Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site talcott.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!gjk
From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Honesty
Message-ID: <251@talcott.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 16:40:47 EST
Article-I.D.: talcott.251
Posted: Tue Jan 22 16:40:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 05:23:14 EST
References: <692@uwmacc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Harvard
Lines: 75

> 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)

Firstly, in my article, I was not talking about "some creationists" or
even "a creationist".  I was talking about Mr. Alan Ray Miller himself.
My posting was no guilt by association.  It was a direct accusation.  What
John Von Neumann, Claude Shannon, or Patterson said is irrelevant.
Secondly, every physicist I've talked to (that's worth his salt) knows damn
well what entropy means;  Von Neumann was clearly being facetious.  If
you're thinking of the layman, then I point out that Von Neumann couldn't
care less about laymen.  Stephen Jay Gould, on the other hand, does care
about laymen, and I think (although I could be wrong on this count) that he
is careful to explain what entropy means before using it in his essays.
This invalidates most of the rest of your argument.

> 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.

This is unsubstantiated.  I've read Gish's blurb on thermodynamics and I
found it to be garbage.  Please state the argument clearly and then we'll
see if it's valid.

> Why do I submit this article?

To decree guilt by association, perhaps.  My first guess was that you are
attempting to stanch the flow of charges of dishonesty levelled at
creationists, but you explicitly denied this in the next sentence, so I
could be wrong.
> 
> 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.

Since you're discussing my charges of dishonesty (and Bill Jefferys'),
please look for dishonesty in our writings rather than Mr. Patterson's.

> Paul DuBois
---
			Greg Kuperberg
		     harvard!talcott!gjk

"Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn