Letter sent to director of NSF on April 6, 2013
Dear Dr. Cora B. Marrett,
I am writing to request a personal appointment with you to discuss the importance of getting the American Journal of Physics to retract an article about biological evolution and thermodynamics (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008). I’v send hundreds of faxes, emails, and letters to individuals and organizations who should be against pro-religion and anti-religion pseudoscience. I’v included a letter to the director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and an open letter to Howard Wactlar. I contacted Mr. Wactlar because one of his consultants is a member of the AAAS. I’v also enclosed the letter to the CEO of AIP Publications, LLC.
I asked 9 presidents of universities for appointments to explain why the chairs of their physics departments either don’t understand thermodynamics or have poor character. I’v enclosed the letter to the president of New York University because that is where I got a Ph.D. in physics. The only response was from the president of City College of New York, who was under the impression that I am advocating creationism. No physicist has rebutted the article in Creationwiki.org explaining the correct connection between evolution and thermodynamics.
Very truly yours,
Faxed to 703-292-9732
Mailed with a certificate of mailing
Fax sent to Congressman Yvette Clarke (D-NY, 9th District) on April 2013
Thank you for considering my allegation of fraud against David Jackson, editor of the American Journal of Physics (AJP), Beth Cunningham, Executive Officer of the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), and John Haynes, Chief Executive Officer of the AIP Publishing LLC for failing to retract “Entropy and evolution” (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008) and for failing to follow generally accepted procedures for peer-reviewed science journals. My allegation is that the article disseminates misinformation about evolutionary biology with the goal of promoting atheism and discrediting religious faith. Dr. Cora B. Marrett, director of the National Science Foundation, is complicit in this misconduct because she ignored my request for an interview to explain to her why the article should be retracted. I acknowledge your criticism that the information I recently sent does not explain why you should be my advocate in this allegation. The following will explain the matter step by step and list the exhibits proving malicious intent.
The theory of evolution is that single-celled organisms evolved into mammals in about a billion years or so. Calling this a fact is insulting to creationists who believe, as I do, that the Bible is the word of God and therefore communicates only truth. People who call evolution a fact tend to think it is a fact that free will is an illusion. The human mind creates both theories to answer questions. In the case of evolution, the question is where do fossils come from? In the case of free will, the question is what is the relationship between myself and my body?
Free will and evolution are connected to religion, and religion causes conflict between people. Conflict causes anxiety, and inhibition is a defense mechanism against anxiety. As a result, people are inhibited from thinking intelligently and rationally and behaving honestly about evolution. Usually, intelligence is a measure of how much time it takes a person needs to grasp a theory or insight. But with topics touching upon religion, people are so inhibited they can’t even grasp certain insights and theories. Atheists generally don’t understand the mind-body problem, and can’t grasp the theory that humans are embodied spirits. The only theories of the mind they understand are dualism and materialism. Advocates of the theory of intelligent design think the Big Bang, the origin of life, evolution, and the fine-tuning of physical constants constitute evidence that God exists. In my opinion, these phenomena constitute evidence that the universe in not intelligible, which is evidence that God does not exist. However, the Big Bang, etc. is evidence that God is the primary author of the Bible because the Bible says God created the universe from nothing.
Fact or theory, evolution gives rise to the question of what caused it. The only theory supported by the evidence is natural selection acting upon innovations. The old paradigm for innovations was random mutations, but the new paradigm is “natural genetic engineering,” according to James Shapiro of the University of Chicago. In any case, natural selection only explains the adaptation of species to the environment. Not enough is known about the innovations natural selection acts upon to understand the increase in the complexity of life in only a billion years. In other words, natural selection doesn’t explain common descent. Evolutionary biologists always speak of “adaptive evolution.” This is my interpretation of quotes #1, #2, #3, and #7 on the sheet titled “Thirteen Quotes About Evolution.”
The only theory that even attempts to explain the complexity of life and common descent is the theory of intelligent design (ID). The trouble with this theory is that there is no evidence for it. It is an example of how anxiety about religion can inhibit people from thinking rationally. There is of course evidence that an immutable and infinite being, called God in Western religions, does exist.
Quote # 4 is from an evolutionary biologist who advocates ID (Michael Behe), and quote #5 is from a mainstream biologist (Kenneth Miller). Miller in quote #5 is refuting quote #4. Notice that Miller does not deny or disagree with quote #4. From what I have read, there is no disagreement between Behe and Miller about the limited explanatory power of natural selection. There is only a conflict about intelligent design. I call it a conflict, not a disagreement, because both of them, I am sure, cannot define the word intelligence. They are both fighting about something they don’t understand. We can comprehend the word intelligence because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. But the operations of the human mind can’t be explicated or defined.
