Discussion thread for Bob and Johnny's One on One

[ThePhy]

On 5 December 2008 Bob Enyart said that my paper on "Entropy and Evolution" claims that … [snipped]

Dan - fair warning. I think you have stepped in it now.

One thing Reverend Enyart delights in is getting scientists with name recognition to respond to him. Long after you have left these forums, he will construe what you said the way he wants, with little regard for how truthful his portrayal is. Currently Enyart sells videotapes of where he goaded Michael Shermer (founder of Skeptics Society and frequent Scientific America writer) into a confrontation (over the phone, and during which Shermer finally just hung up in disgust). Similarly, he sells tapes of a telephone discussion with Eugenie Scott (head of National Center for Science education). I will be very surprised if he doesn’t similarly leverage your response to his liking.

Enyart is the Christian equivalent of Howard Stern, and has cultivated an audience that thrives on his brand of confrontational theology. If you took the time to listen to many of his shows, you would hear him asking his audience to ferret out people who disagree with him, and have them confront him on the air.

 

[Yorzhik]

The second law says that "heat flow is from high temperature to low temperature"

ThePhy; I can repeat this as a property of the 2nd Law from now on, right?

 

[Dan Styer]

Dan - fair warning. I think you have stepped in it now.

One thing Reverend Enyart delights in is getting scientists with name recognition to respond to him.

Well I'm safe, then, because I have no name recognition!

 

[ThePhy]

Well I'm safe, then, because I have no name recognition!

Perhaps before, but not now. Whether you like it or not, in authoring your seminal paper you have joined the ranks of a small cadre of very influential scientists in the Creationism – evolution debate. You paper is generating a lot of attention in many forums like this. It has passed out of your hands now.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Dan - fair warning. I think you have stepped in it now.

One thing Reverend Enyart delights in is getting scientists with name recognition to respond to him. Long after you have left these forums, he will construe what you said the way he wants, with little regard for how truthful his portrayal is. Currently Enyart sells videotapes of where he goaded Michael Shermer (founder of Skeptics Society and frequent Scientific America writer) into a confrontation (over the phone, and during which Shermer finally just hung up in disgust). Similarly, he sells tapes of a telephone discussion with Eugenie Scott (head of National Center for Science education). I will be very surprised if he doesn’t similarly leverage your response to his liking.

Enyart is the Christian equivalent of Howard Stern, and has cultivated an audience that thrives on his brand of confrontational theology. If you took the time to listen to many of his shows, you would hear him asking his audience to ferret out people who disagree with him, and have them confront him on the air.

Wow... the venom. :shocked:

Those comments are way out of line. We are thankful that Bob is able to take the time to participate in discussions like this, as we are also thankful that Mr. Styer took the time to register and post on TOL.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Well I'm safe, then, because I have no name recognition!

Either way, we appreciate your participation very much. Welcome to our forum. :up:

 

[Stripe]

Welcome to the forum, Professor.

 

[chair]

Wow... the venom. :shocked:

Those comments are way out of line. We are thankful that Bob is able to take the time to participate in discussions like this, as we are also thankful that Mr. Styer took the time to register and post on TOL.

"venom"? Much milder than much of what gets posted here on TOL. And though I have not followed Mr. Enyart's carreer, i suspect this venom is accurate. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant.

 

[Yorzhik]

Styer's paper has the numbers. Get cracking and tell us if the numbers add up. No new thread needed.

Since I cannot see the numbers, just let me know if this is true: Styer measures the amount of energy required for evolution and it turns out the sun is more than adequate to provide this energy. Does that pretty much sum it up?

 

[Yorzhik]

Dr. Styer:

Bob Enyart has a different argument in his discussion with Johnny. And it includes elements of information theory. I feel that an additional argument can be made against evolution from the standpoint of thermo-entropy.

 

[chair]

Bob Enyart is being very unreasonable in his expectations of Styer's paper. The paper is published in a physics journal, whose audience is trained scientists. He states (as far as I know, having not read the entire article) what he set out to show, in a manner that is quite clear to his audience.

