Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Honesty
Message-ID: <692@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 16:52:25 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.692
Posted: Mon Jan 21 16:52:25 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 05:06:19 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 103


I'd like to make a contribution to this discussion.  The following
is based on "Thermodynamics and Evolution", by John W Patterson, in
"Scientists Confront Creationism", Laurie R Godfrey, ed, W W Norton
and Co., New York, 1983, 99-116.  Some readers may recognize this as
the same book that Bill Jefferys has used as a source several times;
I recommend it highly to people on both sides in this newsgroup
(it's out in softcover now, $7.95).

Patterson begins by discussing the contention that the use of the
second law by creationists is fallacious (though personally I'd say
that Pat Wyant has done a better job on that score), then turns his
attention to a discussion (i.e., vilification) of creationist
apologetical methods.  In particular, we find that

    "To a large extent, the creationist' polemics against
    geologists, paleontologists, and biologists were not taken very
    seriously as science by most educated persons until "entropy" -
    a much more effective apologetic - was used.  Shrouded in
    mystique, entropy's potential for misinterpretation is well
    known even to students and practitioners of thermodynamics.
    Claude Shannon, the inventor of the uncertainty function in
    communications engineering and the the father of information
    theory, was advised by the internationally renowned
    mathematician and scientist Jon Von Neumann to call his new
    uncertainty function entropy for two reasons:  'In the first
    place, your uncertainty function has been used in statistical
    mechanics under that name, so it already has a name.  In the
    second place, and more important, _no one knows what entropy
    really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage_'
    (italics added)."  (p. 113-114)

What we have here is an example of one scientist advising another to
deliberately use obscure language in order to gain an advantage.
This is clearly deceptive.  What is Patterson's evaluation?  He
describes it as merely a "humorous little anecdote".  Thus, he
effectively empties the incident of any possible moral content.  At
the same time, he condones it since there is no hint anywhere that
he takes exception to Von Neumann's suggestion.  He is apparently
entirely unaware of these things, however, and proceeds to inveigh
against creationists for supposedly adopting this very tactic,
immediately after he himself neutralizes the possibility of doing
so.  Patterson then notes that the anecdote was related in the
September 1971 issue of Scientific American,

    "and within a short time the entropy argument against evolution
    was among the creationists' favorite debate tools.  Soon, D. R.
    Boylan, the most prestigious engineering educator in the
    leadership of the creationist movement added his testimonial:
    'The second law has been particularly helpful in developing an
    apologetic against abiogenesis...'"  (p. 114)

The obvious implication is that creationists spotted the anecdote,
said "Aha!  Here's a tactic *we* can use!", and proceeded to do so.
Note that Patterson give no direct evidence of this, but only
conveys the impression through juxtaposition.  But let us look more
closely.

As already indicated, Patterson condoned the practice by failing to
take Von Neumann to task for it.  Then he denounces creationists who
(supposedly) engage in it.  Does he not talk out of both sides of
his mouth?  One may infer the denunciation to consist of mere
rhetoric, without substance.

In addition, his implication is provably false.  One need only
demonstrate references to use of entropy by creationists prior to
1971, and this is hardly difficult.  One example is a book by Henry
Morris (The Twilight of Evolution, 1963).  This was referenced by
Patterson himself, but evidently he did not read it very carefully
aside from using it to find a few suitably ridiculous-sounding
quotes (a charge sometimes levelled at creationists, no?).
Davidheiser (Evolution and Christian Faith, 1969) is another example
of such language prior to 1971.

Whether creationists deliberately misuse thermodynamics (I hope they
do not, though this cannot be ruled out), simply misunderstand it
(more likely), or understand it but just flat out disagree with
everyone else about the implications, it seems to me that Patterson
is guilty of exactly the same thing he attempts to show of
creationists:  dishonesty.

Why do I submit this article?

I am not attempting to stanch the flow of charges of dishonesty
levelled at creationists.  It is true that creationists should be
honest, and that dishonesty is a serious matter.  Legitimate charges
of this *should* be brought to light.  No one will dispute this, I
think.  But at the same time, the writings of some (not all) anti-
creationists reach a height (or depth) that becomes simply
ludicrous, as I hope has been illustrated above.  When that occurs,
the attempt to discredit creationism completely loses its
credibility, and so works against itself.

So perhaps it seems a little strange to you evolutionists, but
that's some advice from a creationist, on arguing against
creationism.

-- 
Paul DuBois	  {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
								    |
"Got to start by *finding* it, have we?  Not allowed to		  --+--
start by *looking* for it, I suppose."				    |
					-- Puddleglum		    |