24% of Sewell's latest essay is taken from his 2005 American Spectator article. That looks a lot like republication to me and not careful reconsideration. Predictably, the idea that any established journal would publish such bafflegab was greeted with joy over at William Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog. My script's output for comparison of two texts includes a report of what, exactly, was considered to match between the two. This can turn up some interesting tidbits. For example, one finds this in [S2005]:

we can say that the thermal order can never increase in a closed isolated system

(Note: for processing, my script strips punctuation and pretty much anything but letters, numbers, and spaces. I'm not adding those back here.) And here's the match from 2011:

we can say that the thermal order can never increase in a closed system

Did Sewell figure out the difference in definitions that are used in thermodynamics in between 2005 and 2011, where closed indicates a system where matter does not cross the boundary but energy may, and isolated indicates a system where neither energy nor matter can cross the boundary? Once one knows that, one tends not to use "closed" and "isolated" to describe the same system, since the two terms mean different things. Getting back to Sewell, we have to again answer, no, he appears not to have learned something in the interim. At the beginning of the paragraph from [S2011] that the match above came from, we find this:

From (5), it follows that St ≥ 0 in an isolated, closed, system, where there is no heat flux through the boundary (J•n = 0).

Oops. I don't know why Sewell modified the last sentence in the paragraph, but it doesn't seem to be obviously due to an increase in knowledge on his part. Sewell's argument from [S2005] carries over into [S2011]. Rather than deal with the problems noted by Perakh, Sewell just ornaments what he said in [S2005], changing several references to "order" and "entropy" into "X-order" and "X-entropy" but otherwise leaving the text the same. Perakh succinctly dismantled the whole edifice of Sewell's "order" talk:

While expressions like "entropy flows into the system," are common in thermodynamics, they are just metaphors. Entropy is not a substance which can literally "flow" from or into a system. Entropy is a measure of disorder and the actual mechanism of its decrease in one place and accompanying increase in another place is statistical. It is realized via random motion of particles chaotically exchanging their energy and momenta through collisions. Likewise, expression like "order is imported," have no literal meaning, but Sewell uses such expressions as if they reflect the actual influx ("import") or outflow ("export") of some non-existing substance called "order." This metaphoric language sheds no additional light on the discussed phenomena, more so because his expressions like "temperature distribution becomes less random" are simply confusing as the temperature is essentially a macroscopic quantity having no meaning for infinitesimally small volumes and therefore a distribution function for temperature cannot be defined.

Calling it "X-order" instead isn't responsive to the criticism. Given the rather obvious problems in the essay, one wonders how it passed review at AML. Ervin Rodin at AML described it as "hastiness" in his reply to David vun Kannon. That's where Rodin also said that Sewell's essay [S2011] was being withdrawn from AML. So we have another instance of religious antievolutionism where, instead of engaging in science to change science, someone simply tried repeating the same old tired arguments from the same ensemble, gussied up with formulas and cool neologisms ("X-order"... that's kinda like "X-Men", eh?). Not every journal has the wherewithal to deal with the deliberate gaming of the system that is second nature to the religious antievolution movement. Fortunately, it appears that AML is among those willing to take action when such is pointed out. One thing Sewell did was quote Isaac Asimov to the effect that entropy decreases on earth were explainable due to a corresponding and larger entropy increase in the sun. Sewell, though, didn't note this as a plain error. That is despite Chris Ho-Stuart patiently explaining how, in fact, the sun is undergoing a decrease in entropy, as is the earth, and supports that with calculations. It seems that Sewell missed a chance to put Asimov firmly in his place, but it would have required paying attention to sources of critical commentary. What about Sewell himself? He closed [S2011] as he did [S2005], with this paragraph:

Of course, one can still argue that the spectacular increase in order seen on Earth does not violate the second law because what has happened here is not really extremely improbable. Not many people are willing to make this argument, however; in fact, the claim that the second law does not apply to open systems was invented in an attempt to avoid having to make this argument. And perhaps it only seems extremely improbable, but really is not, that, under the right conditions, the influx of stellar energy into a planet could cause atoms to rearrange themselves into nuclear power plants and spaceships and digital computers. But one would think that at least this would be considered an open question, and those who argue that it really is extremely improbable, and thus contrary to the basic principle underlying the second law of thermodynamics, would be given a measure of respect, and taken seriously by their colleagues, but we are not.

Is that really a paragraph that belongs in a mathematical publication? It doesn't seem that way. There's a couple of forms of respect at play here. There's a kind of default position that, in ignorance of what someone says or does, one tends to accord respect proportional to the perceived status of that person's position. We tend to think that institutions generally chose their faculty with care, so the bare fact that one is a professor will get one a modicum of respect right off the bat. But that provisional allocation of respect gets modified as we learn more about the person in question. For some, their accomplishments in their field bring even greater amounts of respect. For others, the record may instead show signs of taking up crank causes, recycling long-rebutted arguments, using fallacious reasoning, and refusing to take note of or even attempting to rebut critical commentary. The amount of respect such people get is low, and deservedly so. Sewell is not arguing anything new here. The religious antievolution fascination with the 2LoT goes back decades. All Sewell brought to the table was a willingness to reify "order" in a particular way his predecessors hadn't. And Sewell sought to republish a substantial amount of a lay publication in a journal, a behavior that tends to reduce respect for those engaging in it. All in all, one need not tender respect for badly argued balderdash that is long past its expiration date, and one isn't likely to think better of people who push it as if it were valid.

176 Comments

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2011

I have occasionally come across statements by creationists that Henry Morris may have obtained the idea for his evolution vs. the second law of thermodynamics argument from A.E. Wilder-Smith. And the earliest I have been able to trace Morris’s thermodynamics argument would place the development of the argument back in the 1960s, with its active use beginning around 1973.

At any rate, the argument was recognized to be blatantly stupid back then; and it was repeatedly debunked as misrepresentative and wrong by a number of us dealing with these issues locally and with little awareness of just how extensively these misconceptions were being propagated nationwide.

But the pattern with this, as with all ID/creationist arguments, is that they will turn right around and reuse it in any new venue where the audiences haven’t heard the refutations.

And if the heat was really put on them, the ID/creationists would cease using the argument for a period of time, but then suddenly pull it out of their arsenal again as though everyone should have forgotten it by now.

And here is Sewell attempting the same crap again in 2011.

This pattern of behavior needs to be documented just as thoroughly as the bad arguments themselves. People need to see this behavior in order to understand exactly what these IDiots are. In the talks I used to give, this is what I did; and it was more effective than the counter examples and comparisons with real science themselves.

Future generations of antievolution fighters must never forget these behaviors. They mark antievolutionists not simply as naive and a bit dim-witted, but as active, underhanded bastards with no moral scruples whatsoever. And that is how they need to be seen.

SAWells · 28 February 2011

The calculation that the sun is decreasing in entropy is based on it having an outgoing energy flux and estimating based on dQ ~ dS/T ; since dQ is negative (outgoing) so is dS.

But does this calculation take account of nuclear fusion in the Sun's core? I had understood that the process, of hydrogen fusing to helium plus neutrinos and radiation, involved an increase in entropy. I gather the argument is that the helium remains in the core while the radiation escapes into the cold universe, so it's the cold universe that increases in entropy; but again, given the density of the solar core, it takes a very long time for photons to diffuse out to the surface and escape.

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2011

SAWells said: The calculation that the sun is decreasing in entropy is based on it having an outgoing energy flux and estimating based on dQ ~ dS/T ; since dQ is negative (outgoing) so is dS. But does this calculation take account of nuclear fusion in the Sun's core? I had understood that the process, of hydrogen fusing to helium plus neutrinos and radiation, involved an increase in entropy. I gather the argument is that the helium remains in the core while the radiation escapes into the cold universe, so it's the cold universe that increases in entropy; but again, given the density of the solar core, it takes a very long time for photons to diffuse out to the surface and escape.

Look up the Virial Theorem. In a gravitational well, if a collection of particles falls two units of energy deeper into the gravitational potential well, one unit goes into the kinetic energy of the particles and the other goes off into space. When the kinetic energy among particles is great enough, they then slam into each other enough to fuse into heavier elements. And there are a number of routes along the way. This fusion releases energy in the form of photons and neutrinos and some other particles that carry large enough amounts of energy to take them out of the gravitational well. In every detailed case, falling into wells and staying there requires a release of energy. That’s how matter condenses.

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2011

And, by the way, particles in gravitational wells are unstable and have a negative heat capacity. They increase in temperature as they loose energy falling deeper into the well. Increasing temperature causes the particles to radiate more energy which releases more energy from the system which then drops deeper into the well, etc.

SWT · 28 February 2011

Here's something I've been wondering about this whole stupid second law argument.

Creationists claim that the second law prohibits natural processes from causing "atoms to rearrange themselves into nuclear power plants and spaceships and digital computers."

Does this mean that humans, who can in fact cause atoms to do these very things, are supernatural? Does it mean that other species that make tools are supernatural?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2011

SWT said: Here's something I've been wondering about this whole stupid second law argument. Creationists claim that the second law prohibits natural processes from causing "atoms to rearrange themselves into nuclear power plants and spaceships and digital computers." Does this mean that humans, who can in fact cause atoms to do these very things, are supernatural? Does it mean that other species that make tools are supernatural? Inquiring minds want to know ...

Humans frozen to near absolute zero would have less entropy and therefore be more intelligent. If they were put into a non-degenerate ground state, their entropy would be zero and they would be infinitely intelligent and could therefore do anything. This would also apply to e-coli. Therefore, all creatures approaching absolute zero temperature would become equally and infinitely intelligent.

The Founding Mothers · 28 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Therefore, all creatures approaching absolute zero temperature would become equally and infinitely intelligent.

Awesome! I'm going to sit in my fridge with the beer and think about this further.

djlactin · 28 February 2011

Note also that Sewell's argument also means that the 2LoT disallows development of a zygote into an adult. Or of a building from a pile of bricks.

Rolf Aalberg · 28 February 2011

Seems to me that according to Sewell, the universe is in a condition of absolute stasis. Silly me who always have thought that the (a) static universe would be uncountable zillions of years into the future, and maybe not even then...

Aldotius · 28 February 2011

F to AML

Rusty Catheter · 28 February 2011

Ummm,

Given that Prigogine *demonstrated* self ordering closed thermodynamic systems, and presumably open ones too, way back in the seventies.....

Given that, it seems that nothing could be more idle than vapid speculations about the impossibility of same.

Rusty

TomS · 28 February 2011

One thing that I have long wondered about the 2LoT argument is that it assumes without evidence that an intelligent designer is not subject to the law. But my understanding of the history of the laws of thermodynamics is that they were discovered precisely because of the limitations on the clever engineers of the Industrial Revolution. Intelligent Designers are limited by the laws of thermodynamics, just as they are by all the other laws of nature. One can discover laws of nature by doing experiments in the lab.

It would be as if someone were to claim to explain how airplanes fly, contrary to the law of gravity, by pointing out that airplanes are intelligently designed.

mrg · 28 February 2011

TomS said: It would be as if someone were to claim to explain how airplanes fly, contrary to the law of gravity, by pointing out that airplanes are intelligently designed.

This is one of the oddities of the way the SLOT argument is presented. It's pushed as a proof of INTELLIGENT Design but, as presented, it's a proof of SUPERNATURAL Design. I think this confusion traces back to the creationist confusion over the definition of the word "supernatural" -- instead of recognizing the fact that it's the logical equivalent of pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they try to imply that the supernatural is, actually, natural, while simultaneously saying it isn't.

John Kwok · 28 February 2011

Thanks Wesley for yet another superb instance of sleuthing on your part, which merely exposes Sewell as the duplicitous and intellectually lazy fraud that he is. However, if I may, I should note that while Uncommon Descent was founded by our mutual "pal" Dembski, it is no longer solely under his control, and, in fact, it seems as though Denyse O'Leary has become the prominent IDiot who posts there most often.

Matchstick · 28 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
SWT said: Here's something I've been wondering about this whole stupid second law argument. Creationists claim that the second law prohibits natural processes from causing "atoms to rearrange themselves into nuclear power plants and spaceships and digital computers." Does this mean that humans, who can in fact cause atoms to do these very things, are supernatural? Does it mean that other species that make tools are supernatural? Inquiring minds want to know ...
Humans frozen to near absolute zero would have less entropy and therefore be more intelligent. If they were put into a non-degenerate ground state, their entropy would be zero and they would be infinitely intelligent and could therefore do anything. This would also apply to e-coli. Therefore, all creatures approaching absolute zero temperature would become equally and infinitely intelligent.