As a result of this conflict about ID and the misinformation propagated by both sides, many people think natural selection does explain the complexity of life and common descent. Quote # 6 is from a science writer with a Ph.D. in linguistics. Christine Kenneally thinks a billion years is plenty of time for a bacterium to evolve into a mammal even though it takes 20 years for a fertilized human egg to produce all of the cells in a human body. I call this ignorance and irrationality level 1 of the fraud being perpetrated upon the citizens of the United States by the AJP article.
The second law of thermodynamics is that a gas will fill up the entire container it is in. The second law does not apply to gases in outer space. In outer space, the gravitational attraction between hydrogen atoms is what causes stars to form. The second law also also does not apply to a living organism because a living organism is not a thermodynamic system. A living organism is like a Boeing 747 in flight with the added ability of being able to repair a broken propeller. Nevertheless, a number of pro-religion advocates say mistakenly that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Quote #11 alludes to the connection between evolution and thermodynamics, but does not make this statement. This is level 2 of the fraud.
Level 3 of the fraud is the idea that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, as opposed to the truth. The truth is that a living organism is not a thermodynamic system. Many people who should know the difference between a machine and a thermodynamic system are victims of the level 3 fraud. I suggest that the motive for this nonsense is that saying a living organism is not a thermodynamic system is very close to saying we don’t understand how mammals evolved from bacteria. Admitting this truth helps promote the theory of intelligent design and creationism. Many people are more interested in opposing ID and creationism than in promoting scientific knowledge.
Level 4 of the fraud is the one that I am saying you should be an advocate against. It emerges from level 3. If evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, it should be possible to perform a calculation to prove this. The fact that such a calculation is impossible is consistent with the fact that the second law does not apply to evolution. Daniel Styer, the author of “Entropy and evolution,” performs such a calculation by misusing the Boltzmann equation in for entropy (Eq. 4b). It was undoubtedly an honest mistake, considering how widespread is the error that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Exhibit No. 1
An explanation of why “Entropy and evolution” is absurd was published on October 31, 2011. See: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/more_philosophical_than_scient052441.html
Exhibit No. 2
On February 1, 2012, I told David Jackson, the editor of the AJP, about the error in the article. His response was to tell me to submit my own article “stating my case.” This was an incorrect procedure for a peer-reviewed science journal. I did not express a different point of view. I said the calculation was erroneous. Jackson should have referred my comments to the author for comment. Daniel Styer has a conscience to follow and a reputation to protect. It was up to Styer to decide whether my criticism was valid.
Exhibit No. 3
On February 15, 2012, I sent an email to Robert Richardson, a professor of physics at New York University, where I got a Ph.D. in physics in 1971, telling him the American Journal of Physics invited me to write a paper. I told him about the erroneous equation, and asked if I was right. I interpreted his response to mean that I was right, and I sent him all of my information about the article. When he realized that I was trying to get the American Journal of Physics to retract an article, he became hostile and refused to consider the matter. He did not make any attempt to explain to me why I was wrong.
On February 24, 2012, I submitted a document to the AJP explaining why the article was absurd. The document included links to other articles and to my YouTube video titled “The Truth About Evolution and Religion.”(See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ). It was given to an anonymous reviewer who said that I was wrong, but did not address my arguments. If the anonymous reviewer was honest, they would have told the editor to give the document to the author.
Exhibit No. 5
On March 7, 2012, I got an email letter from Istvan Kolossvary, a member of the American Scientific Affiliation and a Research Scientist at D. E. Shaw Research, LLC, New York, NY. Referring to my criticism of the AJP article, Dr. Kolossvary says:
You are absolutely right, using the particular numerical value of k_B in Eq. 3 and 4 is ludicrous. More than ludicrous, it is dangerous and damaging to students who are subjected to learning physics from teachers who try using numerology in defense of an agenda. This particular value of k_B is for ideal gas in SI units. It is so elemental, I am embarrassed to point it out. Even the name says it, this particular k_B value multiplied by Avogadro's number is the ubiquitous gas constant 'R' that appears in every single page of every single introductory text to thermodynamics. The author of this paper, therefore, implicitly proclaims that evolution can be quantified/modeled as ideal gas. Now, show me another journal in the scientific world that would allow a paper to be published on modeling evolution as ideal gas. Even if one could make an intelligible statement about evolution in the ideal gas context, WHERE IS THE ARGUMENT? In this paper, the author does not bother giving any argument, but willingly or unwillingly feeds numerology to science students. This is clearly wrong.
Exhibit No. 6
In May 2012, the newsletter of the Catholic Truth of Scotland published my explanation of why “Entropy and evolution” was absurd. I have gotten no communication from this organization saying that my analysis was criticized by anyone.
