Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University

By Louie Bishop

(Louie was a pre-med student who attended LSU a short time ago, ran into a just a few difficulties over the issue of origins, and tried to do something about it):

.

I will seek to reiterate some facts regarding my own experience at LSU:

As a student at LSU while Randal Wisbey was President, I can testify that I was blatantly brainwashed with Darwinian concepts. We didn’t weigh the conflicting arguments between the two worldviews. We were told that this and that argument had PROVED Darwinian evolution, when in fact, to any thinking mind, we had simply been shown observations which were interpreted according to a Darwinian mindset! When I spoke up about it to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, he conceded that he had no problem with this since, “At the university level” he said, “we teach a more sophisticated knowledge of origins…”

Randal Wisbey, President

When I talked with President Randal Wisbey and the former Provost, they were not concerned about what I was telling them. Instead, they instituted a Freshman Seminar where students were told by the Dean of the School of Religion, John Webster, that it’s high time that the SDA Church endorse Darwinian evolution. And, that seminar was touted by Randal Wisbey to parents, supporters, and SDA members as a “balanced” look at the issue of origins. No, Dr Webster told us that the literal interpretation of the Bible on origins is not correct. This is the Dean of the School of Religion folks! And now he is the Dean of the new HMS Richards Divinity School! I know one thing: If HMS Richards were alive, he would be defending the Bible against the teachings of John Webster.

John W. Webster, Dean

The rubber meets the road at LSU when the students are sitting in class being told what to believe, rather than being taught how to think for themselves in analyzing scientific observations. To many, it’s not a big deal; the popular worldview will do.

Yet, at LSU I met a Pastor’s daughter who told me she had become agnostic since attending LSU. Apart from all the media glamor and enrollment counts, there is your fruit re: LSU’s Biology programs. Another friend stood staring at the front of the classroom following Dr. Webster’s presentation in the Freshman Seminar. HE KNEW and shared with me his understanding that what we’d just heard was absolutely contrary to the teachings of the Bible. He was shocked, as Dr. Webster received a roomful of applause from people who didn’t realize what they’d just heard…

When I attempted to share my faith and beliefs in the Bible on LSU’s campus, I was repeatedly disciplined by Randal Wisbey’s administration. I was denied my right as a U.S. citizen to defend myself before the various committees that were meeting to discuss what I had “done wrong.” All this was done under the leadership of President Randal Wisbey, who knew my situation well.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?” – Matthew 7:15-16:

Does LSU’s Dean of the HMS Divinity School support the clear Biblical view of origins? Is Randal Wisbey concerned that the faith of LSU students in the Bible is being sacrificed on a daily basis, all for the sake of a popular worldview?

I’ve already seen and heard the clear and undeniable answers for myself.

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+1Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

86 thoughts on “Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University

  1. This, from the “horses mouth”, is quite revealing. Church, let the school go its way, and cut the losses, before more souls are lost. The Church is accountable for the damage being done to itself, and its constituents. Repent, before it is too late. MAKE A DECISION!




    0
    View Comment
    • @Larry: @Larry: Larry, surprised as you may be, if the route of cutting free SDA universities for blatantly Practicing and Teaching evolution is followed, you may be left with very few, if any. Despite overwhelming evidence and scales tipping on the Creation side, pointing to an intelligent designer, those of us working at SDA universities advocating for creation, are by far, in the minority. The theistic, neo-Darwinism, post modernism and transhumanism and just pure ol evolution garbage has taken the upper hand. Ethics, the neo-Darwinist aka evolution way is simply this: we keep doing it, and, if we get caught, we do something about it: this sentence hinges on but one word: IF. Ruse’s advice, knowing that Darwinism aka evolution is a great lie, is stirringly this: Darwinism aka evolution had a great past- let us continue to ensure that it has an even greater future! And all the administrators and lecturers who are dead set at promoting evolution in every single way, says hallelujah, amen!! No wonder Adventism is in its darkest days ever! It’s really not rocket science to figure out why.




      0
      View Comment
  2. It might be of interest to those who read Louie’s letter to know that he attended UC Davis for four years. In his Senior year, he was given the prestigious award of being the “Student Athlete of the Year”. This past August, Louie was inducted into the UC Davis Golf Hall of Fame. During that ceremony, his Coach told of his Seventh-day Adventist convictions of not playing on his Sabbath but that he contributed so much the days he played. He received a standing ovation. This was from a secular group.

    It is such a sad story to know how he was treated while attending his own church University.




    0
    View Comment
  3. Thank you Louie for your continuing to be faithful to God’s Word. As Yogi Berra once said, “If H.M.S. Richards was alive today, he would be rolling over in his grave!”