Doesn't one of Terry Pratchett's City Watch trilogy feature a troll who's locked in a freezer where the temperature becomes low enough for his silcon-based brain to start superconducting making him smart enough to come up with a working Grand Unified Theory ?

Karen S. · 28 February 2011

Therefore, all creatures approaching absolute zero temperature would become equally and infinitely intelligent.

Then, after the winter we just endured, being buried in snow up to our eyeballs, we should all be smarter. Why didn't it work on the creos?

mrg · 28 February 2011

Matchstick said: Doesn't one of Terry Pratchett's City Watch trilogy feature a troll who's locked in a freezer where the temperature becomes low enough for his silcon-based brain to start superconducting making him smart enough to come up with a working Grand Unified Theory ?

On Pratchett's Diskworld, trolls being based on various minerals, their conductivity and intelligence increase as the temperature drops. Of course, on hot days they think slowly. Constable Detritus of the City Watch has a spring driven cooling fan in his helmet to help him think on hot days. The king of trolls, Mr. Shine, is diamond-based, and hyper-intelligent.

JohnK · 28 February 2011

Wes Elsberry said: Perakh succinctly dismantled the whole edifice of Sewell’s “order” talk:
... Entropy is a measure of disorder...

Even more succinct would have been: Thermodynamic entropy is not some universal measure of "disorder". Frank Lambert's entropysite lists 24 top intro chem textbooks that as of August 2010 have now eliminated "disorder" from their description of entropy. (Thanks somewhat to Lambert's own efforts over the last decade.) No need to play into the core of Sewell's confusion.

Doc Bill · 28 February 2011

Cue Disco Tute (my guess is Klingerhoffer) and UD (Dense O'L) on the power of the Darwinian Thought Police Lobby in suppressing viewpoints in 3, 2, 1 ...

George · 28 February 2011

Open system? Closed system? The universe (as much as we know of it) seems to be a reasonable approximation of a closed system. Perhaps, by definition, it is a closed system since the term universe is meant to mean everything - observed or not.

So entropy is increasing in the universe. I understand this matches observation. The simple fact is that nothing requires that overall requirement of the SLoT for entropy to increase to be uniform. If I add up all the changes in entropy it will be larger as time progresses. Yet, it will not be larger everywhere.

QED

John Kwok · 28 February 2011

Doc Bill said: Cue Disco Tute (my guess is Klingerhoffer) and UD (Dense O'L) on the power of the Darwinian Thought Police Lobby in suppressing viewpoints in 3, 2, 1 ...

Am actually counting on Casey Luskin, the wannabee backup guitarist of the Katy Perry Band to release his version of "Hot N' Cold" in response to what he would regard as AML's bait and switch (Sorry, it wasn't such, especially since they did not offically tell Sewell that they were going to publish his ms.).

David vun Kannon · 28 February 2011

Aldotius said: F to AML

I disagree. Whatever the failures involved in accepting the paper up front (for example, Sewell could have nominated the reviewers for all I know) Dr Rodin acted promptly and decisively when the matter was brought to his attention. That gets high marks from me.

David vun Kannon · 28 February 2011

It should be noted that Sewell published a book through the Discovery Institute last year, and that this material forms a large part of it. (Including the essay My Failed Simulation, which simply inverts part of the argument.) He also has a YouTube video on the topic.

Glen Davidson · 28 February 2011

Doc Bill said: Cue Disco Tute (my guess is Klingerhoffer) and UD (Dense O'L) on the power of the Darwinian Thought Police Lobby in suppressing viewpoints in 3, 2, 1 ...

Because there are no right answers in science! Glen Davidson

The Curmudgeon · 28 February 2011

I donno, guys. The sun is shining, yet the disorder and chaos on my desk always increases. Maybe Sewell has a point after all.

Stuart Weinstein · 28 February 2011

I'd be a little careful when claiming that Entropy flow or transport into a system is simply a metaphor. I know what you're getting at. However, in the case of thermal convection in compressible bodies, the energy equation is generally written in terms of the "entropy transport equation". In which case the boundary conditions effectively represent constraints on entropy flow in or out of the system. In the case of incompressible fluids this reduces to the usual heat transport equation.

"in fact, the claim that the second law does not apply to open systems was invented in an attempt to avoid having to make this argument"

This is wrong. The second law does not in fact apply to open systems. It sometimes is still a useful approximation. It does apply to open systems + surroundings. But that is not what Sewell said.

Its amazing how an otherwise competent mathematician twists himself in knots to make such silly claims.

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2011

JohnK said:
Wes Elsberry said: Perakh succinctly dismantled the whole edifice of Sewell’s “order” talk:
... Entropy is a measure of disorder...
Even more succinct would have been: Thermodynamic entropy is not some universal measure of "disorder". Frank Lambert's entropysite lists 24 top intro chem textbooks that as of August 2010 have now eliminated "disorder" from their description of entropy. (Thanks somewhat to Lambert's own efforts over the last decade.) No need to play into the core of Sewell's confusion.

I didn’t become aware of Frank Lambert’s efforts until sometime around 2000 or 2001. In fact, even though a number of people in the physics community were trying to deal with the same misconception, I don’t believe any of them were aware of this being an even greater problem among chemists and their textbooks. One of the problems in dealing with this is that many people in the physics community didn’t see the problem, didn’t have the problem themselves, and tended to view those who were aware of the problem as being overly pedantic. I’m not even sure that there were many people in the physics community that even knew about the creationist campaign back in the 1970s or 80s. And the excellent textbooks in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics that have been the staple of physics training don’t make these mistakes. A number of them were in wide use back in the 1960s and 70s and are still used today. These were the books I used; and I still have them. However, I also have on my shelves several textbooks that were used for liberal arts and non-majors in physics; and these do have this confusion about entropy being disorder. Today there are many more people in physics who are aware of the issue and are taking steps to address it. However, I don’t know if anyone is addressing this as seriously in the courses for non-majors.

mrg · 28 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said: One of the problems in dealing with this is that many people in the physics community didn’t see the problem, didn’t have the problem themselves, and tended to view those who were aware of the problem as being overly pedantic.

I think entropy COULD be called a form of disorder -- take a vessel of hot gas, a sink of cool gas, that's an ordered system, mixed them together the system has lost order. The problem is of course that it is a very SPECIFIC sort of disorder and has little or nothing to with the disorder, say, in which we find our house when we let it go for a while, and so use of the term is pointedly confusing, even if Henry Morris hadn't tried to exploit it. "Well, you COULD call it disorder." "Yes, but you're not doing yourself a favor by doing so."

william e emba · 28 February 2011

Sewell has twice, if I remember correctly, included a brief appendix to two of his mathematical books Computational Methods in Linear Algebra and/or Analysis of a Finite Element Method asserting the same SLoT bogosity. He didn't even bother to do the math, but just says that it's obvious from the earlier work in the book.

I remember seeing this in his books when I was thinking of buying them. I of course put them back on the shelves. It's quite possible that the rest of the books were superb, but why risk it?

Wheels · 28 February 2011

E. Granville Sewell wrote: And perhaps it only seems extremely improbable, but really is not, that, under the right conditions, the influx of stellar energy into a planet could cause atoms to rearrange themselves into nuclear power plants and spaceships and digital computers.

Indeed, it's not extremely improbable. Offhand I can think of natural spaceships* and nuclear reactors. Both of these are made possible by the birth and continuing influence of the sun.
*Unmanned, so far as we know.

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2011

David vun Kannon said: It should be noted that Sewell published a book through the Discovery Institute last year, and that this material forms a large part of it. (Including the essay My Failed Simulation, which simply inverts part of the argument.) He also has a YouTube video on the topic.

Thanks for doing this, David. It makes these tired old bones feel good.

DS · 28 February 2011

The second law of creation dynamics:

The minds of creationists are closed systems. They never experience an increase in knowledge. They can only repeat tired old discredited nonsense. They are incapable of learning from their mistakes or ever addressing any criticism honestly and openly.

Maybe next time they will learn not to crow until the paper actually goes to press. Oh, wait ... never mind.

mrg · 28 February 2011

Wheels said: Indeed, it's not extremely improbable. Offhand I can think of natural spaceships* and nuclear reactors. Both of these are made possible by the birth and continuing influence of the sun.

Indeed, the Sun itself is a natural fusion reactor. We haven't even figured out how to get them to work yet.

fasteddie · 28 February 2011

I paraphrase Dr. Bob Kelso: "Creationists are bastard coated bastards with a bastard filling."

SWT · 28 February 2011

Stuart Weinstein said: I'd be a little careful when claiming that Entropy flow or transport into a system is simply a metaphor. I know what you're getting at. However, in the case of thermal convection in compressible bodies, the energy equation is generally written in terms of the "entropy transport equation". In which case the boundary conditions effectively represent constraints on entropy flow in or out of the system. In the case of incompressible fluids this reduces to the usual heat transport equation. "in fact, the claim that the second law does not apply to open systems was invented in an attempt to avoid having to make this argument" This is wrong. The second law does not in fact apply to open systems. It sometimes is still a useful approximation. It does apply to open systems + surroundings. But that is not what Sewell said. Its amazing how an otherwise competent mathematician twists himself in knots to make such silly claims.

I am aware of no system that is exempt from the second law. How the second law is applied varies and the creationism debate is littered with incorrect applications. Sewell manages to confuse cause and effect. He also reveals deep misconceptions not only when he asserts that -entropy is equivalent to order, but also when he talks about there being different kinds of entropy.

Kevin B · 28 February 2011

DS said: The second law of creation dynamics: The minds of creationists are closed systems.

Unfortunately, they are only closed, and not isolated, otherwise they wouldn't be such a nuisance. Changing direction.... Is there any validity to my thought that Dembski's complexity arguments are equivalent to an assertion about the *amount* of entropy that needs to be lost, as opposed to the "simple" argument against evolution that *some* entropy needs to be lost? Also, can Sewell's argument be rearranged to yield a perpetual motion machine "proof", and if so would Sewell be annoyed if someone then submitted said proof to the US Patent Office (for immediate rejection)?

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2011

Kevin B said: Changing direction.... Is there any validity to my thought that Dembski's complexity arguments are equivalent to an assertion about the *amount* of entropy that needs to be lost, as opposed to the "simple" argument against evolution that *some* entropy needs to be lost?

In Dembski’s universe, matter doesn’t interact with matter. It simply lies around waiting to be assembled into specific configurations by some intelligence using “information.” The implication of a universe in which matter doesn’t interact with matter is that there is no second law of thermodynamics and that matter never condenses. So a quark/gluon plasma remains a quark/gluon plasma forever; no stars, no galaxies, no supernovas, no planets, nothing. But the problem is even more serious than that. We can detect neutrinos which interact with matter far more subtly than do photons. The electromagnet interactions and quantum rules that are involved in the interactions among matter are far more easily observed and measured than are neutrinos. On the other hand, Dembski and all the other ID/creationists are asserting that some kind of “information” pushes matter around. Furthermore, that “information” is provided by some “intelligence.” So now you see the problem; Dembski, Sewell, et. al. are not simply asserting that biology doesn’t work, they are asserting that fundamental physics is irrelevant and are making up “new physics” to explain what they themselves refuse to understand. So whatever Dembski thinks he means by “conservation of information” has nothing to do with how the universe actually behaves. And he certainly doesn’t know what is meant by entropy.

vhutchison · 28 February 2011

Self-plagiarism is still plagiarism and is unethical. However, this is not unexpected from these people.

Frank J · 28 February 2011

The minds of creationists are closed systems. They never experience an increase in knowledge.
— DS

Note how their "information" decreases just as they pretend that biological "information" does: 30 years ago most of them would say that God created many different "kinds" at once less than 10,000 years ago. Now most of them just say "some unknown designer did something at some time."

JohnK · 28 February 2011

Kevin B said: can Sewell's argument be rearranged to yield a perpetual motion machine "proof", and if so would Sewell be annoyed if someone then submitted said proof to the US Patent Office (for immediate rejection)?

A former moderator of Uncommon Dissent claimed that the human brain violated the SLoT when engaged in intelligent design, aka "generating information" for making Sewell's nuclear reactors and spacecraft. Since then I have always pictured UD's denizens wearing sophisticated but unpowered beanie caps whose propellers never stop spinning.

mrg · 28 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said: So now you see the problem; Dembski, Sewell, et. al. are not simply asserting that biology doesn’t work, they are asserting that fundamental physics is irrelevant and are making up “new physics” to explain what they themselves refuse to understand.

