#26428: coturnix — 05/28  at  10:34 AM
I think I'll go back to bed, too. Perhaps there will be better things to read tomorrow...wake me up tomorrow, will you?

#26431: Reed A. Cartwright — 05/28  at  10:45 AM
I think Ranganathan emailed that to several sites. I know PT got one as a "letter to the editor."

#26432: — 05/28  at  10:47 AM
I would think an atheist such as yourself would have renounced the right to call someone "goddamned".

#26437: PZ Myers — 05/28  at  10:58 AM
He was spreading it around as if he were proud of that piece of crap? Wow.

#26441: — 05/28  at  11:12 AM
Doesn't a degree from Bob Jones University disqualify you from all academic endeavors? (I make an exception for serving as faculty at Bob Jones University since that is evidently not truly an academic endeavor.)

#26442: — 05/28  at  11:17 AM
He has a major in Bible and a <u>minor,/u> in biology. From Bob Jones University. If that don't beat all...

And I wonder if the fact that they mention he appears in that "who's who in the east" book - is that anything like the "who's who" books that any high school kid can get put into if they pay the fee?

#26443: — 05/28  at  11:18 AM
You missed a bit. Although it looks blog-like rather than associated with some larger institution (eg a newspaper, unless someone knows otherwise), it makes a rather humorous claim under the circumstances (in the equivalent of an "about us" on the top-left):

We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

They regard this as intellectual as well as conservative. Genes/kinds conserved, entropy conserved and no new information - intriguing or otherwise.

#26446: icecube — 05/28  at  11:22 AM
What does FCD stand for?

#26455: — 05/28  at  12:35 PM
Entropy is relevant to evolution, just as it is to every classical system that we have ever looked at. I know what PZ's saying, of course, and that entropy doesn't preclude evolution or organized weather systems or whatever else creationist morons (redundancy for effect) might suppose, yet it would be better not to say that entropy is not relevant to evolution.

In fact I have argued quite the opposite several times, pointing out that evolution is something that actually agrees with the laws of thermodynamics, while of course creationism and IDism specifically claim one or more points at which the second law of thermodynamics is broken.

And it is not all that bad to equate entropy with disorder. This is often done in journals like Nature, and is probably the best way to understand Gibbs free energy in the thermodynamics of chemistry. Delta G equals delta H plus delta S. There are even some explosives which are driven almost entirely by the delta S (entropy) part of the equation, and in the usual terms this means that the increase in disorder of the system is what causes the explosion.

In physics, entropy is understood as being something other than a synonym for disorder, probably partly because systems that gain in order so that they may do some work (say, by heating up part of the system) are in fact gaining in entropy overall. In one sense it could still be seen as an increase in disorder as the greater differential is produced, but at some point you just quit speaking of entropy as disorder, and call it "entropy". It's an issue of context of the discussion, and in many cases it is okay if a person simply equates entropy and disorder. Ranganathan can call entropy whatever he wants, since he's obviously too ignorant to be writing about these matters.

Anyway, what would we expect creationists/IDists to start writing about, actual science? They have to distort science even to make a pretense at making sense, so they do. We just have to point out what cretins they are.

#26464: Les Lane — 05/28  at  01:45 PM
The real story:

Very few morons have considered entropy. Of those that have, most have gotten it wrong.

#26468: — 05/28  at  02:48 PM
icecube:

What does FCD stand for?

http://www.gruts.com/darwin/

#26479: — 05/28  at  03:34 PM
How exactly do the creationists write entropy into their theory? Did God really create a universe that can only slowly move towards complete disorder? That's not very fine craftsmanship.

#26486: Becky — 05/28  at  05:12 PM
I was particularly fond of this line:

Belief in neither evolution or creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself.

Because everyone knows evolution is not a science...clearly.

Besides, it seems to me that life is becoming more disordered. Is this wrong?

#26494: maurinsky — 05/28  at  07:32 PM
The name Babu G. Ranganathan was familiar to me, and then I remembered where I saw it before - this guy writes crazy, non-sensical letters to the editor all the time. I've seen his name in the Hartford Advocate and the Hartford Courant, and without fail, he never makes any sense at all.

#26499: Chris Clarke — 05/28  at  09:15 PM

In physics, entropy is understood as being something other than a synonym for disorder, probably partly because systems that gain in order so that they may do some work (say, by heating up part of the system) are in fact gaining in entropy overall.

Ilya Prigogine, white courtesy phone.

Trackback: Entropy discovered! Tracked on: Preposterous Universe (72.9.234.70) at 2005 05 28 23:58:16
It's a characteristic feature of crackpots in any field, as seen in the Einstein skeptics as well -- a sneaking suspicion that the so-called experts could be so completely stupid as to miss a point that is so obvious any high-schooler could come up w...