Exhibit No. 7
In January, 2013, Creationwiki.org published my explanation of why “Entropy and evolution” was absurd. There have been over 1000 hits, but to my knowledge no one has logged onto the site and suggested a correction.
Exhibit No. 8
From February 21, 2013, to February 27, 2013, I sent letters to the presidents of Columbia University, City College of New York, Fordham University, Georgetown University, Queen’s College, New York University, St. John’s University, Stony Brook University, Yeshiva University, University of Delaware, Binghamton University, Dickenson College, Loyola Marymount College, and Creighton University saying that their chairs of physics were “moral cowards” for not supporting my efforts to get the AJP to retract the article. All but one was sent with a certificate of mailing, and all in the New York area included a request for a personal interview. I got no responses from the chairs of physics to this criticism of their character, and only one response from one of the presidents. No attorney contacted me with an accusation of slander or malicious interference. All of my letters included a link to the Creationwiki.org article.
Exhibit No. 9
The following are links to my conversations with other individuals about this matter:
Thirteen Quotes About Evolution
#1) The history of life presents three great sources of wonder. One is adaptation, the marvelous fit between organism and environment. The other two are diversity and complexity, the huge variety of living forms today and the enormous complexity of their internal structure. Natural selection explains adaptation. But what explains diversity and complexity?” (Daniel McShae and Michael Brandon, Biology's First Law : The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems, location 78, Kindle)
#2) By the time Darwin came to publish On the Origin of Species in 1859, he had amassed enough evidence to propel evolution itself, though still not natural selection, a long way towards the status of fact. Indeed, it was this elevation from hypothesis towards fact that occupied Darwin for most of his great book. The elevation has continued until, today, there is no longer any doubt in any serious mind, and scientists speak, at least informally, of the fact of evolution. All reputable biologists go on to agree that natural selection is one of its most important driving forces, although —as some biologists insist more than others—not the only one. Even if it is not the only one, I have yet to meet a serious biologist who can point to an alternative to natural selection as a driving force of adaptive evolution—evolution towards positive improvement. (Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, p. 18)
#3) Facilitated variation is not like orthogenesis, a theory championed by the eccentric American paleontologist Henry Osborn (1857–1935), which imbues the organism with an internal preset course of evolution, a program of variations unfolding over time. Natural selection remains a major part of the explanation of how organisms have evolved characters so well adapted to the environment. (Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart, The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, page 247)
#4) P. falciparum, HIV, and E. coli are all very, very different from each other. They range from the simple to the complex, have very different life cycles, and represent three different fundamental domains of life: eukaryote, virus, and prokaryote. Yet they all tell the same tale of Darwinian evolution. Single simple changes to old cellular machinery that can help in dire circumstances are easy to come by. This is where Darwin rules, in the land of antibiotic resistance and single tiny steps…There is no evidence the Darwinian process can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind of machinery that fills the cell. (Michael J. Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, Free Press, 2007, p. 162)
#5) In Behe’s view, these are examples of nothing more than a kind of “trench warfare” in which the two species have progressively disabled or broken parts of themselves in order to survive. Nothing genuinely new, novel, or complex has resulted from this struggle, and we shouldn’t expect otherwise. The reason, according to Behe, is that the sorts of changes we see in this well-studied interaction represent the limit, the “edge” of what evolution can accomplish. They can go this far and no further. A line in the sand is drawn, and the other side of that line is intelligent design. How does Behe know where to draw that line? (Kenneth Miller, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for the American Soul,p. 67)
#6) They [Pinker and Bloom] particularly emphasized that language is incredibly complex, as Chomsky had been saying for decades. Indeed, it was the enormous complexity of language that made is hard to imagine not merely how it had evolved but that it had evolved at all.
But, continued Pinker and Bloom, complexity is not a problem for evolution. Consider the eye. The little organ is composed of many specialized parts, each delicately calibrated to perform its role in conjunction with the others. It includes the cornea,…Even Darwin said that it was hard to imagine how the eye could have evolved.
And yet, he explained, it did evolve, and the only possible way is through natural selection—the inestimable back-and-forth of random genetic mutation with small effects…Over the eons, those small changes accreted and eventually resulted in the eye as we know it. (Christine Kenneally, The First Word: The Search for the Origins of Language, pp. 59–60)
#11) Considered thermodynamically, the problem of neo-Darwinism is the production of order by random events. (Ludwig von Bertalanffy, “Chance or Law,” in Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences, The Macmillan Company, 1969, page 76)
Very truly yours,
Letter sent to Yvette Clarke (D-NY, 9th district) on January 5, 2014
Dear Ms. Clarke,
In a telephone conversation in April 2013, your communications director (Scott) indicated he would be my advocate in getting the American Journal of Physics to retract a malicious article (“Entropy and evolution”) that promotes atheism. It was written by Daniel F. Styer, a physicist at Oberlin College, and was peer-reviewed. Scott initially refused my request, but had a change of mind when he saw the document with exhibits I sent him. My correspondence with your office is at
A version of the article by Granville Sewell in Exhibit No. 1 was published last year in a peer-reviewed journal. It has the same title as the Styer article and is at (http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.2.)