The entire creationist argument is based on the idea that there are substantial components of the Universe that can't be explained by the natural laws of the Universe. They have to have been created by an intelligence -- which, despite all the disingenuousness in avoiding saying so, has to be a supernatural intelligence, because on the basis of the argument no intelligence could be produced by natural law, either. Now where this gets really crazy is in the attempt to set aside those parts of the Universe judged "unnatural" from those judged "natural". Now this is disingenuous too, since the underlying faith is that said intelligence created the entire shooting match -- but if they DON'T try to pound in that wedge, they end up being TEs, who they see (as emphasized with eye-glazing redundancy by a certain poster on this forum) as sellouts even more detestable than the atheist evilutionists.

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2011

JohnK said: Since then I have always pictured UD's denizens wearing sophisticated but unpowered beanie caps whose propellers never stop spinning.

The fact that they run on no information whatsoever should be a clue for them. Oh wait; that can’t be right.

Kevin B · 28 February 2011

JohnK said: A former moderator of Uncommon Dissent claimed that the human brain violated the SLoT when engaged in intelligent design, aka "generating information" for making Sewell's nuclear reactors and spacecraft. Since then I have always pictured UD's denizens wearing sophisticated but unpowered beanie caps whose propellers never stop spinning.

I do like the juxtaposition of "nuclear reactor" with an unrelated use of the word "moderator". :) It points up the deceptive use of the word "design" which can both refer to a passive description of something, and to an active intent. PS That "intent" is not necesarily a *big* intent. Do you get those beanie caps at the Circus?

eric · 28 February 2011

JohnK said: A former moderator of Uncommon Dissent claimed that the human brain violated the SLoT when engaged in intelligent design, aka "generating information" for making Sewell's nuclear reactors and spacecraft.

Yes, this is ultimately where they need to go. "Is intelligence evolvable" is THE key question for ID. Creationists have been dancing around that question for years because any answer is (for them) sub-optimal; their strategy to sneak religion into science classes relies on ambiguously not-answering this question. To see this, just think about the two possible answers. If intelligence is evolvable, then ID is as irrelevant to the TOE as dog-breeding. Like dog-breeding, design by evolved entities doesn't undermine evoluton at all. OTOH if one believes intelligence isn't physically evolvable, then it is a violation of the known laws of physics and chemistry. A non-physical miracle. And thus, something outside of science which should not be taught in science classes. Either way, they lose, but at least they're starting to ask the right question.

mrg · 28 February 2011

eric said: To see this, just think about the two possible answers. If intelligence is evolvable, then ID is as irrelevant to the TOE as dog-breeding. Like dog-breeding, design by evolved entities doesn't undermine evoluton at all.

Y'know ... before I got into evo science, I had no real experience in consideration of subtle arguments and tricky reasoning. Thanks to creationists, I have ended up jumping through logical hoops that would have been beyond my imagination ten years ago. And for that, I curse them all the more. I wouldn't have imagined them because I had no need of them, and other than to keep from being bamboozled by screwball creationist arguments, I have no use for them.

IBelieveInGod · 28 February 2011

The results of entropy are witnessed by everyone here, it is what ultimately causes aging and death of old age. Things also wear out, breakdown over time due to entropy. So, it is a known fact that entropy does have an impact on everything. Why wouldn't it impact origin of life?

Is it true that complex chemical compounds left to themselves will eventually break down in the simpler ones?

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2011

mrg said: And for that, I curse them all the more. I wouldn't have imagined them because I had no need of them, and other than to keep from being bamboozled by screwball creationist arguments, I have no use for them.

Everyone I know who has dealt with ID/creationists and their inane “arguments” has expressed exactly the same feelings. One can’t help feeling that one’s brain has been damaged by having to deal with that crap. And you have feelings equivalent to having fallen into a septic tank when you are done. Yet somebody has to do it; and you feel cursed that it fell on you when you didn’t ask for it. It’s a desperate feeling sometimes. I think some of us have managed to mitigate this somewhat by turning it into an exercise in rooting out misconceptions and stumbling blocks to learning science. On the other hand, the crap keeps coming.

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2011

IBelieveInGod said: The results of entropy are witnessed by everyone here, it is what ultimately causes aging and death of old age. Things also wear out, breakdown over time due to entropy. So, it is a known fact that entropy does have an impact on everything. Why wouldn't it impact origin of life? Is it true that complex chemical compounds left to themselves will eventually break down in the simpler ones?

I have little hope that you can benefit from it, but please go away and learn something about entropy.

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2011

On the other hand, the crap keeps coming.

Q.E.D.

SWT · 28 February 2011

IBelieveInGod said: Is it true that complex chemical compounds left to themselves will eventually break down in the simpler ones?

No.

Flint · 28 February 2011

I sometimes wonder if there is a subtext, too obvious to need to say in so many words, that in the creationist universe the Designer is employed full time, in real time, causing matter to interact with matter, complete with all ramifications, from the subatomic level on up. That no neutrino is emitted without the Designer deciding where it will go, and sending it on its way.

So what we call entropy is simply a side effect of the way He has decided to do things, and He can gin up an exception to it whenever He happens to be in the mood. Reality as we know it doesn't actually exist; it arises from the Designer's machinations the same way mind arises from neural firing in the brain.

Stanton · 28 February 2011

IBelieveInGod babbled: The results of entropy are witnessed by everyone here, it is what ultimately causes aging and death of old age. Things also wear out, breakdown over time due to entropy. So, it is a known fact that entropy does have an impact on everything. Why wouldn't it impact origin of life?

Entropy does not impact "origin of life" or the process of biological evolution any more than Entropy impacts the law of Gravity.

Is it true that complex chemical compounds left to themselves will eventually break down in the simpler ones?

Actually, no. In Organic Chemistry Lab, we were often showed and told how to stop certain chemical reactions from proceeding, lest they produce too much unwanted product chemicals, whose molecules were much larger than those of the product chemical. If you actually bothered to learn about basic science, you would have known this, and have had no need to ask such a stupid question. But, then again, you do consider yourself smarter than all of the scientists of the world, while simultaneously regarding science education as tantamount to mass murder.

SWT · 28 February 2011

Flint said: I sometimes wonder if there is a subtext, too obvious to need to say in so many words, that in the creationist universe the Designer is employed full time, in real time, causing matter to interact with matter, complete with all ramifications, from the subatomic level on up. That no neutrino is emitted without the Designer deciding where it will go, and sending it on its way.

That could be. I remember having a Sunday school teacher when I was in grade school (4th grade, I think) who seemed to believe that the earth orbited the sun and the moon orbited the earth only through the direct and continual interaction of God. She cast it in terms of, we take vacations, but God never does, and think of all the awful things that would happen if God did take a vacation. It obviously made an impression, since I have relatively few other memories of Sunday school at that church we attended in the late 1960's/early 1970's. Mrs. Graley never talked about neutrinos; maybe they was covered in the junior high or high school curriculum.

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2011

SWT said:
Flint said: I sometimes wonder if there is a subtext, too obvious to need to say in so many words, that in the creationist universe the Designer is employed full time, in real time, causing matter to interact with matter, complete with all ramifications, from the subatomic level on up. That no neutrino is emitted without the Designer deciding where it will go, and sending it on its way.
That could be. I remember having a Sunday school teacher when I was in grade school (4th grade, I think) who seemed to believe that the earth orbited the sun and the moon orbited the earth only through the direct and continual interaction of God. She cast it in terms of, we take vacations, but God never does, and think of all the awful things that would happen if God did take a vacation. It obviously made an impression, since I have relatively few other memories of Sunday school at that church we attended in the late 1960's/early 1970's.

If I’m not mistaken, there is some doctrine akin to pantheism in which the deity permeates the universe at every level and sustains it and animates it through the laws of physics; and this deity had done this from the beginning. I don’t recall the name of this doctrine, but some have used the analogy that the universe is comprised of the “thoughts of the deity.” It doesn’t eliminate all the theodicy issues; but apparently some believers figure that this deity knows every thought and can manipulate it at will.

Mrs. Graley never talked about neutrinos; maybe they was covered in the junior high or high school curriculum.

Back in the 1960s physicists were still struggling with direct detection of neutrinos which had been inferred by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 and first detected in 1956. Few of their properties were known, and the other types of neutrino had not yet been discovered. Frank Close has just published a nice little book called Neutrino. It is a very interesting read.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 28 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said: [...] Future generations of antievolution fighters must never forget these behaviors. They mark antievolutionists not simply as naive and a bit dim-witted, but as active, underhanded bastards with no moral scruples whatsoever. And that is how they need to be seen.

Yep. Gish relied on people not having the back story on his bullfrog protein claims, and so would trot them out again and again after having it brought forcefully to his attention that his statements were false. Sewell's recycling puts him in the same category.

Joe Felsenstein · 28 February 2011

Kevin B said: Changing direction.... Is there any validity to my thought that Dembski's complexity arguments are equivalent to an assertion about the *amount* of entropy that needs to be lost, as opposed to the "simple" argument against evolution that *some* entropy needs to be lost?

Dembski's arguments are in effect aimed at establishing that the extent of adaptation cannot be increased by forces such as natural selection. They are posed in terms of "information" (not entropy) but actually the informationness is unimportant to them. You can just say adaptedness. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and they do it an awful lot better than organisms whose genomes are random strings of letters. That is the essence of Dembski's design detection. Most of us would reply “yes, but can't natural selection make them far better than pure mutation could?” His Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information is supposed to rule that out, but as I explained here it doesn't rule it out at all. So his Explanatory Filter detects either design or natural selection. In its essence it is not an information theory argument or an entropy argument.

OgreMkV · 28 February 2011

I must be insane.

If I may, IBIG. Entropy is not 'disorder'. It has much more to do with energy.

Consider the following three molecules in a tiny little box. 2 H2 molecules and 1 O2 molecule. These are naturally occurring molecules and will often be found together in this state. However, if something happens... "Something wonderful". Then you get

BOOM

and two H2O molecules instead.

Now according to what you think, eventually H2O must breakdown and become 2 H2 and 2 O2 because that would increase the disorder right?

Unfortunately, you are wrong. The two water molecules have a much lower total energy than the 3 original molecules (hence the BOOM, energy release). The universe is tending toward a decrease in available energy.

Now, within the box, once the BOOM occurs, there is nothing left to do. The molecules are in their lowest energy state. Maximum entropy.

But, if we can bring in some outside energy (say, from the sun), then we can break those water molecules apart by adding energy to them and recreating the higher energy 2 H2 and 1 O2 molecules.

Does that make sense? If not where?

Stanton · 28 February 2011

OgreMkV said: Does that make sense? If not where?

To IBelieve, what you just said is pure, unadulterated nonsense, as your argument does not boil down to "I don't know, therefore, GODDIDIT, thus Hallelujah"

Chris Caprette · 28 February 2011

But one would think that at least this would be considered an open question, and those who argue that it really is extremely improbable, and thus contrary to the basic principle underlying the second law of thermodynamics, would be given a measure of respect, and taken seriously by their colleagues, but we are not.

Wow. That is about the whiniest bit of douchebaggery I've seen in a long while. I would think that a reviewer would at least have put a big red "DEL" in the margin next to that paragraph.

Stuart Weinstein · 28 February 2011

SWT said:
Stuart Weinstein said: I'd be a little careful when claiming that Entropy flow or transport into a system is simply a metaphor. I know what you're getting at. However, in the case of thermal convection in compressible bodies, the energy equation is generally written in terms of the "entropy transport equation". In which case the boundary conditions effectively represent constraints on entropy flow in or out of the system. In the case of incompressible fluids this reduces to the usual heat transport equation. "in fact, the claim that the second law does not apply to open systems was invented in an attempt to avoid having to make this argument" This is wrong. The second law does not in fact apply to open systems. It sometimes is still a useful approximation. It does apply to open systems + surroundings. But that is not what Sewell said. Its amazing how an otherwise competent mathematician twists himself in knots to make such silly claims.
I am aware of no system that is exempt from the second law. How the second law is applied varies and the creationism debate is littered with incorrect applications. Sewell manages to confuse cause and effect. He also reveals deep misconceptions not only when he asserts that -entropy is equivalent to order, but also when he talks about there being different kinds of entropy.

Thanks for the correction. What I meant was the form the second law takes for isolated systems near equilibrium i.e., dS/dt ge 0 doesn't apply to open systems. This is usually the form creationists use when justifying their claims.

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2011

Wesley R. Elsberry said:
Mike Elzinga said: [...] Future generations of antievolution fighters must never forget these behaviors. They mark antievolutionists not simply as naive and a bit dim-witted, but as active, underhanded bastards with no moral scruples whatsoever. And that is how they need to be seen.
Yep. Gish relied on people not having the back story on his bullfrog protein claims, and so would trot them out again and again after having it brought forcefully to his attention that his statements were false. Sewell's recycling puts him in the same category.

