Phil Johnson on the Second Law of Thermodynamics

From: Stephen E. Jones (sejones@iinet.net.au)
Date: Thu Oct 26 2000 - 19:11:46 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "God makes a comeback"

    Group

    Further to the Entropy thread on the Calvin Reflector, here is an excerpt
    from an email by Phil Johnson on the topic, which was posted to the
    other List I am on, and re-posted (with some minor changes) with
    permission.

    Johnson's main point is that layman who think that a `downhill' Second
    Law is a problem for an `uphill' Evolution to explain are expressing a real
    and genuinely felt concern that something is being `lost in the translation' .

    This won't go away and should not be dismissed by scientists with
    patronising or even hostile arguments that "evade the real issues with
    technical or semantic objections" (as has happened on the Calvin
    Reflector).

    The *attitudinal* standard for scientists in trying to explain technical
    matters to laymen has been classically stated by the late Richard
    Feynman:

            "I would like to add something that's not essential to the science,
            but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool
            the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell
            you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your
            girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a
            scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave
            those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a
            specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, out bending over
            backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to
            have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
            scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen."
            (Feynman R.P., "Cargo Cult Science," in "`Surely You're Joking,
            Mr Feynman!'", 1990, reprint, p.343)

    I have cross-posted this to egroups.

    Steve

    =========================================================================
    A scientist wrote to Phillip E. Johnson:

    >I have heard many times from creationists that evolution necessarily
    >violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is absolutely incorrect.
    >Perhaps I am telling something you know already; if so, you should
    >correct people like [two well-known creationists] so that they stop
    >making this incorrect assertion. I feel that creationists who are
    >expounding this falsehood are doing a real disservice, not only to their
    >cause, but to the community to whom they are preaching by dumbing
    >down science understanding in this country.

    Prof. Johnson replied:

    Thanks for your comments. I would say that references to the Second Law
    in this context should be understood as a colloquial way of speaking about
    a genuine issue, certainly not a "falsehood." People who invoke the Second
    Law are making a rational point, even if they do not express it in a
    precisely accurate manner.

    Consider this example from a Time Magazine cover story, dated December
    28, 1992, Pg. 38, by Robert Wright. Here is the relevant paragraph:

    Various scientists are pondering the prospect that a basic physical law lies
    waiting to be discovered, a law defining the circumstances under which
    systems infused with energy become more complexly structured. This law
    would carve out local exceptions to the general tendency of things to
    become more chaotic and bland -- higher in "entropy" -- as dictated by the
    famously depressing second law of thermodynamics. Charles H. Bennett, of
    IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center, who has deeply shaped the
    modern understanding of the second law, suspects there is indeed a law
    that if known would make life's origin less baffling. Such a law, he has said,
    would play a role "formerly assigned to God."

    I am sure that both Charles Bennett and Robert Wright would define the
    Second Law as you do, but they have no difficulty making sense of the
    claim that there is no known natural process that can explain the
    complexity of living organisms in light of the Second Law. It takes more
    than saying that the earth is an open system receiving energy from the sun
    to explain why we see such enormous increases in complex ordered
    systems on the earth. Of course the Second Law does not prevent _all_
    local increases in order; that would be absurd. Physical laws do produce
    simple, repetitive forms of order, but this is quite different from the highly
    complex forms of organization present in e.g., a jet airplane, a computer
    program, or a living cell. Hence the perceived need for what Bennett and
    Wright think of as a new basic physical law "that if known would make
    life's origin less baffling." [Of course I think that something more potent
    than a physical law will be required to play the role "formerly assigned to
    God."]

    I frequently advise my friends and supporters not to refer to the Second
    Law in this context, because those words always evoke from scientists just
    the kind of response you gave. It is similar to what happens when anti-
    Darwinists insist that "evolution is only a theory." They mean something
    very sensible, which is that a highly speculative claim (molecule-to-man
    macroevolution) is continually presented as if it were as well supported as
    the fact that the earth goes around the sun rather than vice versa. But
    representatives of the scientific establishment respond only with arguments
    about the precise meaning of "theory," making the abstract point that it is
    possible for a theory to be supported by overwhelming evidence. This is
    correct but not responsive to what the people are trying to say.

    The better way to state the entropy argument is to say that the functional
    organization of living systems requires the presence of complex specified
    aperiodic information, which does not appear to be produced either by
    chance, or by physical law, or by a combination of chance and law. For an
    elaboration of this argument see

    my review of Paul Davies book _The Miracle of Life_,
    http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/fifthmiracle.htm

    or the recent article by Steven Meyer in _First Things_, "DNA and Other
    Designs," http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0004/articles/meyer.html

    or the recent book by William Dembski, _Intelligent Design_ (Intervarsity
    Press 1999).

    Perhaps you and I should form a partnership. I could urge my allies not to
    make casual references to the Second Law, and you could urge your
    scientific colleagues to address the substance of the main arguments rather
    than to evade the real issues with technical or semantic objections.

    Best wishes,

    Phil Johnson
    =========================================================================

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the
    biologist by the fact of life's complex organization. We have seen that
    organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest
    for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the
    simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain
    order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor
    maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow
    specifications; it requires information on how to proceed." (Simpson G.G.
    & Beck W.S., "Life: An Introduction to Biology," [1957], Routledge &
    Kegan Paul: London, Second Edition, 1965, p.467)
    Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 26 2000 - 20:01:23 EDT