    0
    View Comment
  4. If evolution as taught by geologists is the full and complete answer to origins, then there is absolutely no point in being a Christian. If God does NOT have the power to create us as he says he did in the Bible, then there is no way he can recreate you again. Therefore, if evolution is the correct answer, then there is no resurrection, no heaven, and no hell and no consequences in eternity for what you and I do. Further, God is a liar for he told us a fairy tale in the creation story. Hitler and many others like him in history will get away with killing millions of people with no justice coming to them.

    If the things that Louie Bishop represents are true (and I am inclined to believe him), then what I have just said above is the message that every thinking LSU student will get out of their science and religion classes. Is this the message parents send their students to LSU to learn and pay good money for? Is this the message that the church wants sent to students at LSU?

    It is one thing to teach evolution so that students understand how the world thinks and at the same time, presenting the Bible as the true answer to life’s origins. With the real facts presented from science, students can study these issues and make up their own minds with the facts presented. I will support teachers in doing this.

    But its an entirely different thing to teach that evolution is the true origin of life and the Bible is to be regarded as full of fairy tales. I will never support teachers in teaching that evolution is the true answer on the question of origins. Teachers who do this make a serious mistake. God is real, he is all-powerful, evolution is not the correct answer to origins, and the judgment day is coming for all. The cost of such teaching will be fearfully high. And it is coming much sooner than most SDAs think it is. The church needs to turn this thing around, and the sooner the better.




    0
    View Comment
    • Bob Pickle:
      “HMS Richards Divinity School.”

      I didn’t know that HMS Richards was divine. Sounds about as strange as “Master of Divinity.”

      @Bob Pickle: Divinity refers to the school curriculum being geared toward study of the divine not the “divinity” of the founder.




      0
      View Comment
  5. Thanks, Louie, for your willingness to tell us what you heard. I’m wondering whether there are other current or former students who would be willing to confirm your observations??

    It’s always good to hear facts confirmed by two or more. I’m not implying, Louie, that you are wrong but in the mouth of two or more witnesses…




    0
    View Comment
    • @GMF:

      There are quite a few students and parents who have written to me about what has and continues to take place at LSU. Their experiences are similar, though not quite as blatent at the present time, perhaps, to what Louie experienced. It seems like Louie’s public exposure has taken at least some of the air out of the sales of the Darwinists at LSU. They still believe as they always did, but they are trying to be just a bit more subtle about how they promote it these days. They are still, however, promoting mainstream Darwinism or various forms of theistic evolution or “progressive creation” as the most plausibly true story (or stories) of origins. Regardless, they do not believe and they certainly do not promote the Adventist perspective on origins (i.e,. the literal 7-day creation week in particular).

      However, when it comes to LSU students willing to testify along these lines, Louie is fairly unique in being willing to put his own name, reputation, and even career options on the line in order to speak openingly and candidly about his experience in public forum. He’s quite a brave young man. Most other students who have had and who currently have similar concerns are fearful of reprisals for speaking out – and for good reason.




      0
      View Comment
  6. I too want to thank Louie for standing up to what he believes. His old profs are just bullies. See what EGW has to say and call such people :

    “But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {3SG 91.1} ”

    Wow! “worst kind of infidelity” I didn’t even know that there are different kinds of infidelity. No wonder HMS Richards would be spinning in his grave if he knew! This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad and serious.




    0
    View Comment
  7. It is beyond the time that our church headquarters’ administration does something about sacrificing our young people to the devil’s teachings. Our SDA Colleges AND Universities must only present the truth of God’s Word as The Truth, not evolution as truth. Yes, our young people need to know what the world believes in order to contradict it with Truth. But to teach evolution as the world sees it, and to not teach God’s Word as Truth, is wrong, pure and simple. WRONG!

    I am thrilled to know that we are nearer the end of time, but so saddened to hear from the mouth of our youth the damage that is being done that may have eternal consequences to our precious youth. May God help us to get rid of the parasites and predators in our church and give us leadership who is willing to “dare to be a Daniel” during the tough time our Church is going through. WE MUST SPEAK UP!




    0
    View Comment
    • @Dr. Richard Brown: I fully agree with you. [edit] The critical question is: has Adventist institutions become the same? Loui highlights La Sierra, but you may be shocked to know many, many Adventist institutions teach evolution as fact. A Division president recently told me that it is evolution questions that students need to answer in the exam. You could blow me over with a feather. Who is fooling who, and can the church AND Triple AAA answer just why creationists are given an uphill struggle and are forced to leave many Adventist institutions? And, please, do not come with the lame excuse about progressives, liberals, conservatives. We either follow Christ and call ourselves Christians, or [not]. It really is that simple, nothing more, nothing less. Now, Church and TRIPLE AAA, answer the creationists loud and clear..