I suspect a lot of people don’t know just how much of a bully Gish was. I lived in the same community he did although I never met him personally. However, a good friend of mine taught biology in that same community Gish lived in when the worked at the Upjohn Company. She was a popular, multi-award-winning teacher who taught evolution back in the 1960s and 70s; and Gish spent much of his time harassing her and other teachers who taught evolution. He would just show up in their classrooms. A couple of years ago I had my last conversation with her just before she died of cancer; and it was clear that the pain of those times remained with her throughout all those intervening years. Gish was a real son-of-a-bitch. And the people in the churches that supported Gish are still in the community harassing teachers today. During this last Christmas break I talked with another popular biology teacher who has been the target of tag-teaming on the part of the fundamentalist parents year after year for at least 20 years. And she admitted that it is beginning to wear on her. To those of us in the science community this should be a reminder that their pain is our pain. The entire science community has an obligation to support and nurture these teachers and to stay in the fight to keep this kind of fundamentalist harassment out of the schools.

SWT · 28 February 2011

Stuart Weinstein said: Thanks for the correction. What I meant was the form the second law takes for isolated systems near equilibrium i.e., dS/dt ge 0 doesn't apply to open systems. This is usually the form creationists use when justifying their claims.

Correct on both counts.

Matt Young · 28 February 2011

If I’m not mistaken, there is some doctrine akin to pantheism in which the deity permeates the universe at every level and sustains it and animates it through the laws of physics; and this deity had done this from the beginning.

I am a little fuzzy on this matter, but a Jesuit priest, F. C. Copleston, had a version of the argument from first cause that perceived not a time series of causes but rather a hierarchy of causes, all in the here and now. To avoid an infinite regression, he inserts God at all times and in all places. All very Aristotelian, in a way, but surely not pantheistic. I got my information from John Hicks, The Existence of God, 1964, a long time ago, and I have no intention of rereading it.

fnxtr · 28 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said: I have little hope that you [IBIG] can benefit from it, but please go away and learn something about entropy.

Very useful. Didn't catch it all the first time through but bookmarked it. Thanks, Mike!

Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2011

fnxtr said:
Mike Elzinga said: I have little hope that you [IBIG] can benefit from it, but please go away and learn something about entropy.
Very useful. Didn't catch it all the first time through but bookmarked it. Thanks, Mike!

You are quite welcome. I hope the fact that the audio recording died 2/3 of the way into the talk won’t be too much of a hindrance. And Brian McEnnis of the Math Department at Ohio State, Marion deserves our thanks for maintaining a set of Science Café talks on that site.

Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2011

Matt Young said: I am a little fuzzy on this matter, but a Jesuit priest, F. C. Copleston, had a version of the argument from first cause that perceived not a time series of causes but rather a hierarchy of causes, all in the here and now. To avoid an infinite regression, he inserts God at all times and in all places. All very Aristotelian, in a way, but surely not pantheistic. I got my information from John Hicks, The Existence of God, 1964, a long time ago, and I have no intention of rereading it.

That rings a bell. I’ll grope through some of my old books in the back closets to see what I can come up with. Thanks.

Aldotius · 1 March 2011

Hi David.

The article states AML indicated acceptance of the manuscript. Acceptance because they thought it was sound? Had you not pointed out to AML the issues involved we can presume it would have been published? Kudos to you, but in my opinion there exists a problem (with AML) if IDC claptrap are accepted for publication.

Granted they sorted out the little embarrassment once you told them about it. Pity we will be hearing severe whining about persecution about this, for years to come.

SWT · 1 March 2011

They did more than "indicate acceptance." If you go to the AML web site (and you have a subscription), you could, at least as of yesterday, download the paper as an article in press. Thus, the article was reviewed, revised, accepted, published, and reportedly withdrawn by the journal (although I haven't seen that last bit yet).

Mike Clinch · 1 March 2011

DS said: The second law of creation dynamics: The minds of creationists are closed systems. They never experience an increase in knowledge. They can only repeat tired old discredited nonsense. They are incapable of learning from their mistakes or ever addressing any criticism honestly and openly.

The corrolary to this law is that any creationist who uses a 2LOT argument to convince his/her followers that evolution can't happen is either too ignorant of thermodynamics to understand the argument, or too dishonest to be allowed to speak further on the issue. The proper reaponse would be to ask "Are you just stupid, or are you a liar?".

Aldotius · 1 March 2011

Thank you for the info SWT.

John Kwok · 1 March 2011

David vun Kannon said: It should be noted that Sewell published a book through the Discovery Institute last year, and that this material forms a large part of it. (Including the essay My Failed Simulation, which simply inverts part of the argument.) He also has a YouTube video on the topic.

For that very reason David you were well within your rights to alert AML, and moreover, Wesley has demonstrated here how much Sewell has opted to regurgitate his mendacious intellectual pornography more than once. Thnk you for rendering such excellent service on behalf of sound science and mathematics. Aldotius is the one deserving of a F, not AML.

John Kwok · 1 March 2011

Aldotius said: Hi David. The article states AML indicated acceptance of the manuscript. Acceptance because they thought it was sound? Had you not pointed out to AML the issues involved we can presume it would have been published? Kudos to you, but in my opinion there exists a problem (with AML) if IDC claptrap are accepted for publication. Granted they sorted out the little embarrassment once you told them about it. Pity we will be hearing severe whining about persecution about this, for years to come.

Sorry Aldotius, I didn't see this observation of yours before I issued my grade. That F is rescinded.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 1 March 2011

Aldotius said: Hi David. The article states AML indicated acceptance of the manuscript. Acceptance because they thought it was sound? Had you not pointed out to AML the issues involved we can presume it would have been published? Kudos to you, but in my opinion there exists a problem (with AML) if IDC claptrap are accepted for publication. Granted they sorted out the little embarrassment once you told them about it. Pity we will be hearing severe whining about persecution about this, for years to come.

It was David vun Kannon who had the critical correspondence with the AML editors, so he gets the credit. I'm just passing on the news.

TomS · 1 March 2011

The question whether intelligence is evolvable suggests a related question, whether intelligence can be generated by natural means.

IOW, how is it possible that such natural processes as reproduction, growth and development can produce intelligent beings?

It's an equally good argument for Scientific Storkism.

mrg · 1 March 2011

TomS said: The question whether intelligence is evolvable suggests a related question, whether intelligence can be generated by natural means. IOW, how is it possible that such natural processes as reproduction, growth and development can produce intelligent beings? It's an equally good argument for Scientific Storkism.

"Huh?"

Wesley R. Elsberry · 1 March 2011

Scientific Storkism. It's the Theory of the Stork.

mrg · 1 March 2011

That part of the comment caused no confusion.

IBelieveInGod · 1 March 2011

OgreMkV said: I must be insane. If I may, IBIG. Entropy is not 'disorder'. It has much more to do with energy. Consider the following three molecules in a tiny little box. 2 H2 molecules and 1 O2 molecule. These are naturally occurring molecules and will often be found together in this state. However, if something happens... "Something wonderful". Then you get BOOM and two H2O molecules instead. Now according to what you think, eventually H2O must breakdown and become 2 H2 and 2 O2 because that would increase the disorder right? Unfortunately, you are wrong. The two water molecules have a much lower total energy than the 3 original molecules (hence the BOOM, energy release). The universe is tending toward a decrease in available energy. Now, within the box, once the BOOM occurs, there is nothing left to do. The molecules are in their lowest energy state. Maximum entropy. But, if we can bring in some outside energy (say, from the sun), then we can break those water molecules apart by adding energy to them and recreating the higher energy 2 H2 and 1 O2 molecules. Does that make sense? If not where?

So you are calling H2O a complex chemical compound? REALLY Here are several definitions of Entropy: a measure of disorder or randomness in a closed system a measure of a loss of information in a transmitted message. a steady deterioration of a system. Okay now read this: http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/entropy.php

SWT · 1 March 2011

John Kwok said: Sorry Aldotius, I didn't see this observation of yours before I issued my grade. That F is rescinded.

Rescinded after publication? Inconceivable!

Wesley R. Elsberry · 1 March 2011

The article is still accessible via the AML "in press" section. Hopefully, the editor will follow up soon on the stated intention of withdrawing it.

Stanton · 1 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said:
OgreMkV said: I must be insane. If I may, IBIG. Entropy is not 'disorder'. It has much more to do with energy. Consider the following three molecules in a tiny little box. 2 H2 molecules and 1 O2 molecule. These are naturally occurring molecules and will often be found together in this state. However, if something happens... "Something wonderful". Then you get BOOM and two H2O molecules instead. Now according to what you think, eventually H2O must breakdown and become 2 H2 and 2 O2 because that would increase the disorder right? Unfortunately, you are wrong. The two water molecules have a much lower total energy than the 3 original molecules (hence the BOOM, energy release). The universe is tending toward a decrease in available energy. Now, within the box, once the BOOM occurs, there is nothing left to do. The molecules are in their lowest energy state. Maximum entropy. But, if we can bring in some outside energy (say, from the sun), then we can break those water molecules apart by adding energy to them and recreating the higher energy 2 H2 and 1 O2 molecules. Does that make sense? If not where?
So you are calling H2O a complex chemical compound? REALLY Here are several definitions of Entropy: a measure of disorder or randomness in a closed system a measure of a loss of information in a transmitted message. a steady deterioration of a system. Okay now read this: http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/entropy.php

How is this supposed to magically prove that God magically poofed the world into existence, using magic, 10,000 years ago, as according to a literal reading of the English translation of the Bible? How is this supposed to magically disprove Biological Evolution? How is this supposed to magically prove to us that your "FAITH" (sic) magically trumps all of the scientists in the world?

Stanton · 1 March 2011

Mike Clinch said:
DS said: The second law of creation dynamics: The minds of creationists are closed systems. They never experience an increase in knowledge. They can only repeat tired old discredited nonsense. They are incapable of learning from their mistakes or ever addressing any criticism honestly and openly.
The corrolary to this law is that any creationist who uses a 2LOT argument to convince his/her followers that evolution can't happen is either too ignorant of thermodynamics to understand the argument, or too dishonest to be allowed to speak further on the issue. The proper reaponse would be to ask "Are you just stupid, or are you a liar?".

Generally speaking, the vast majority of Creationists tend to be both stupid and liars. Take IBelieve and FL, for example. They both pride themselves on being smarter than all of the scientists in the world, yet demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of even basic scientific concepts, and they also demonstrate that they are pathological liars who can not be trusted, ever.

Aldotius · 1 March 2011

IBIG: "a measure of disorder or randomness in a closed system"

That would explain the why the Biblical God changed his mind and character so much, eh?

John Kwok · 1 March 2011

SWT said:
John Kwok said: Sorry Aldotius, I didn't see this observation of yours before I issued my grade. That F is rescinded.
Rescinded after publication? Inconceivable!

No SWT, I mistakenly concluded that Aldotius was sympathetic to Sewell and his UD pals. So I had to rescind the F grade I had bestowed upon Aldotius. Anyway, again, I concur with Wesley that David vun Kannon deserves ample credit for alerting AML's editors. Hopefully they'll remove that risible excuse for a scientific paper from the "in press" section soon.

TomS · 1 March 2011

mrg said: "Huh?"

I find it interesting that many of the arguments against evolution apply with equal force against reproduction. For example, if one argues that intelligence cannot be generated by natural processes, and therefore evolution can't be true, then one can also argue that reproduction by natural processes can't generate intelligence.

OgreMkV · 1 March 2011

"Entropy is a thermodynamic property that is a measure of the energy not available for useful work in a thermodynamic process, such as in energy conversion devices, engines, or machines." First line of wikipedia article.

Continuing under 'Approaches to Understanding Entropy' "Entropy has often been loosely associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a thermodynamic system. The traditional qualitative description of entropy is that it refers to changes in the status quo of the system and is a measure of "molecular disorder" and the amount of wasted energy in a dynamical energy transformation from one state or form to another."

I guess I was right. IBIG is too stupid to even consider the possibility that he's not 100% correct.

IBIG, it has nothing to do with complexity. Who even brought that up? Oh wait... you did. It has to do with ENERGY!!!!!!!!!! That's all.

Everything else is an ANALOGY to help freshman physics students understand what's going on WITHOUT rigorous math (like you). Do you want the math? What am I saying? I don't even want the math, but at least I can talk about it without reference to analogy.

Now, show where I'm wrong, complexity of water or not. GO ahead, I'll wait while you do your homework and figure out how much energy is in 2 H2 molecules and 2 O2 molecules and then how much energy in in 2 H2O molecules. Oh wait, you won't do it. You are too lazy, too stupid, and too cowardly to do it. Prove me wrong.

mrg · 1 March 2011

That Purdue page cited above demonstrates how stubbornly usage of terms such as "disorder" in thermo discussions persists. One winces while reading it.

mrg · 1 March 2011

TomS said: I find it interesting that many of the arguments against evolution apply with equal force against reproduction.