Also, I discussed the article with Professor Styer and exchanged emails with him on December 23, 2013. Apparently, Professor Styer did not know about my correspondence with the American Journal of Physics, which started in February 1, 2012, until he got my email dated June 28, 2013.
Dr. Styer did not admit that he misused the Boltzmann equation for entropy. However, he was unable to discuss the article in a rational manner. When I asked Dr. Styer what the entropy of a pendulum was, he replicated the absurdity of the article itself by saying, “Zero.” The AJP article disgraces every physicist in the United States, and shows how irrational people can be about anything connected to belief in God.
Very truly yours,
Mailed with a certificate of mailing, faxed, and emailed.
Faxed to Beth Cunningham, American Association of Physics Teachers, and Julie Schmidt, American Association of University Professors
Letter faxed to Michael McCaul (R-TX, 10th district) on April 22, 2015
I called your office today at around 2:15 PM EST to get the name of the staff person who communicates with the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on your behalf. The person I spoke to refused to disclose this information. I need to know whether or not I am entitled to this information because I obtained the names of about 18 staff members with that responsibility.
Be that as it may, this is the information I want to give that staff member. Please ask that person to call me or send me an email at email@example.com.
Very truly yours,
Letter to staff person on Committee for Science, Space, and Technology
If you read this letter I sent the Sergeant of Arms about my request to see Hon. Steve Knight as well as the link to all of my correspondence, you will be in a position to be of service to your country. Give me a call if you have any questions. Better yet, I can come down to Washington DC to explain this matter.
Dear Mr. Irving,
The purpose of this letter is to report what I believe is unlawful behavior by Yvette Clarke (NY-9) and Ami Bera (CA-7) involving the destruction of government property the personal security of government employees.
I sent the following email on March 11, 2015, to firstname.lastname@example.org:
To William P. Mcfarland:I want to make sure you understand the situation we discussed this morning over the telephone.On April 6, 2013, I asked the director of the National Science Foundation for a personal interview about this matter. My request was ignored, and I asked to see my congressman (Yvette Clarke, NY-9). This request was initially refused by her communications director (Scott). I responded by sending Scott a long document with exhibits explaining the seriousness of the situation. He told me the matter was being investigated, but Yvette Clarke is not telling me what the results of the investigation are. My response to this situation is to request interviews with all 40 congressman who are members of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. The only positive response I got so far was from congressman Ami Bera. I have all my correspondence about at http://www.pseudoscience123.com. One thing I did not add to this site is that I posted my concerns on the blog www.skepticforum.com on Feb. 7, 2015. The titled of my post is "Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics." There have been over 1000 views of this, but no responses. I'll be giving you a call next week if I don't hear from either Yvette Clarke or Ami Bera.
My suspicion is that Yvette Clarke destroyed the documents instead of sending them to the Subcommittee on Research and Technology, which oversees the National Science Foundation. I posted on http://www.pseudoscience123.com the email from Congressman Bera inviting me to Washington DC. I want to know the date and time of the meeting at 1535 Longworth House.
Very truly yours, David Roemer (347-417-4703) Mailed with a certificate of mailing, Faxed to 202-225-3233, 202-226-1928 (Bera), 202-226-0112 and 718-287-1223 (Clarke)
Open Letter to House of Representatives
A peer-reviewed science journal (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, 2008) published an article criticizing Henry Morris, a Christian apologist, for saying evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, according to which a sugar cube put in a cup of coffee will dissolve. Thermodynamics has nothing to do with the evolution of stars or biological evolution. The article contains an absurd calculation using the equation that describes this law of liquids, solids, and gases. The article should be retracted because this is the usual remedy for fraudulent research. It also exacerbates the culture war in the United States about the teaching of biological evolution.
I submitted documents to my congressman (Yvette Clarke, NY-9) explaining this, but she is refusing to tell me if she gave the documentation to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology or the results of any investigation. If the article is retracted, it will be a news item and embarrassing to the scientific establishment in the Unites States. I believe the public has a right to know how irrational scientists can be about biological evolution.
I have a Ph.D. in physics from New York University, and my correspondence with Congressman Clarke and the American Journal of Physics on this website: http://www.pseudoscience123.com
Very truly yours,