      0
      View Comment
  8. It has come to my attention, from someone who lives in the dooryard of LSU, that the Origins problem “is not just a problem of the science dept.” This observer stated that, “There was not one teacher in the Region Dept that believes a literal 6-day creation – except for one part time semi-retired Bible teacher.” If the Dean of HMS Divinity school holds to theistic evolution it is likely he will surround himself with Bible teachers of the same view. If this is true every student who goes there will be be confronted by Bible department’s doubts regarding the first chapters of Genesis. Therefore, every student will be affected by their doubts! After all, the serpent beguiled Eve with his doubts!

    I think we need to look closely at the Bible department as well as the science department at LSU. Southern Adventist University is the only school, to my knowledge, that has openly stated what they believe and teach concerning origins along a truly Adventist perspective.

    Pastor Terry McComb

    [Editor’s note: Southwestern Adventist University is also quite open and active in promoting the Adventist position on origins in both its science and religion departments.]




    0
    View Comment
  9. It would be interesting to hear a response from the people he is talking about in regards to what their experience was with this young man. I do believe LSU is teaching error because of many reports about it from reliable sources.




    0
    View Comment
  10. I also praise Louie Bishop for his bravery in standing up for Biblical truth. However, I am curious about his current situation. Is he still a student at La Sierra? If so, how is he being treated by the administration, the faculty, and his fellow students? If he has finished his coursework, what is he now doing? I know that he gave-up a promising career in professional golf, due to his unwillingness to play on Sabbath. How is he doing now?




    0
    View Comment
  11. Wonderful update as it shows that we don’t need to spend all those tens of thousands of dollars on Adventist education. To do well at a public university is marvelous. Praise God!!! Maybe its time to rethink why we even have Adventist college in the first place.




    0
    View Comment
  12. This is so utterly unacceptable. If you have not yet this quarter, I recommend the adult Sabbath School Quarterly. There is NO room for theistic evolution in our understanding of the Great Controversy. Let’s continue to pray for everyone involved.




    0
    View Comment
  13. Thank you, Louie Bishop for reminding us that the Biblical account of a literal 7 day creation is absolutely fundamental to the SDA beliefs in the unlimited power of God and the veracity of His Holy Word. Otherwise, the Sabbath becomes a fraud and the 4th commandment becomes irrelevant.
    Thank you for having the courage of your convictions.




    0
    View Comment
  14. Thank you, Louie for testifying directly about what you encountered at La Sierra. It is encouraging that the current Adult Sabbath School lessons are on this very issue. But is the church leadership addressing the La Sierra problem yet? Let’s pray and work to make that happen.




    0
    View Comment
  15. Louie, You reminded me of song we used to sing: “Dare to be a Daniel.” by Elder Bliss

    “Standing by a purpose true,
    Heeding God’s command,
    Honor them the faithful few!
    All hail to Daniel’s Band!
    Dare to be a Daniel,
    Dare to stand alone,
    Dare to have a purpose firm!
    Dare to make it known!

    “Hold the gospel banner high!
    On to vic-t’ry grand!
    Satan and his host defy,
    And shout for Daniel’s Band!
    Dare to be a Daniel,
    Dare to stand alone,
    Dare to have a purpose firm!
    Dare to make it known!”

    May God bless you and the youth of this generation with this old-time message.




    0
    View Comment
  16. What year did Adventist start teaching evolution in their Colleges and universities?

    If Mrs. White were alive today, I wonder what kind of letters she would be writing to LSU?

    Louie Bishop gives me hope for the younger generation. May God Bless Him.




    0
    View Comment
    • @Steve Mahan:@Steve Mahan:
      Steve,

      In 1961 Fritz Guy became a faculty member at LSU. He went on to get his Phd at Univerity of Chicago supervised by Langdon Gilkey who in 1981 was a expert witness for the ACLU against creation in a big creation science debate in Arkansas. (Look it up on Wikipedia) He then came back to La Sierra in 1971 apparently began intiating what he had learned. In 1980 he was active in creating the loophole in the Adventist fundemental belief that enables those favoring Theistic Evolution to promote it. He was honored in 2012 at LSU for all his contributions.

      MLB




      0
      View Comment
    • @Steve Mahan:Steve, If you know anything about La Sierra, you would know that any letters, emails, or phone calls Ellen White sent would be ignored completely, as they have little to no respect for her.




      0
      View Comment
  17. It’s time for our Pacific Union Conference president to stand up and stand for the right and NOT what is politically expedient. Can u imagine the awesome responsibility these ministers have and they are NOT doing what they KNOW to be right. How very sad….




    0
    View Comment
  18. I join those in thanking Louie for taking this courageous stand against apostasy at the highest levels in the SECC and PUC areas of control over our Educational system.

    I also agree with those who find that the bigger story here is not about the science department – but about the religion department. But to be fair to John Webster I would point out that the religion department problems started with Fritz Guy – not Webster. Neither of them should have been paid with tithe dollars to do what they did.

    And as I have stated on Educate Truth as far back as 2010 – this would not have been a problem were the religion department not providing air cover for the other evolutionists at LSU – the ones in the science department.