It’s [the argument for intelligence being evolvable is] an equally good argument for Scientific Storkism. That sounded almost like a Byerism. "Be careful how you use Mister Pronoun, because he is not always your friend."

Rob · 1 March 2011

Mike, Very nice powerpoint as well. Rob

Mike Elzinga said:
IBelieveInGod said: The results of entropy are witnessed by everyone here, it is what ultimately causes aging and death of old age. Things also wear out, breakdown over time due to entropy. So, it is a known fact that entropy does have an impact on everything. Why wouldn't it impact origin of life? Is it true that complex chemical compounds left to themselves will eventually break down in the simpler ones?
I have little hope that you can benefit from it, but please go away and learn something about entropy.

DS · 1 March 2011

Mike,

Thanks for the power point. I will study it carefully. Your efforts are much appreciated.

mrg · 1 March 2011

While Lambert's site targets professional physicists and educators, bless him he did not forget us poor novices, "A Student's Approach To The Second Law & Entropy":

http://entropysite.oxy.edu/students_approach.html

And, just to hammer in the nails, Lambert also laid down the law for confused teachers, "Teaching Entropy Is Simple -- If You Discard 'Disorder'":

http://entropysite.oxy.edu/teaching_entropy.html

I haven't gone through these yet, but they look good.
Lambert points out that the "disorder" and "shuffling packs of cards" sorts of confusion actually go back to Boltzmann, who didn't quite understand the potential for confusion in use of such things.

eric · 1 March 2011

TomS said:
mrg said: "Huh?"
I find it interesting that many of the arguments against evolution apply with equal force against reproduction. For example, if one argues that intelligence cannot be generated by natural processes, and therefore evolution can't be true, then one can also argue that reproduction by natural processes can't generate intelligence.

Yes...in some respects the creationists have reinvented the 17th century "homonculous" concept. In order to explain how development does things they claim its impossible for nature to do, they must hypothesize all the "designing" is already complete before any development occurs. I imagine this is preposterous to any trained biologist. Its fairly preposterous to me and I'm a lowly chemist. :)

Kevin B · 1 March 2011

eric said:
TomS said:
mrg said: "Huh?"
I find it interesting that many of the arguments against evolution apply with equal force against reproduction. For example, if one argues that intelligence cannot be generated by natural processes, and therefore evolution can't be true, then one can also argue that reproduction by natural processes can't generate intelligence.
Yes...in some respects the creationists have reinvented the 17th century "homonculous" concept. In order to explain how development does things they claim its impossible for nature to do, they must hypothesize all the "designing" is already complete before any development occurs. I imagine this is preposterous to any trained biologist. Its fairly preposterous to me and I'm a lowly chemist. :)

So can we start calling "front-loading" "neo-preformationism"?

Aldotius · 1 March 2011

John Kwok : "Sorry Aldotius, I didn’t see this observation of yours before I issued my grade. That F is rescinded."

Apologies for not replying to the actual comment. My browser is acting up a bit prohibiting me. No apology from your side required sir, I noticed the misunderstanding and my failure to clarify my first post.

Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said: Here are several definitions of Entropy: a measure of disorder or randomness in a closed system a measure of a loss of information in a transmitted message. a steady deterioration of a system. Okay now read this: http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/entropy.php

Now that you are an expert on entropy, here is your chance to demonstrate that you are not a fool by answering a question any high school student who understands the concept can do. You have a system consisting of 10 identical atoms, each atom having a non-degenerate ground state and a single excited state. (a) Calculate the entropy of the system when every atom is in its ground state. (b) Now add energy to the system such that every atom is in its excited state. What is the entropy now? (c) Now put just enough energy into the system such that half the atoms are in their excited state. What is the entropy now? (d) Calculate the temperature of the system in parts (a), (b), and (c). (e) Explain your results to parts (a) through (d). Anybody who wants to can place bets on how IBIG will do.

raven · 1 March 2011

Gish spent much of his time harassing her and other teachers who taught evolution. He would just show up in their classrooms.

I don't think this would happen today. The schools from elementary on up have had a lot of problems with people showing up with guns and then start shooting. One of our schools had some weird guy hanging around. They called the police and it turned out he was a convicted pedophile. In my area today, if some strange person showed up without checking in at the front desk, probably the teachers would just call the cops and have them removed.

raven · 1 March 2011

During this last Christmas break I talked with another popular biology teacher who has been the target of tag-teaming on the part of the fundamentalist parents year after year for at least 20 years. And she admitted that it is beginning to wear on her.

This isn't even the worst that happens. In some parts of the US, biology teachers can end up fired. Or harassed to the point that they quit. Teachers get their tires slashed, windows broken, false accusations filed against them, beaten up, and on and on. If the fundies think they can get violent without getting tossed in jail, they will do exactly that. Expect the worst from them and never, ever turn your back on those people.

Aldotius · 1 March 2011

...and keep them away from your children. Their infectious viral memes will scar them for life.

Wheels · 1 March 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
mrg said: And for that, I curse them all the more. I wouldn't have imagined them because I had no need of them, and other than to keep from being bamboozled by screwball creationist arguments, I have no use for them.
Everyone I know who has dealt with ID/creationists and their inane “arguments” has expressed exactly the same feelings.

I first experienced Creationist arguments (consciously, anway) fresh out of a technical college class on introductory Logic. It was like pure, unadulterated mana from Heaven in terms of keeping that education sharp.

I think some of us have managed to mitigate this somewhat by turning it into an exercise in rooting out misconceptions and stumbling blocks to learning science.

Watching from the sidelines has actually taught me more about science (as a process) than my fancy book-larnin' did, and definitely stoked my interest in science generally. Actually I think the pseudo-controversy gives sideliners a chance to see fringe cases and deep concepts that normally don't make it into the curriculum because of time constraints. Guess I'm one of those people that extracted a tremendously valuable education from the conflict. I know how frustrating it is to deal with the revolving door of crap arguments, but let me tell you guys that it does have a broader effect.

Aldotius · 1 March 2011

Wheels: "Guess I’m one of those people that extracted a tremendously valuable education from the conflict. I know how frustrating it is to deal with the revolving door of crap arguments, but let me tell you guys that it does have a broader effect."

Seconded. Irony is that I learned more from science, and about science after I started doubting my creationism roots.
People who question in logical terms plays a tremendous part in changing the lives of those who values honesty.

To all the unsung heroes who ridiculed, questioned and refuted creationism dishonesty, thank you. For what it is worth, you changed at least one life for the better.

SWT · 1 March 2011

John Kwok said:
SWT said:
John Kwok said: Sorry Aldotius, I didn't see this observation of yours before I issued my grade. That F is rescinded.
Rescinded after publication? Inconceivable!
No SWT, I mistakenly concluded that Aldotius was sympathetic to Sewell and his UD pals. So I had to rescind the F grade I had bestowed upon Aldotius. Anyway, again, I concur with Wesley that David vun Kannon deserves ample credit for alerting AML's editors. Hopefully they'll remove that risible excuse for a scientific paper from the "in press" section soon.

I guess PT needs irony icons, I need a more transparent sense of humor, or both.

mrg · 1 March 2011

Wheels said: Guess I'm one of those people that extracted a tremendously valuable education from the conflict. I know how frustrating it is to deal with the revolving door of crap arguments, but let me tell you guys that it does have a broader effect.

I'm way used to a wide range of crackpots -- creationists are only one among many -- and chasing after their deliberately confused arguments does get old. Underlying the confused arguments is a certain looney toons logic, but there's only so far that it can be followed before reaching the conclusion: "OK, they're just bonkers, don't go in any deeper." Arguing with crazy people will make you crazy.

Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2011

Wheels said: I first experienced Creationist arguments (consciously, anway) fresh out of a technical college class on introductory Logic. It was like pure, unadulterated mana from Heaven in terms of keeping that education sharp.

I would never recommend anyone put their brain in jeopardy with drugs or constant exposure to mental illness; and I have pointed to this four-part series by Lisle over at AiG before. I think many people will find this kind of “reasoning” quite disturbing; but given the fact that we see this kind of thinking permeating politics these days, the remaining healthy minds in society really do need to be aware of what these groups are trying to bring down on us. There are huge amounts of money being spent in attempting to exploit this kind of confusion. If one isn’t prepared for it, a lot of time and energy can be wasted in getting the focus back on real issues. Everything over at AiG is meticulously orchestrated projection and demonizing. Imagine the minds behind this.

mplavcan · 1 March 2011

Every time I hear Jason Lisle speak, or read his crap, I am simply amazed at how someone can be so self-deluded. This stuff is stunning. Utter childish nonsense. Logic and morality and laws outside of Biblical Christianity do not exist. Only "Biblical" Christianity explains logic and morality and knowledge itself. And the logical basis of this argument? Because I read in a book that a supernatural being said so, and it makes me happy to believe it. Which explains why Sewell is the way that he is. The level of self-delusion and denial that these guys soak their heads in every day is simply off the meter. They live in a self-constructed fantasy, with an invisible rest-friend running their world.

Mike Elzinga said:
Wheels said: I first experienced Creationist arguments (consciously, anway) fresh out of a technical college class on introductory Logic. It was like pure, unadulterated mana from Heaven in terms of keeping that education sharp.
I would never recommend anyone put their brain in jeopardy with drugs or constant exposure to mental illness; and I have pointed to this four-part series by Lisle over at AiG before. I think many people will find this kind of “reasoning” quite disturbing; but given the fact that we see this kind of thinking permeating politics these days, the remaining healthy minds in society really do need to be aware of what these groups are trying to bring down on us. There are huge amounts of money being spent in attempting to exploit this kind of confusion. If one isn’t prepared for it, a lot of time and energy can be wasted in getting the focus back on real issues. Everything over at AiG is meticulously orchestrated projection and demonizing. Imagine the minds behind this.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 1 March 2011

Wheels said: Watching from the sidelines has actually taught me more about science (as a process) than my fancy book-larnin' did, and definitely stoked my interest in science generally.

I'm a fuzzy-studies person who as a kid wanted to be a scientist, and seriously considered majoring in biology until I got sucked in by the dark side. I've done a fair amount of reading of popularized science over the decades, and try to keep up with at least the amount of science that filters through to us non-scientists. But nothing has taught me as much about the process of science as much as talkorigins and Panda's Thumb. I had no idea how important collegiality was, or competition. I didn't know what the scientific definition of "theory" is. And if my eyes still glaze over once the math begins, a failing I regret greatly, I still learn a lot with each entry on this blog. I've even learned a lot about a concept as mathematical as entropy. Certainly my critical thinking ability as greatly improved. I have only been able to repay these gifts in such small but nevertheless vital ways as correcting the spelling of "Wedgwood" (something my collecting wife would never have let me pass up), but I hope from time to time to help translate the thoughts of non-scientists into terms the scientists here can understand better. If nothing else, I'm fairly good at understanding the thought-processes of Evangelicals, even if that does cause me pain. So thank you all for fighting the good fight and allowing the rest of us to watch.

Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2011

David Fickett-Wilbar said: I have only been able to repay these gifts in such small but nevertheless vital ways as correcting the spelling of "Wedgwood" (something my collecting wife would never have let me pass up), but I hope from time to time to help translate the thoughts of non-scientists into terms the scientists here can understand better. If nothing else, I'm fairly good at understanding the thought-processes of Evangelicals, even if that does cause me pain.

Don’t diminish the contributions of the literary and art communities. You folks put a lot of effort into exploring realities also. Whether it is Shakespeare, Poe, or Dostoyevsky, or Van Gogh, or Rembrandt, or Dali, you catalogue the range of human emotions and perceptions and help teach us about ourselves. Those of you who take an interest in science are also trying to extend your grip on reality. Any help we can get from you is much appreciated. I am not a psychologist, but I think that I have observed that as harsh as reality can be at times, those minds that stay engaged with reality tend to be healthier even when they have been sick. You folks generally have better language skills and have practiced using language to express more precisely the human experience. The experience of science is just as remarkable, but we scientists are not as good at expressing our experiences as you folks are. It’s nice to have you along for the journey.

Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2011

mplavcan said: Every time I hear Jason Lisle speak, or read his crap, I am simply amazed at how someone can be so self-deluded.

It puts real emotional feeling into the expression "soul-sucking experience."

JohnK · 1 March 2011

mrg said: That Purdue page cited above http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/entropy.php demonstrates how stubbornly usage of terms such as "disorder" in thermo discussions persists. One winces while reading it.