To expect him to unravel decades of confusion amongst creationists (or 'evolutionists'- a term that only creationists use) in a professional physics journal is unreasonable, at best. In fact, it is quite likely that had he spent a few paragraphs trying to unravel the history of the misunderstanding, that section of the paper would have been edited out as irrelevant to the target audience- namely professional scientists.

Now Bob: Can you point towards a law of physics or information theory that makes evolution impossible? I mean a specific law, not just saying "entropy!" and waving your hands in the air. If someone has done the calculations, that is even better. It may not be the subject of your current one on one, but it is more important.

 

[GuySmiley]

To expect him to unravel decades of confusion amongst creationists (or 'evolutionists'- a term that only creationists use)

You are the second person I've seen recently objecting to the term 'evolutionist.' Why? What a weird thing to care about.

 

[ThePhy]

Since I cannot see the numbers, just let me know if this is true: Styer measures the amount of energy required for evolution and it turns out the sun is more than adequate to provide this energy. Does that pretty much sum it up?

Nope. Styers article (and its title) is “ENTROPY and Evolution”, not “ENERGY and evolution”. Different animals.

 

[chair]

You are the second person I've seen recently objecting to the term 'evolutionist.' Why? What a weird thing to care about.

There is a group of people called "Physicists". That's what they call themselves, and they deal with physics. Like wise for chemists, biologists, geologists and a host of other fields of study.

"Creationists" invented the term "evolutionists" and apply it to others, who don't apply it to themselves. It seems to be an attempt to level the playing field, where "creationists" and "evolutionists" are parallel groups, each based on beliefs.

It is not a major issue, but I find it difficult to adopt the creationist terminology.

 

[ThePhy]

You are the second person I've seen recently objecting to the term 'evolutionist.' Why? What a weird thing to care about.

I am cognizant that I am on somewhat thin ice, since I was recently publically reprimanded by Knight (and he whacked my knuckles in private as well). But Enyart uses the terms “evolutionist” and “atheist” almost completely interchangeably, and frequently applies either (or both) to astrophysicists, geologists, biologists, or scientists of any sort with whom he has issues.

It would facilitate communication if he would use the correct term. In this debate, Johnny is not an atheist, but he is an evolutionist.

 

[Jefferson]

I just got off the phone with Bob. He is aware Dan Styer has posted and is planning to reply to his 2 posts (#98 and 99) later tonight.

 

[Stripe]

It would seem (If Professor Styer, Johnny, Pastor Enyart are willing) that the current one-on-one would benefit from a replacement for one of the participants.

 

[GuySmiley]

There is a group of people called "Physicists". That's what they call themselves, and they deal with physics. Like wise for chemists, biologists, geologists and a host of other fields of study.

"Creationists" invented the term "evolutionists" and apply it to others, who don't apply it to themselves. It seems to be an attempt to level the playing field, where "creationists" and "evolutionists" are parallel groups, each based on beliefs.

It is not a major issue, but I find it difficult to adopt the creationist terminology.

Do you have another suggestion? Maybe Non-creationists, maybe a symbol we could refer to as people-formerly-known-as-evolutionists. But here I am a creationist, naming you, so those will be automatically rejected.

 

[GuySmiley]

I am cognizant that I am on somewhat thin ice, since I was recently publically reprimanded by Knight (and he whacked my knuckles in private as well). But Enyart uses the terms “evolutionist” and “atheist” almost completely interchangeably, and frequently applies either (or both) to astrophysicists, geologists, biologists, or scientists of any sort with whom he has issues.

It would facilitate communication if he would use the correct term. In this debate, Johnny is not an atheist, but he is an evolutionist.

I agree that the correct term should be used at the correct time. The recent objections I've seen to 'evolutionist' are weird to me though. It seems there is a correct time for the term.

Sorry this discussion is off-topic I think though. (my fault)

 

[Yorzhik]

Nope. Styers article (and its title) is “ENTROPY and Evolution”, not “ENERGY and evolution”. Different animals.

Really? In light of this quote from Dr. Styer:

The second law says that "heat flow is from high temperature to low temperature"

I would have figured you could forgive me the layman's transfer of terms... you know what I meant.

Since I cannot see the numbers, just let me know if this is true: Styer measures the amount of entropy required for evolution and it turns out the sun is more than adequate to provide this increase. Does that pretty much sum it up?