    If the GC cannot find a way to stop paying religion department evolutionists at LSU with tithe dollars – then they will never be able to actually control the work of science department profs at LSU who are not paid with Tithe.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  19. Ezek 9 speaks of those who sigh and cry over the sins committed in Israel – here my friends is a problem so heart breaking – it hurts to read it.

    May God bring about an swift end to the blindness, and lack of leadership in that particular area of the Pacific Union’s control. I pray for strong leaders in that union and in the SECC who will stand up for the truth no matter how unpopular among their peers.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  20. It never fails to amaze me that apparently otherwise intelligent people can even seriously consider let alone believe Theistic Evolution. Seems the issue would be settled at day three when the vegetation was created…seriously how did the plants survive till the sun, moon, and stars were developed? How did the plants survive with out the living creatures (day 5) that pollinate and help distribute seeds.

    Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.

    Day 2: Heaven

    Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.

    Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.

    Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds
    in the air.

    Day 6: Land animals and people.

    Day 7: God rested and blessed the Sabbath
    making it Holy.

    To me Theistic Evolution is even less plausible then Darwinian Theory which I find just as ridiculous as the Big Bang Theory.




    0
    View Comment
    • Actually, there seems to be pretty good evidence for the “Big Bang.” In fact, the discovery that everything in the visible universe is flying away from everything else, suggesting an origin from the same location back in time, is part of what has convinced many well-known physicists that a God of some kind likely exists. After all, if the universe had a beginning, it is much harder to explain its origin and precisely balanced nature (which allows it to support complex life) without appealing to a pre-existing and eternal God.




      0
      View Comment
      • Sean,
        >
        > The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. >

        > Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
        >
        > Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method — the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. >

        Scientists who disagree with the current BB theory.

        http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
        @Sean Pitman:




        0
        View Comment
        • @AzGrandpa: I thank AzGrandpa for quoting the cosmology statement. Thirty years ago, as a physics student at PUC, I accepted the BBT as a plausible explanation for Genesis 1:16 “… He made the stars also.” Since that time I have noticed with shame that fellow physicists have broken with scientific method and propped up the failures of this hypothesis with the “dark” fudge factors. In my estimation the BBT has not done any better than the TOE as a viable hypothesis.




          0
          View Comment
      • Grew up SDA and from the time I could think for myself, I have had my questions about the Bible’s interpretation of creation. It has and still sounds as silly as the time we thought we could fall off the edge of the earth.

        I have had friends in medical school who say that they literally have to put on their veil of ignorance when it comes to the things being taught in school and what they were taught at home and church because if they allow themselves to consider the fact that Darwinism may be just a teeny weensy bit more plausible than Theistic evolution, they would have to reject everything they were ever taught.

        As humans, once we make a commitment for something, we will cling to that promise and even invent explanations for supporting those beliefs if only not to feel like the boobs we are for adopting those beliefs in the first place. What happened to the dinosaurs? They were placed here to test our faith? Really?

        Scientists are working on re-creating a mini big bang theory. Let’s see what my Christian family will come up with to deny that truth.




        0
        View Comment
        • Dinosaur fossils are real, no trick, but there is good evidence that they aren’t millions of years old. Extremely well preserved elastic soft tissues with largely intact sequencable immunogenic proteins strongly argue that these bones are of recent origin. Kinetic chemistry theories of protein degeneration have long argued that it would be effectively impossible for such proteins to remain intact longer than 100,000 years or so – certainly not tens of millions of years.

          As far as the Big Bang theory, why would SDAs have a problem with that? The argument that the universe has a beginning actually favors the concept that the universe was designed – according to many well-known physicists. You see, the argument isn’t that the entire universe is young, but that life on this planet is young.

          And, talk about turning your brain off when you try to imagine a random explosion producing our finely tuned universe or any mindless mechanism producing the most simple living thing – or even one of the biomachines within the most simple living thing that requires more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid building blocks. Such just-so story telling for how the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations and natural selection produced such complex biomachines simply isn’t rationally tenable nor is it scientific – not even given trillions of years of time…

          Sean Pitman
          http://www.DetectingDesign.com




          0
          View Comment
    • @Shani:

      The term “Big Bang” was initially a derogatory term used by scientists who thought nature was eternal and had no beginning. They were slamming the scientists that accepted that nature had a specific starting point – and that it came out of nothing – by claiming they were making a statement that was like the Bible “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.




      0
      View Comment
      • That’s correct. Then Sir Frederick Hoyle, the one who first started using the term “Big Bang” to deride those who believed that the universe had a beginning, eventually changed his mind and concluded that perhaps there was a God of some kind after all…




        0
        View Comment
  21. There may also be evidence in the Bible for the big bang. Consider this verse:

    Isa 42:5 “Thus says God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out;….”