Yes. Note the "Please send comments, corrections, or suggestions to..." site-owner's email address. Perhaps instead of trying to educate IBIG, it would be more fruitful to contact that Purdue chem dept and point them to Lambert for correction. Would IBIG be impressed if the Purdue page were then changed by our efforts? Probably not.

While Lambert’s site targets professional physicists and educators, bless him he did not forget us poor novices, “A Student’s Approach To The Second Law & Entropy”

Lambert has several other sites dedicated to explaining entropy to... ...general readers: http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/content.htm ...general chem students http://secondlaw.oxy.edu/six.html ...more advanced students using the full molecular approach to entropy http://2ndlaw.oxy.edu/entropy.html

mrg · 1 March 2011

I wrote them a polite letter:

Hello: You have a very impressive set of scientific documents at: http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/index.php I intend to look over them to improve my sketchy knowledge of chemistry, and they're appreciated. However, one of the articles: http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/entropy.php -- seems, from my admittedly limited knowledge of thermodynamics, to have some archaic concepts, particularly in terms of defining entropy as "disorder" and using old examples like shuffling cards to explain the concept, an approach which I have had to unlearn with some difficulty. I might refer you to Professor Frank Lambert, who has been working on this particular issue for the last decade, and who discusses the issues on: http://entropysite.oxy.edu/ One good starting point there is the article: "Entropy Is Simple -- If You Discard 'Disorder'": http://entropysite.oxy.edu/teaching_entropy.html He also has a more general site to discuss the same issues: http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/ Please forgive my criticisms, all the more because I can't claim any expertise on the matter, but I found the page referenced above because creationists are linking to it as a resource, which suggests that some minor changes might be in order. Thanks for your time and attention.

Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2011

mrg said: I wrote them a polite letter:
Hello: You have a very impressive set of scientific documents at: http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/index.php I intend to look over them to improve my sketchy knowledge of chemistry, and they're appreciated. However, one of the articles: http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/entropy.php -- seems, from my admittedly limited knowledge of thermodynamics, to have some archaic concepts, particularly in terms of defining entropy as "disorder" and using old examples like shuffling cards to explain the concept, an approach which I have had to unlearn with some difficulty. I might refer you to Professor Frank Lambert, who has been working on this particular issue for the last decade, and who discusses the issues on: http://entropysite.oxy.edu/ One good starting point there is the article: "Entropy Is Simple -- If You Discard 'Disorder'": http://entropysite.oxy.edu/teaching_entropy.html He also has a more general site to discuss the same issues: http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/ Please forgive my criticisms, all the more because I can't claim any expertise on the matter, but I found the page referenced above because creationists are linking to it as a resource, which suggests that some minor changes might be in order. Thanks for your time and attention.

Thanks mrg.

mrg · 1 March 2011

Hmm. Now we have to dare creationists to tell us where entropy is defined as "disorder" so they can hand over further candidates.

IBelieveInGod · 1 March 2011

mrg said: Hmm. Now we have to dare creationists to tell us where entropy is defined as "disorder" so they can hand over further candidates.

who said that entropy is "disorder"? Entropy is the measure of disorder.

John Vanko · 1 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said: Here are several definitions of Entropy: a measure of disorder or randomness in a closed system a measure of a loss of information in a transmitted message. a steady deterioration of a system.

Dear IBIG, You've been reading AiG again, I see. You gave three (is 3 several?) statements about, not 'definitions' of, Entropy: "a measure of disorder or randomness in a closed system " "a measure of a loss of information in a transmitted message" "a steady deterioration of a system" None of these are definitions in the scientific sense. They are 'statements' or interpretations about Entropy, but make no mistake they are decidedly not definitions. A definition of Entropy would be a mathematical formula for computing Entropy (or the change of Entropy), and your 'definitions' did not do this. There are two scientific definitions of Entropy: the classical definition and the statistical definition. Briefly, the classical definition of Entropy is that the change in Entropy is equal to the integral of the differential of heat (energy/work) absorbed by the system divided by the absolute temperature, from the initial state to the final state. The statistical definition of Entropy is a constant times the logarithm of the number of the number of ways of describing the system. These are the only ways of defining Entropy that matter. Everything else is useless - worse than useless because it is a distraction, for which you have fallen, evidently. The entire notion of Entropy derives from the fact that, left to itself, heat flows from hotter objects to colder object, and never the reverse in our macroscopic world. You said, "a steady deterioration of a system". In the world of individual interactions of sub-atomic particles is there "a steady deterioration of a system"? I think not. You have a lot more learning to do before you lecture Pandas on entropy. Please spare us your pontifications.

IBelieveInGod · 1 March 2011

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entropy

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&defl=en&q=define:entropy&sa=X&ei=b65tTc-hA4_msQOO8uy-BQ&ved=0CBcQkAE

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entropy

http://www.science-dictionary.com/definition/entropy.html

IBelieveInGod · 1 March 2011

John Vanko said:
IBelieveInGod said: Here are several definitions of Entropy: a measure of disorder or randomness in a closed system a measure of a loss of information in a transmitted message. a steady deterioration of a system.
Dear IBIG, You've been reading AiG again, I see. You gave three (is 3 several?) statements about, not 'definitions' of, Entropy: "a measure of disorder or randomness in a closed system " "a measure of a loss of information in a transmitted message" "a steady deterioration of a system" None of these are definitions in the scientific sense. They are 'statements' or interpretations about Entropy, but make no mistake they are decidedly not definitions. A definition of Entropy would be a mathematical formula for computing Entropy (or the change of Entropy), and your 'definitions' did not do this. There are two scientific definitions of Entropy: the classical definition and the statistical definition. Briefly, the classical definition of Entropy is that the change in Entropy is equal to the integral of the differential of heat (energy/work) absorbed by the system divided by the absolute temperature, from the initial state to the final state. The statistical definition of Entropy is a constant times the logarithm of the number of the number of ways of describing the system. These are the only ways of defining Entropy that matter. Everything else is useless - worse than useless because it is a distraction, for which you have fallen, evidently. The entire notion of Entropy derives from the fact that, left to itself, heat flows from hotter objects to colder object, and never the reverse in our macroscopic world. You said, "a steady deterioration of a system". In the world of individual interactions of sub-atomic particles is there "a steady deterioration of a system"? I think not. You have a lot more learning to do before you lecture Pandas on entropy. Please spare us your pontifications.

Didn't come from AIG.

John Vanko · 1 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said: Didn't come from AIG.

I understand perfectly well what entropy is and how to compute it. It is evident that you do not. Please stop lecturing us about entropy, something you do not understand.

Stanton · 1 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said:
mrg said: Hmm. Now we have to dare creationists to tell us where entropy is defined as "disorder" so they can hand over further candidates.
who said that entropy is "disorder"? Entropy is the measure of disorder.

And yet, you can not get it through your bigoted little skull that "entropy" does not apply to Biological Evolution, or Abiogenesis, that "entropy" does not prove that your FAITH magically trumps science, and that living systems grow, organize and stave off entropy by contributing to systems around them.

Stanton · 1 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said: Didn't come from AIG.

Do realize that you have established yourself as an ignorant, bigoted liar for Jesus who defines "atheistic" as literally being anything you don't like, and "atheist" as literally being anyone who does not agree with you. Thanks to over a year of talking at you, and of you spewing lies and nonsense, we have long since come to the obvious conclusion that anything you type is either incoherent, or utterly worthless.

Rob · 1 March 2011

Yup and he worships a muderous baby killing god.

Stanton said:
IBelieveInGod said: Didn't come from AIG.
Do realize that you have established yourself as an ignorant, bigoted liar for Jesus who defines "atheistic" as literally being anything you don't like, and "atheist" as literally being anyone who does not agree with you. Thanks to over a year of talking at you, and of you spewing lies and nonsense, we have long since come to the obvious conclusion that anything you type is either incoherent, or utterly worthless.

OgreMkV · 1 March 2011

Ah, it's descended into attacks on IBIGs God because that's the only thing he comes close to understanding (close as compared to Sol/Alpha Proxima not close as in actual understanding). Time for this one to end

Stanton · 2 March 2011

OgreMkV said: Ah, it's descended into attacks on IBIGs God because that's the only thing he comes close to understanding (close as compared to Sol/Alpha Proxima not close as in actual understanding). Time for this one to end

Personally, we should simply have IBelieve's banning reinforced.

Rolf Aalberg · 2 March 2011

I hope it is not too inappropriate to point out to mr IBIG that dictionaries are rather unsuitable as learning tools. If he wants (unlikely) really to learn what the concept of entropy is, and what it isn't, he (and not least we) would benefit greatly if he'd bother with getting hold of some quality scientific literature on the subject, read and learn. And accept that some of the people here really knows what they are talking about. IBIG doesn't. It is as simple as that.

TomS · 2 March 2011

I suggest that the best way to respond to the 2LoT argument against evolution is to avoid getting into a discussion about the scientific meaning of the 2LoT. This only gives the impression that there is something deeply scientific being disputed by the creationists. That there is a "controversy". And remember that the audience is largely people who are only too happy that they never have to take another science class. That's why I like to make two points:

1) The 2LoT applies with at least as much force against reproductive biology and development.

2) There is no exception in the 2LoT for intelligent designers.

Stanton · 2 March 2011

TomS said: ... 2) There is no exception in the 2LoT for intelligent designers.

Of course there is an exception for Intelligent Designers. We're talking about God poofing things using magic. After all, and if we can't find it in our hearts to make an exception, we're going to be sent to Hell for being evil. </ snark>

IBelieveInGod · 2 March 2011

Rolf Aalberg said: I hope it is not too inappropriate to point out to mr IBIG that dictionaries are rather unsuitable as learning tools. If he wants (unlikely) really to learn what the concept of entropy is, and what it isn't, he (and not least we) would benefit greatly if he'd bother with getting hold of some quality scientific literature on the subject, read and learn. And accept that some of the people here really knows what they are talking about. IBIG doesn't. It is as simple as that.

Some of the people here "knows" what they are talking about? :) Check this out from Oxford Dictionary from Oxford University, maybe you should contact them to inform them of the inaccurate definition in their dictionary. entropy Syllabification:OnOff Entry from World dictionary Pronunciation:/ˈɛntrəpi/ noun [mass noun] 1 Physicsa thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work , often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. (Symbol: S) 2 lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder: a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme 3 (in information theory) a logarithmic measure of the rate of transfer of information in a particular message or language. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/entropy?view=uk

MosesZD · 2 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said: The results of entropy are witnessed by everyone here, it is what ultimately causes aging and death of old age. Things also wear out, breakdown over time due to entropy. So, it is a known fact that entropy does have an impact on everything. Why wouldn't it impact origin of life? Is it true that complex chemical compounds left to themselves will eventually break down in the simpler ones?

Sigh... They're not 'left to themselves' as your question implies. They're in nature, which includes your biochemistry, the environment you're in and, in fact, even in a vaccuum in the harsh realm of space... So while it true that complex molecules will break down into simple chemical compounds, it's also true in other 'left to themselves' conditions simple molecules will form more complex chemicals. It's basic chemistry.

Stanton · 2 March 2011

MosesZD said:
IBelieveInGod said: The results of entropy are witnessed by everyone here, it is what ultimately causes aging and death of old age. Things also wear out, breakdown over time due to entropy. So, it is a known fact that entropy does have an impact on everything. Why wouldn't it impact origin of life? Is it true that complex chemical compounds left to themselves will eventually break down in the simpler ones?
Sigh... They're not 'left to themselves' as your question implies. They're in nature, which includes your biochemistry, the environment you're in and, in fact, even in a vaccuum in the harsh realm of space... So while it true that complex molecules will break down into simple chemical compounds, it's also true in other 'left to themselves' conditions simple molecules will form more complex chemicals. It's basic chemistry.

Please remember that you're talking at a person who thinks that science education is tantamount to mass murder, and who uses "atheism" as a synonym for everything he personally dislikes.

eric · 2 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said: Some of the people here "knows" what they are talking about? :)

Playing the concern troll makes you look like an ass...particularly since you made an even worse typo in your own citation (see below).

1 Physicsa [sic] thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work , often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. (Symbol: S) 2 lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder: a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme 3 (in information theory) a logarithmic measure of the rate of transfer of information in a particular message or language.

That definition seems fine to me. What part of "often interpreted as" don't you understand? Most of the complaints voiced here are about the fact that it is often interpreted as disorder - i.e. we are agreeing with the OED's characterization. What we are saying is that that common interpretation is wrong, and that entropy shouldn't be interpreted in the way it commonly is.

harold · 2 March 2011

There's often a debate about the "sincerity" of the creationist posters here.