#26505: — 05/29  at  02:13 AM

Belief in neither evolution or creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself.

The first problem with that for me, Becky, is the weird American reverse phraseology. I've noticed many Americans inadvertently say the opposite of what they mean. In English that particular sentence states that one must not believe in either (although I would have used a nor rather than an or).

But, ignoring the nations divided by a common language thing, it still talks about study of science - which would seem to be history and philosophy of science. It is certainly the case that one could study the history aspect without having to believe (we know of at least one clueless historian now!). However, the student would still risk starting to understand the process - at which point they would become a proponent of evolution (among other scientific theories).

Studying just history isn't the only way to avoid the comprehension and acceptance of science though. Babu's counter example is precisely the one I would have given next, except that Babu completely misses the point it really makes.

One can understand the human body and become a first class surgeon regardless of whether he or she believes the human body is the result of the chance forces of nature or of a Supreme Designer.

Surgeons and other medical staff are the equivalent of technicians, engineers, plumbers or carpenters. They are not scientists. They are not studying the details of the relevant science. They don't have to understand it - just carry out procedures by rote. Though the ones who do have a clue will be a lot better at adapting to new circumstances because they'll make more correct guesses based on their understanding than the clueless ones will.

#26508: Alon Levy — 05/29  at  04:11 AM
Very few scientists have considered or pondered the implications of the law of entropy upon the theory of evolution.

Actually, the the very first creationist argument plus refutation I've ever read is the one about entropy, and that was in a popular science book.

#26525: — 05/29  at  10:54 AM
Chris Clarke wrote: "Ilya Prigogine, white courtesy phone."

Prigogine, hell - Boltzmann refuted this creationist nonsense long before Morris and Gish were born!

"The general struggle for existence of living beings is therefore not a fight for the elements - the elements of all organisms are available in abundance in air, water, and soil - , nor for energy, which is plentiful in the form of heat, unfortunately untransformably, in every body. Rather, it is a struggle for entropy that becomes available through the flow of energy from the hot Sun to the cold Earth. To make the fullest use of this energy, the plants spread out the immeasurable areas of their leaves and harness the Sun's energy by a process as yet unexplored, before it sinks down to the temperature level of our Earth, to drive chemical syntheses of which one has no inkling as yet in our laboratories. The products of this chemical kitchen are the object of the struggles in the animal world."

[L. Boltzmann, _The Second Law of the mechanical theory of heat_ (1886); cited by E. Broda, _Ludwig Boltzmann_ (Ox Bow Press, 1983), pp. 79-80.]

-----
Robert

#26526: — 05/29  at  11:19 AM
Next time a creationist tries pulling the entropy disproves evolution argument, try debating it with him/her outside. On a sunny day. When he/she is not wearing a hat. Eventually, even the most obtuse will notice the energy being input into the biosphere.

#26532: Jeff Fecke — 05/29  at  12:49 PM
Nobody's ever said it better than M.C. Hawking in his hit "Entropy," off his seminal album Fear of a Black Hole:

Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so f--- the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!

I can't do better than that.

#26539: AndyS — 05/29  at  02:04 PM
"Surgeons and other medical staff are the equivalent of technicians, engineers, plumbers or carpenters. They are not scientists. They are not studying the details of the relevant science. They don't have to understand it - just carry out procedures by rote."

(begin rant)On behalf of the engineers out there, I have to say few of us do more things "by rote" than does a scientist. I understand the point you are trying to make, but there's no need to misrepresent what engineers do or the creative skill and deep knowledge -- including "details of the relevant science" -- that is required to do it. That sort of image of the profession is probably why all the engineers I've hired over the last five years have come from abroad. Americans just aren't interested and when they are, don't have the skills.(end rant)

#26547: Bill Ware — 05/29  at  02:37 PM
And to think I first studied entrophy in thermodynamics class as a way to maximize the efficientcy of rocket nozzles. You've come a long way, baby!

#26549: — 05/29  at  03:11 PM
I agree, there's no reason to disparage engineers. As someone who's done both scientific research and engineering, they are two different things, and it's not appropriate to lump doctors and engineers into the 'scientist' category.

I think the reason we notice that creationists, when they have any education, tend to be engineers, philosophers, lawyers, doctors, etc, is just that there are so damn few creationist biologists.

#26552: — 05/29  at  03:25 PM
AndyS: I call the scientists who do things by rote technicians and I've seen other people do the same. So they were already included though you might not have realised this. I thought a couple of times about excluding engineers precisely because many of them are inventive in a scientific way (eg Brunel). However, too many under that large label are not and I lacked any alternative word - like my using technician for a rote scientist (alongside other types of technician).