    He stretched out the heavens. Is that describing the expansion of space itself? It seems reasonable to me that this is talking about that.




    0
    View Comment
  22. Isn’t it interesting how creationists can argue against secular theories like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, an Old Earth, and the Big Bang, and then, suddenly, reverse engines and not only accept it, but promote it! Sean actually embraces all of these.




    0
    View Comment
  23. Professor Kent: Isn’t it interesting how creationists can argue against secular theories like the Second Law of Thermodynamic

    Are you making that accusation up out of thin air – or did you mean to provide a quote to support your accusation?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  24. I’m often very conflicted about what the “right” thing to do is concerning this mess. Many of us (students) have been terribly disappointed by many church leaders who’ve refused to deal with sincere questions from students looking for guidance to do God’s will. For example, how does Matthew 18 apply, and how does Titus’s counsel on public exposure apply…

    Other leaders have abandoned us to the dogs–so to speak–or they’ve even been complicit in making life very difficult for those who’ve dared to stand.

    My wife and I were threatened with losing our NAD sponsorship for our mission work because of a past conflict with our college, stemming from taking a stand as Louie had. It was only because someone from our mission field got involved establishing a direct line with the NAD that this was resolved.

    I’m sure we made mistakes, but I wish we had clearer guidance from those more experienced than us. Instead, I often got highly evasive answers to say the least. Thank God He provided wise and truly godly counselors in our time of need.

    Anyone who stands should expect to be accused of being the troublemaker and of not “handling things right.” Then let it be known what the “right” way is, for many young folks out there are praying for this.




    0
    View Comment
  25. BobRyan: Are you making that accusation up out of thin air – or did you mean to provide a quote to support your accusation?

    LOL. At one time many creationists claimed that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics. Perhaps you still believe that. Most, including Sean Pitman, recognize there is no contradiction because the earth is anything but a closed system. This is but one of many claims creationists took a dogmatic stance on and then had to back up (dogmaticism is never a good idea).

    If you want to call this an accusation and demand a quote, here you go: http://bit.ly/VES3Bg. You might even recognize the fellow he made the remark to.

    Closed minds struggle with the concept of a closed system.




    0
    View Comment
    • I’ve never argued that evolution violates the 2LoT. So, to place all creationists into the same camp is just as ridiculous as placing all evolutionists in one camp (since many evolutionists don’t understand the 2LoT either).

      Also, it’s not “dogamatism” to take on a definite position as long as one is willing to admit error. Why this fear of being wrong professor? It’s Ok to be wrong. It’s Ok to put one’s self out on a limb. That’s what science is all about. Scientists always (or at least should always) take on the risk of being wrong and having to “back up” and try again.




      0
      View Comment
    • @Professor Kent:

      At one time Isaac Asimov admitted that the story telling that goes into molecule-to-human-mind-evolutionism requires a massive decrease in entropy.

      Some here have agreed to pretend that Asimov does not know anything at all about evolution or entropy when it comes to that point. I simply do not join them in that regard – because as all the physicists I know freely admit – entropy is always preserved at the local level as long as you include both the reaction and the immediate surroundings. Turns out – that is a true statement regarding the way entropy works “in real life”.

      But I understand how fictions about molecule-to-human-mind evolution might need a mechanism that bends outside of known, observable science.

      in Christ,

      Bob




      0
      View Comment
      • You’re confusing thermodynamic entropy with informational entropy. They aren’t the same thing. They are conceptually related, but they really aren’t the same. The theory of evolution does not violate the 2LoT since the Earth is not a closed thermodynamic system. And, even it if were a closed system the ToE still would not be in violation of the 2LoT.

        Let me tell you, a lot of physicists still do not really understand the 2LoT – that it really isn’t about informational entropy, but thermodynamic entropy alone. There’s a key difference.




        0
        View Comment
        • @Sean Pitman: “Let me tell you, a lot of physicists still do not really understand the 2LoT – that it really isn’t about informational entropy, but thermodynamic entropy alone.”

          The problem is that we don’t know how to define what you are calling informational entropy. If we could, then it could be included, in the 2LoT.

          Asimov was conceptually correct. Another name for the 2LoT is the “Arrow of Time.” It is seen when a recording of an event is played in reverse. If you watch a cue ball break shot, there is nothing in the other laws of physics that precludes that shot happening exactly in reverse with the cue ball being ejected toward the other end of the table. Only the 2LoT can tell us the movie is going backward.

          I maintain that the ToE violates the comprehensive 2LoT.




          0
          View Comment
        • You’re simply mistaken. The 2LoT only discusses the thermodynamics of a closed system. It has nothing to do with apparent “order” or “disorder” of the system as far as functionality is concerned within the system. The “arrow of time” concept, again, only has to do with the thermodynamic features of the system.