I can't read minds, but I can note something that just occurred to me a couple of days ago.

Speaking as a non-religious person, I would say that, not only is it literally physically impossible for IBIG and similar individuals to have an honest discussion about science, but it is also more or less physically impossible for them to understand and follow the ethical teachings of the Biblical character Jesus. When I say "physically" I refer to the fact that abnormalities of brain structure and biochemistry (which may or may not be treatable) place limits on behavior and cognition.

The actual teachings of the character Jesus are quite abstract, rely on the recognition of other human beings as being able to feel, and make use of parables and analogies.

As I've said before, this was the first major realization for me when I became aware of creationism. At first I thought I might be dealing with people who, although misguided about science, accepted the basic ethical teachings traditionally associated with Christianity.

I soon learned that I was dealing mainly with obsessive, narcissistic, ruthless authoritarians who will say anything to "defeat evolution".

Precisely why their underlying panic has focused on the theory of evolution is another question.

Robin · 2 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said:
Rolf Aalberg said: I hope it is not too inappropriate to point out to mr IBIG that dictionaries are rather unsuitable as learning tools. If he wants (unlikely) really to learn what the concept of entropy is, and what it isn't, he (and not least we) would benefit greatly if he'd bother with getting hold of some quality scientific literature on the subject, read and learn. And accept that some of the people here really knows what they are talking about. IBIG doesn't. It is as simple as that.
Some of the people here "knows" what they are talking about? :) Check this out from Oxford Dictionary from Oxford University, maybe you should contact them to inform them of the inaccurate definition in their dictionary. entropy Syllabification:OnOff Entry from World dictionary Pronunciation:/ˈɛntrəpi/ noun [mass noun] 1 Physicsa thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work , often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. (Symbol: S) 2 lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder: a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme 3 (in information theory) a logarithmic measure of the rate of transfer of information in a particular message or language. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/entropy?view=uk

IBIG, just curious, but do you understand how a dictionary is laid out and how it reflects the meaning of words? The first definition presented is always the primary, default usage. Any subsequent definition is a secondary, slang, or casual usage. So, that folks use the term entropy to mean disorder in casual conversation does not mean it is the primarily understood meaning of the term, nor does it demonstrate that such is the default use. In fact, you've just demonstrated that your use of the term to mean disorder in this venue is inappropriate and wrong and that the correct definition in the context of physics IS definition 1 above. Thanks for proving our point for us.

MosesZD · 2 March 2011

Stanton said:
MosesZD said:
IBelieveInGod said: The results of entropy are witnessed by everyone here, it is what ultimately causes aging and death of old age. Things also wear out, breakdown over time due to entropy. So, it is a known fact that entropy does have an impact on everything. Why wouldn't it impact origin of life? Is it true that complex chemical compounds left to themselves will eventually break down in the simpler ones?
Sigh... They're not 'left to themselves' as your question implies. They're in nature, which includes your biochemistry, the environment you're in and, in fact, even in a vacuum in the harsh realm of space... So while it true that complex molecules will break down into simple chemical compounds, it's also true in other 'left to themselves' conditions simple molecules will form more complex chemicals. It's basic chemistry.
Please remember that you're talking at a person who thinks that science education is tantamount to mass murder, and who uses "atheism" as a synonym for everything he personally dislikes.

Yeah, I got that. But his question was stupid beyond SLOT arguments as we live in a universe where everything is, to a greater or lesser extent, being influenced by the environment in which it resides. To think there is some universe in which simple and complex organic chemicals reside, for all eternity, in some perfectly isolated state, like it's a perfectly sealed-and-buffered laboratory flask, is rubbish. And, even to the extent that there may be some chemicals in conditions that might preserve them for trillions of years, it's certainly not all of these chemicals. Which further illustrates the nonsense of the argument as it grapples with the fallacy of composition. That is, extrapolation of a small, localized example (in which many factors re removed from the example) in a set temporal period somehow, in someway, tells us everything about the universe. When it, in fact, tells us very little (if anything) about the universe. I honestly think that the intellectual masturbation of the SLOT argument misses the point that the universe is too big, too old and too complex to apply SLOT to evolution and life in the narrow, suspiciously-defined examples they use. The system, which is vastly huge and complex, can (obviously) see increases and decreases in complexity/order/information/etc. All without violating SLOT or any other creationist pseudo-science/highly-manipulated canard. And this is why I sigh. The 2nd Law is about the natural flow of heat within a closed system and why you can't get back to your starting point of potential work measured by energy differentials. (i.e., you can't make a perpetual motion machine, some energy, even in a closed system, will become unavailable for use.) And that's pretty much it from a practical side. And trying to apply it to evolution is as useful as trying to apply the Law of Gravity, or Coulomb's Law, or any of the other law of physics to evolution. (note: I'm an accountant, I just home-school and we're doing physics this year, quite a brush-up on my antique physics knowledge from the 1970's.)

David Fickett-Wilbar · 2 March 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Those of you who take an interest in science are also trying to extend your grip on reality. Any help we can get from you is much appreciated. You folks generally have better language skills and have practiced using language to express more precisely the human experience. The experience of science is just as remarkable, but we scientists are not as good at expressing our experiences as you folks are.

Thank you. There are some science writers who have a beautiful written style, but since math is the true language of science the use of words doesn't seem as important to scientists. Glad we're helping some.

It’s nice to have you along for the journey.

It's nice to be on it.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 2 March 2011

Rolf Aalberg said: I hope it is not too inappropriate to point out to mr IBIG that dictionaries are rather unsuitable as learning tools. If he wants (unlikely) really to learn what the concept of entropy is, and what it isn't, he (and not least we) would benefit greatly if he'd bother with getting hold of some quality scientific literature on the subject, read and learn. And accept that some of the people here really knows what they are talking about. IBIG doesn't. It is as simple as that.

A dictionary records only the common meanings of a word, not the "correct" ones, which in this case can be said to be the technical ones. IBIG's definitions (or rather the ones he's found) are just as legitimate as the scientific ones in their context. In this case, the context of his definitions is everyday language. Unfortunately for him, the context in which entropy might or might not be relevant to evolution is not everyday language. He's confusing his categories. IBIG, perhaps you can see this as the source of your confusion. It isn't that you are using the word "entropy" wrongly, it is that you are using it wrongly for this discussion. Words can have different meanings for different contexts. On the other hand, much of the dismay of the advocates of evolution on this board is caused by a similar confusion. Instead of accusing IBIG of not knowing what entropy is, he should be criticized for using definitions that are legitmate in one context in another context. He's still just as wrong, but in a different way.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 2 March 2011

Robin said: IBIG, just curious, but do you understand how a dictionary is laid out and how it reflects the meaning of words? The first definition presented is always the primary, default usage. Any subsequent definition is a secondary, slang, or casual usage.

That's not actually true. Dictionaries don't make decisions on "correct" versus "incorrect", or even "primary" versus "secondary." They might make a distinction between "popular" and "less popular," or "technical" versus "everday," but that is for the purpose of categorization, not judgment. As I pointed out in my previous post, IBIG is using "entropy" in a completely acceptable way. Just not in a way relevant to evolution. I think he needs a linguistic education as much as he needs a scientific one. That would save him (and us) a lot of trouble.

mrg · 2 March 2011

David Fickett-Wilbar said: IBIG, perhaps you can see this as the source of your confusion. It isn't that you are using the word "entropy" wrongly, it is that you are using it wrongly for this discussion.

He's not the slightest bit confused. He's just spray-painting trash on the walls of a school, and using whatever verbiage he can find that he thinks will be the hardest to clean off. What it means is not a matter of interest.

JohnK · 2 March 2011

From the Oxford Dictionary FAQ How do we know what a word means? We don't always know! ... Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, when we're defining a word we combine our understanding of how it is used in the language with an analysis of resources such as the Oxford English Corpus. This should result in a definition of how a word is actually used, rather than how it should be used.

People have traditionally interpreted thermodynamic entropy incorrectly, the dictionary is merely accurately repeating their frequently expressed misunderstanding. Now that most all major textbooks have abandoned this faulty interpretation, eventually the dictionary will change too.

Mike Elzinga said: Now that you are an expert on entropy IBIG, here is your chance to demonstrate that you are not a fool by answering a question [...] Anybody who wants to can place bets on how IBIG will do.

An even simpler question: A thermos-bottle filled with salad dressing is shaken, causing tiny droplets of oil to be interspersed throughout the vinegar. Now allow it to be an isolated system, at rest. The SLoT tells us its entropy must now be increasing -- as the oil is coalescing and separating from the vinegar - eventually all oil here, all vinegar there. How exactly is the higher entropy system becoming more "disordered" as you claim, IBIG?

JohnK · 2 March 2011

JohnK said: Now that most all major textbooks have abandoned this faulty interpretation, eventually the dictionary will change too.

I'm referring to the the first technical definition, not the second colloquial definition for entropy, which will prolly persist for centuries.

fnxtr · 2 March 2011

A creationist reverts to word games. Boy, I bet no-one saw that coming. :-)

JASONMITCHELL · 2 March 2011

David Fickett-Wilbar said:
Rolf Aalberg said: I hope it is not too inappropriate to point out to mr IBIG that dictionaries are rather unsuitable as learning tools. If he wants (unlikely) really to learn what the concept of entropy is, and what it isn't, he (and not least we) would benefit greatly if he'd bother with getting hold of some quality scientific literature on the subject, read and learn. And accept that some of the people here really knows what they are talking about. IBIG doesn't. It is as simple as that.
A dictionary records only the common meanings of a word, not the "correct" ones, which in this case can be said to be the technical ones. IBIG's definitions (or rather the ones he's found) are just as legitimate as the scientific ones in their context. In this case, the context of his definitions is everyday language. Unfortunately for him, the context in which entropy might or might not be relevant to evolution is not everyday language. He's confusing his categories. IBIG, perhaps you can see this as the source of your confusion. It isn't that you are using the word "entropy" wrongly, it is that you are using it wrongly for this discussion. Words can have different meanings for different contexts. On the other hand, much of the dismay of the advocates of evolution on this board is caused by a similar confusion. Instead of accusing IBIG of not knowing what entropy is, he should be criticized for using definitions that are legitimate in one context in another context. He's still just as wrong, but in a different way.

you are assuming that he's mistaken in an honest way - he (or those that indoctrinated him)- are PR experts - they intentionally CHOOSE words to be misrepresented - i.e "entropy" = the inverse of "order" ... "only a theory" etc. It's all word games to persuade the masses, to forward their agenda, and inherently dishonest. (and IMHO therefore Evil-- yes with a capital "E" - look that word up in the OED!)

Robin · 2 March 2011

David Fickett-Wilbar said:
Robin said: IBIG, just curious, but do you understand how a dictionary is laid out and how it reflects the meaning of words? The first definition presented is always the primary, default usage. Any subsequent definition is a secondary, slang, or casual usage.
That's not actually true. Dictionaries don't make decisions on "correct" versus "incorrect", or even "primary" versus "secondary." They might make a distinction between "popular" and "less popular," or "technical" versus "everday," but that is for the purpose of categorization, not judgment. As I pointed out in my previous post, IBIG is using "entropy" in a completely acceptable way. Just not in a way relevant to evolution. I think he needs a linguistic education as much as he needs a scientific one. That would save him (and us) a lot of trouble.

I didn't think I implied anything about dictionary definitions indicating "correct" or "incorrect" meanings, but if so I apologize - not what I meant. I'll accept "popular" vs "less popular" in place of "primary" and "secondary", though I have had English teachers and course leaders who phrased the significance of the order that way. In any event, I agree, there's nothing about the judgment of the usefulness of a given definition of a word. I thought I pointed out that the reason that IBIG's chosen definition of the word entropy is wrong is due to the context of this venue vs casual conversations, not because one definition is judged to be better or more important than another. I guess that got lost against the other parts I wrote.

Shebardigan · 2 March 2011

Not all dictionaries are strictly descriptive.

The American Heritage Dictionary was a "conservative" prescriptive response to the perceived laxity of the Merriam-Webster "liberal" descriptive compilation. AHD tends to say "This Is [In]Correct Usage" whereas M-W tends to say "This Is Common Usage".

Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2011

JohnK said: An even simpler question: A thermos-bottle filled with salad dressing is shaken, causing tiny droplets of oil to be interspersed throughout the vinegar. Now allow it to be an isolated system, at rest. The SLoT tells us its entropy must now be increasing -- as the oil is coalescing and separating from the vinegar - eventually all oil here, all vinegar there. How exactly is the higher entropy system becoming more "disordered" as you claim, IBIG?