          Statistically, it is possible that pool balls on a table could be heading for a state of apparent “order”. Such would not violate the 2LoT. It would be statistically unlikely the greater number of pool balls in question, but it would not be impossible nor would it be in violation of the 2LoT as long as there was enough thermodynamic potential to actually move the pool balls.

          Apparent order, disorder, structure or functional complexity simply isn’t covered under the 2LoT. The 2LoT simply discusses the amount of “battery power” available to a system, so to speak. It doesn’t discuss what the battery power could be used for.

          Also, you’re mistaken in your assertion that the concept of “informational entropy” is not defined. It is well defined. It basically says that informationally complex systems, in a functional or emergent sense, tend toward decay or chaos or algorithmic complexity over time. This concept is distinct from thermodynamic entropy and they should not be confused.




          0
          View Comment
        • @Sean Pitman: Well, I think you are a little younger than I am so you are closer to the time when you took P-Chem than I am, so I could be mistaken, simply.

          However, I seem to remember vague discussions of things like degrees of freedom and order in association with entropy. And I don’t ever remember talking about “apparent” order in class.

          In the divided box illustration, the 2LoT says the molecules will tend to equalize in either side. As you often say, there is a statistical possibility that all the molecules in one side could at one point in time find themselves on trajectories headed for the hole and all arrive on the other side. But that occurrence would indeed violate the 2LoT.

          If you arrange all the molecules on one side before you close the system, then the 2LoT says they will rapidly equalize. Likewise the law says that if they start out equalized they won’t organize into one side. Maybe you have been listening to evolutionary biologists too much. Open your P-Chem book again.

          If the box divider is attached to a piston shaft, we could calculate the work necessary to organize all the molecules on one side by measuring the force necessary to push the divider and multiplying by the distance moved. All that mechanical energy is transferred to the molecules by way of the collisions with the moving wall. But that heat energy will dissipate if we let the molecules cool back to their starting energies.

          Now, there is no heat gradient across the hole and the only thing there is to drive molecules through the hole is a natural tendency to decreased order. That tendency is a manifestation of the 2LoT and in this case it has EVERYTHING to do with order.

          On the topic of informational entropy, what I meant to say was that it is not defined well mathematically because we haven’t found a way to quantify it.

          A molecule of mRNA that is random can be translated into a protein just like a designed molecule of mRNA, but the first protein will be useful while the second probably won’t. We haven’t figured out how to mathematically define what is in the second mRNA that we are conceptually calling information.

          Maybe an economist could help.




          0
          View Comment
        • Now, there is no heat gradient across the hole and the only thing there is to drive molecules through the hole is a natural tendency to decreased order. That tendency is a manifestation of the 2LoT and in this case it has EVERYTHING to do with order.

          Having all the molecules on one side of the box, which would give the system the thermodynamic potential to perform “useful work”, says absolutely nothing about the actual ability of anything within the system to take advantage of the thermodynamic potential and actually do “useful work”.

          What you’re doing here is equating the thermodynamic potential to do something with the structural order of the system needed to actually do something. Potential isn’t the same thing as being able to take advantage of the potential. They just aren’t the same thing.

          As an example, say you have a fan blade placed at the division in the middle of the box of gas molecules. As the molecules move from one side to the other, the fan blade can be set up to take advantage of this biased movement and spin, thereby giving rise to “useful work”. However, let’s say the fan blade is broken and cannot spin. Does this negate the fact that the system still has the same thermodynamic potential that it always had? Of course not.

          So, when you argue that thermodynamics as all about going from a state of “order” to “disorder”, this is only in reference to the thermodynamic aspects of the system in particular (i.e., only the arrangement of the molecules themselves). The 2LoT does NOT reference the presence or lack of machines within the system that might be able to take advantage of the thermodynamic potential of the gas molecules.

          As another example, the Sun’s energy might shine on a spot of moist earth for years without doing anything but make the place warm. The thermodynamic potential is there, but nothing special happens until someone puts a machine there that has the structural complexity needed to take advantage of the Sun’s energy – like a seed. Regardless of if the seed is able to grow or not, or evolve or not, the same thermodynamic potential is there. The machines within the system (functional or non-functional, evolving or not evolving, ordered or disordered) are irrelevant to the thermodynamics of the system.

          On the topic of informational entropy, what I meant to say was that it is not defined well mathematically because we haven’t found a way to quantify it.

          That’s also not true. Informational complexity can be and has been quantified in literature, mathematically, as the minimum size and specificity of characters needed to produce a certain type of function. So, informational entropy is a measure of declining informational complexity – toward a maximally non-functional state. Clearly, this is not the same thing as thermodynamic entropy. For example, people get old and die. However, the thermodynamic entropy or thermodynamic potential of an old person compared to a young person suggests nothing about their age differences or overall functional capacity. These are distinctly different concepts and it would be good for creationists to start understanding this. It’s just shooting yourself in the foot before you even get started to argue that the ToE violates the 2LoT. It doesn’t.




          0
          View Comment
        • @Sean Pitman: You are sure taxing my mind, take it easy, I’m frail. 😉

          It is interesting to note that order is increased in the construction of the little fan, even if you start from a bracket, axel and fan blades. If you just put the pieces at the hole you can add as much heat, or sunlight as you want and you won’t get work back. The confusion in this conversation is we have let biologists do physics and we’ve listen to them.

          Adding the sun to the system does not overcome the problems evolution has with the 2LoT because sunlight has no order to add–it can’t help, in fact it almost always makes things worse. The ToE says everything started in a state of disorder and the 2LoT says it would have wanted to stay that way. Order doesn’t just happen. It has to be brought in, applied by something that has a lot of it to begin with–a designer. This is all physics and it is apparently physics that evolutionist don’t understand.

          Why do you think a broken fan is the same as an unbroken fan in the eyes of thermodynamics. I would have to expend energy in order to fix it, and the fix would decrease the entropy of the system.

          You wrote, “The 2LoT does NOT reference the presence or lack of machines within the system that might be able to take advantage of the thermodynamic potential of the gas molecules.” The 2LoT is a general law of nature. It can apply to any machine. The problem is that it greatly complicates the calculations and most people want to ignore it. When you “put” a machine into a system you change the system. You can’t just declare them irrelevant.

          Your suggestion that an old person can be shown to be thermodynamically equivalent to a young person by burning their bodies is not the correct way to compare them because burning a machine is not the reverse of building a machine. That is just a measure of the materials and has nothing to do with the machine’s structural order.




          0
          View Comment
        • Again, you don’t understand that the 2LoT only deals with the thermodynamic potential of the system as a whole. It doesn’t deal with the “order” of the machines within the system. Not at all. I know you think it does, but you’re mistaken. The structural order, or disorder, of machines within the thermodynamic system is completely unrelated to the 2LoT.

          It is interesting to note that order is increased in the construction of the little fan, even if you start from a bracket, axel and fan blades. If you just put the pieces at the hole you can add as much heat, or sunlight as you want and you won’t get work back.

          You’re correct in this statement, but the fact of the matter is that the 2LoT only deals with the fact that thermodynamic potential from the sun remains. It has nothing to do with the fan blade working or not working. All the 2LoT cares about is if thermodynamic potential remains. That’s it.




          0
          View Comment
        • @Sean Pitman:

          It is certainly possible that Isaac Asimov does not really know what he is talking about on that particular aspect of physics.

          Or it is more than likely that he does since the properties of matter are what is at issue here. If matter does not actually have a complex self-organizing property – that would get you from molecule to Amoeba and them from amoeba to horse (given enough time on mount improbable) – then when they “imagine” such a property would such fictional imagination involve a massive decrease in entropy? Asimov thinks so –

          You seem to believe he is wrong about that imaginary aspect – and that it should be imagined that such a self-organizing principle that actually worked – would in fact observe an increase in entropy at every stage as long as we take the immediate surroundings into account.

          Given that the entire exercise is restricted to imaginary science – since such things actually don’t exist in nature – it is difficult to appreciate the dogmatic assurance of “what would” be the case either way.

          in Christ,

          Bob




          0
          View Comment
        • Not true. Even the imagined scenario proposed by Isaac Asimov would not violate the 2LoT since the Earth is not a closed thermodynamic system and since, even if it were, the “useful work” necessary to organize or disorganize something would be equivalent. The state of functional organization or disorganization is irrelevant to the thermodynamic entropy of a system.




          0
          View Comment
        • @Sean Pitman: But a closed system can be as big as the universe or as small as the molecules in a reaction, man, will you please get your P-Chem book out.

          We can posit that a box is constructed around the Earth and Sun. Just like magic, evolution is now required to happen in a closed system. This closed system nonsense is a gradualist trick. It’s along the same lines as splitting off abiogenesis.




          0
          View Comment
        • It’s not a trick because a thermodynamic system is defined based on the origin of its thermodynamic potential. In the Earth-Sun system, the origin of the thermodynamic potential on our planet comes from the Sun. So no, the Earth is not a thermodynamically closed system, but includes the Sun. Therefore, there is plenty of thermodynamic potential to drive whatever kind of activity one wishes to imagine on this planet.

          The problem with the ToE isn’t because of any kind of lack of thermodynamic potential or because it violates the 2LoT, but because of the statistical odds against finding novel beneficial sequences in sequence space at higher and higher levels of functional complexity. And that isn’t a thermodynamic problem for the ToE.




          0
          View Comment
        • @Sean Pitman: You wrote, “Therefore, there is plenty of thermodynamic potential to drive whatever kind of activity one wishes to imagine on this planet.”