Yeah; it doesn’t make any difference how simple an example one chooses. These creationists were doing this stuff over 40 years ago, and the shtick hasn’t changed one bit. I am pretty sure what IBIG is trying to build up points in his fundamentalist sect. They all do it; it is a form a taunting that is supposed to draw “evilutionists” into debates where any comment they make can be used as a “proof” of just how mean and evil “evilutionists” are. It was a tactic that originated with Morris and Gish back in the 1970s, and it has been honed and practiced by every protégé of ID/creationism since. The madness over at AiG and the ICR is done in the hope of not only firing up a harassment army of fundamentalist parents, but to pique the anger of scientists and other experts who might be drawn into their taunts. They then climb on the backs of such people to gain stature within their cults. That four-part series by Lisle over at AiG shows Lisle taking the emails that have responded to their taunts and using them to make “evilutionists” look stupid and inconsistent. IBIG is learning this game. But he doesn’t get profiling; none of them do. It’s a concept; and ID/creationists don’t know what a concept is, especially if the concept has something to do with the real universe. For them all “knowledge” consists of word gaming and picking one’s “authority.”

Wesley R. Elsberry · 2 March 2011

Thanks, David, for the pointer to "In The Beginning", Sewell's book. Chapter 5 is "Can ANYTHING Happen in an Open System", section 5.1 is "A second look at the second law". This ought to be interesting to analyze. The only thing I see marked in [S2011] as coming from previous publications are his equations. Ironically, section 5.1 in the book says that the material is "a substantially-modified version of an article" previously published in The American Spectator.

Intelligent Designer · 2 March 2011

JohnK said: A thermos-bottle filled with salad dressing is shaken, causing tiny droplets of oil to be interspersed throughout the vinegar. Now allow it to be an isolated system, at rest. The SLoT tells us its entropy must now be increasing -- as the oil is coalescing and separating from the vinegar - eventually all oil here, all vinegar there. How exactly is the higher entropy system becoming more "disordered" as you claim, IBIG?

That's an interesting example because it illustrates why disorder and entropy aren't exactly the same thing. Can you provide an example that creates information?

Stanton · 2 March 2011

Intelligent Designer said:
JohnK said: A thermos-bottle filled with salad dressing is shaken, causing tiny droplets of oil to be interspersed throughout the vinegar. Now allow it to be an isolated system, at rest. The SLoT tells us its entropy must now be increasing -- as the oil is coalescing and separating from the vinegar - eventually all oil here, all vinegar there. How exactly is the higher entropy system becoming more "disordered" as you claim, IBIG?
That's an interesting example because it illustrates why disorder and entropy aren't exactly the same thing. Can you provide an example that creates information?

Define "information," first, please.

Intelligent Designer · 2 March 2011

Staton, are you telling me that you don't know what information is?

Stanton · 2 March 2011

Intelligent Designer said: Staton, are you telling me that you don't know what information is?

No. I'm saying that "information" has many definitions, and that Intelligent Design proponents are infamous for deliberately misusing and abusing words, particularly the word "information." If I were to give "crystals growing out of a medium," the odds are very likely that you're going to arbitrarily disqualify it, saying "that's not information" for no reason. That, and you're telling me that you don't know how to spell my name, Randy Stimpson.

Intelligent Designer · 2 March 2011

The example provided by JohnK is also interesting because it illustrates how adding energy (like sunlight) to a system often generates disorder.

Intelligent Designer · 2 March 2011

Stanton, do you think that crystals growing out of a medium is information?

Matt G · 2 March 2011

It seems to me that God-acting-in-the-world is a violation of SLoT. I guess this means that it is a miracle that miracles are able to happen....

Stanton · 2 March 2011

Intelligent Designer said: Stanton, do you think that crystals growing out of a medium is information?

Thus, I return to my previous request for you to "define 'information,'" and my complaint about how Intelligent Design proponents deliberately refuse to define "information" in order to arbitrarily and deliberately disqualify any and all examples presented to them.

Stanton · 2 March 2011

Matt G said: It seems to me that God-acting-in-the-world is a violation of SLoT. I guess this means that it is a miracle that miracles are able to happen....

That's excused because it's GODDIDIT, that's why. Intelligent Design proponents don't want to allow evolution because it isn't GODDIDIT.

Stanton · 2 March 2011

Intelligent Designer said: Stanton, do you think that crystals growing out of a medium is information?

Better yet, please explain to me why crystals growing out of a medium is not information.

Intelligent Designer · 2 March 2011

Stanton said:
Intelligent Designer said: Stanton, do you think that crystals growing out of a medium is information?
Better yet, please explain to me why crystals growing out of a medium is not information.

Stanton, I asked you a question that can be answered with a "yes" or a "no". Don't ask me to write a book (or read one) to try and weasel out of answering a simple question.

SWT · 2 March 2011

Intelligent Designer said:
Stanton said:
Intelligent Designer said: Stanton, do you think that crystals growing out of a medium is information?
Better yet, please explain to me why crystals growing out of a medium is not information.
Stanton, I asked you a question that can be answered with a "yes" or a "no". Don't ask me to write a book (or read one) to try and weasel out of answering a simple question.

Then ask an unambiguous question.

Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2011

Intelligent Designer said: Stanton, I asked you a question that can be answered with a "yes" or a "no". Don't ask me to write a book (or read one) to try and weasel out of answering a simple question.

Stanton is asking for a perfectly legitimate explanation from you. If you had a succinct notion of what the concept is, you should have no trouble making the concept clear. You would also know what it has to do with the laws of physics. Yet not one of the standard and well-tested textbooks used in the training of physicists finds a reason to include it in teaching the concepts of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. And no creationist has ever shown how “information,” whatever they mean by that, pushes matter around or why it is a fundamental force in nature that operates far less subtly than does the interaction of neutrinos with matter which we are able to detect. So, what do you mean by “information?”

Stanton · 2 March 2011

Intelligent Designer said:
Stanton said:
Intelligent Designer said: Stanton, do you think that crystals growing out of a medium is information?
Better yet, please explain to me why crystals growing out of a medium is not information.
Stanton, I asked you a question that can be answered with a "yes" or a "no".

The question can not be answered with a "yes" or a "no" because you have not defined what form or definition of "information" you have in mind.

Don't ask me to write a book (or read one) to try and weasel out of answering a simple question.

The question is not simple: it's intended to deceive. In other words, I am not weaseling out of anything: I am merely pointing out that, by refusing to define "information," you are being dishonest.

Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2011

Intelligent Designer said: That's an interesting example because it illustrates why disorder and entropy aren't exactly the same thing. Can you provide an example that creates information?

How about a simple problem for which there should be no ambiguity? I’ll give you the same problem I gave to another commenter here; and it will give you the chance to demonstrate that you understand some basic concepts. You have a system consisting of 10 identical atoms, each atom having a non-degenerate ground state and a single excited state. (a) Calculate the entropy of the system when every atom is in its ground state. (b) Now add energy to the system such that every atom is in its excited state. What is the entropy now? (c) Now put just enough energy into the system such that half the atoms are in their excited state. What is the entropy now? Which of the above conditions has more “order,” and explain what you mean by “order?” Which of the above conditions has more “information” and what do you mean by “information?” If you really do know what entropy, “order,” and “information” are, you should be able to answer this in a relatively straight-forward reply that we can all understand.

Mike Elzinga · 3 March 2011

Intelligent Designer said: The example provided by JohnK is also interesting because it illustrates how adding energy (like sunlight) to a system often generates disorder.

This is and even better reason that you should answer my previous question about the 10 atoms.

Malchus · 3 March 2011

Why are you avoiding his question about what definition of "information" you are using?

Intelligent Designer said: Stanton, do you think that crystals growing out of a medium is information?

Leszek · 3 March 2011

"Stanton, do you think that crystals growing out of a medium is information? "

Sure. If you know about how crystals form, a crystal can tell you about the conditions in the time and place it formed. Thus you get information from it.

Not what you had in mind? That's the point!

In ID, information is sort of a generic non-defined word that doesn't really apply to anything beyond the statements that you can't make more of it without intelligence or some such. For example, if a gene gets randomly copied and then the copy gets mutated so that a part of it is missing but it is now good for something else, that's evolution. But is it more information? Depends on who you ask and what you consider information. That's the problem being pointed out.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 3 March 2011

Evolutionary increases in information addresses how an example considered under three differing definitions of information (two formal, one informal) leads to the conclusion that information has increased in each.

It's not like this ground hasn't been covered adequately before.

The topic here, which apparently some people are forgetting, is 2LoT self-plagiarism on Sewell's part. If things go substantially away from that, I'll probably just close the thread.

D. P. Robin · 3 March 2011

Intelligent Designer said:
Stanton said:
Intelligent Designer said: Stanton, do you think that crystals growing out of a medium is information?
Better yet, please explain to me why crystals growing out of a medium is not information.
Stanton, I asked you a question that can be answered with a "yes" or a "no". Don't ask me to write a book (or read one) to try and weasel out of answering a simple question.

There is a difference between questions that can be answered with a "simple" Y or N and questions that can be meaningfully answered with a "simple" Y or N. dpr

eric · 3 March 2011

Wesley R. Elsberry said: The topic here, which apparently some people are forgetting, is 2LoT self-plagiarism on Sewell's part. If things go substantially away from that, I'll probably just close the thread.

To parahprase Leszek, since we know how documents are written, the content can tell you about the time and conditions under which it was written. In this case we derive the knowledge 'self-plaigerism' based on equivalency to the author's other written materials. We don't even have to understand the characters on the page; they could be complete gobbledigook and we could still derive the information "plaigerism or not." So if Sewell is producing information, so are the crystals. OTOH if their growth does not produce information, neither can his articles be said to produce information. :)

SWT · 3 March 2011

Publication status update ...

Sewell has removed the link to the paper from his manuscript. However, a search using the DOI still produces the manuscript. If you want a copy, better get while the gettin's good.

How long does it take to take down a rescinded document?

SWT · 3 March 2011

SWT said: Publication status update ... Sewell has removed the link to the paper from his manuscript. However, a search using the DOI still produces the manuscript. If you want a copy, better get while the gettin's good. How long does it take to take down a rescinded document?

Meh. Sewell removed the link to his paper from his website.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 3 March 2011

JohnK said:
From the Oxford Dictionary FAQ How do we know what a word means? We don't always know! ... Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, when we're defining a word we combine our understanding of how it is used in the language with an analysis of resources such as the Oxford English Corpus. This should result in a definition of how a word is actually used, rather than how it should be used.
People have traditionally interpreted thermodynamic entropy incorrectly, the dictionary is merely accurately repeating their frequently expressed misunderstanding. Now that most all major textbooks have abandoned this faulty interpretation, eventually the dictionary will change too.

If a dictionary defined "thermodynamic entropy" as a measure of disorder, of chaos, that would be wrong. But for it to list disorder and chaos as a meaning of "entropy" is perfectly appropriate. Words are sounds to which we arbitrarily assign meaning; if enough people decide that that's what those sounds mean, then that is a meaning of those sounds Perhaps with enough pushing from the scientific community the "chaos" meaning of "entropy" will disappear. Until then, it is an OK meaning, provided it is in the right context. This is just how language works.

Mike Elzinga · 3 March 2011

David Fickett-Wilbar said: This is just how language works.

And that doesn’t mean force times distance. Nor should it be forced upon others.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 3 March 2011

Robin said: I didn't think I implied anything about dictionary definitions indicating "correct" or "incorrect" meanings, but if so I apologize - not what I meant. I'll accept "popular" vs "less popular" in place of "primary" and "secondary", though I have had English teachers and course leaders who phrased the significance of the order that way.

I have a series on my website with the topic "Things your English teacher told you that are wrong." Maybe I'll add this to the list.

In any event, I agree, there's nothing about the judgment of the usefulness of a given definition of a word. I thought I pointed out that the reason that IBIG's chosen definition of the word entropy is wrong is due to the context of this venue vs casual conversations, not because one definition is judged to be better or more important than another. I guess that got lost against the other parts I wrote.

If it did, then np; you got it exactly right this time.

IBelieveInGod · 3 March 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

mrg · 3 March 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

IBelieveInGod · 3 March 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Mike Elzinga · 3 March 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

IBelieveInGod · 3 March 2011

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Mike Elzinga · 3 March 2011

I’d say we’re done here.

Shut ‘er down, Wes,

Wesley R. Elsberry · 3 March 2011

Mike, I think that you are right. Bad behavior on the part of religious antievolutionists has been documented, 2LoT misconceptions, some exceptionally long-standing, have been addressed, and the "evolution cannot increase information" canard has been thoroughly stomped, even if the trolls pretend they didn't see it.