          The sun provides an endless supply of energy but it cannot impose order. Sunlight is incoherent. The only mechanism for imposing order is natural selection. The environment is the designer, and there is not much information in an environment, especially one without organisms in it already.

          Something interesting to consider in the theory of functional islands is “changes in the water level.” A predator might have an effect. That gives the environment more information for selection. Would that lower the local water level? Maybe reveal an isthmus here and there?




          0
          View Comment
        • George, please read what I said. Thermodynamic “order” isn’t the same thing as structural order of machines within the system. These are separate concepts. The 2LoT is only about the thermodynamic “order” or “disorder” of the system. In other words, it only asks the question of if there is thermodynamic potential within the system that is capable of doing “useful work”. That’s it. The 2LoT doesn’t care about if there are or are not systems within the thermodynamic system that are capable of actually doing “useful work” or how such systems were produced (i.e., if they evolved or didn’t evolve).

          Again, you’re confusing two entirely separate concepts here. The theory of evolution does not violate the 2LoT because the 2LoT doesn’t say anything about the ability or inability of systems within a thermodynamic system to “evolve” or to gain “order”. The ToE simply isn’t address by the 2LoT – not at all. All the 2LoT deals with is if there is enough thermodynamic potential within the system to do “useful work” – that’s it.

          I’m not sure how better to get this concept across to you? But please, do stop arguing that the ToE violates the 2LoT because it doesn’t. The ToE may violate concepts of informational complexity or informational entropy, but that isn’t the same thing as violating the 2LoT.

          Sean Pitman
          http://www.DetectingDesign.com




          0
          View Comment
        • Not all types of “entropy” are about the 2LoT. The 2LoT only deals with thermodynamic entropy.

          The paper you reference is about “conformational entropy”, not thermodynamic entropy. These are different types of entropy. Conformational entropy is associated with the physical arrangement of a polymer chain that assumes a compact or globular state in solution. This concept is most commonly applied to biological macromolecules such as proteins and RNA, but can also be used for polysaccharides and other polymeric organic compounds.

          In short, conformational entropy isn’t about the thermodynamic potential of a system. Therefore, conformational entropy isn’t about the 2LoT just like the functional or non-functional states of machines within a thermodynamic system have nothing to do with the 2LoT either.

          Again, thermodynamics is an entirely separate topic. Don’t confuse things that are not related to the thermodynamic potential of a system with the 2LoT.




          0
          View Comment
        • @Sean Pitman: From the wiki article on conformational entropy, “It can be shown that the variation of configuration entropy of thermodynamic systems (e.g., ideal gas, and other systems with a vast number of internal degrees of freedom) in thermodynamic processes is EQUIVALENT to the variation of the macroscopic entropy defined as dS = δQ/T, where δQ is the heat exchanged between the system and the surrounding media, and T is temperature. Therefore configuration entropy IS THE SAME AS macroscopic entropy.”




          0
          View Comment
        • Configuration or conformation entropy of macroscopic systems is based on a similar concept to thermodynamic entropy, to be sure – i.e., where entropy is defined as the amount of additional information needed to specify the exact physical state of a system among all possible states the system could take.

          In other words, there is a very large but finite number of different possible arrangements that a protein molecule (different possible “rotametric states”) or pool balls on a pool table, for example, could take. The amount of “additional information” it takes to specify the exact physical state of such a molecule or pool balls on a table would be equivalent to its “conformation entropy” – the same as if we were dealing with a collection of gas molecules in a box – which also have conformational entropy.

          However, there is a distinct difference here. The conformation entropy of macroscopic systems within a thermodynamic system need not be related to the heat distribution or thermodynamics of a system. Add heat to a pool table and what do you get? A bunch of hot pool balls. That’s it. Also, does a difference in arrangement of non-moving pool balls make one more or less able to obtain “useful work” from them? The same would be true for a fan in a system – a hot fan vs. a cold fan, it still works the same in a thermodynamic system. Also, the arrangement of a protein molecule or pool balls on a table isn’t related to if the thermodynamic system within which it exists is open or closed or in a state of maximum entropy or not. The same could be said for the “conformation entropy” of a room crowded with a bunch of people. The people in the room are not governed by the 2LoT with regard to how they decide to arrange themselves. Yet, their collective arrangement does have “conformation entropy” that can be increased or decreased at will without violating the 2LoT. In this respect, conformation entropy is equivalent to Shannon entropy or Kolmogorov/Chaitin complexity.

          You see, the 2LoT only deals with the thermodynamic aspects of a system, not with the conformational entropy of the system outside of the thermodynamic properties of the system. That is why the 2LoT does not govern the other various kinds of entropy that may exist within a thermodynamic system. This is why humans can create various forms of “order” from “disorder” within our thermodynamic system. We can create cars and airplanes and computers, etc. Theoretically, we could even repair our own DNA and cure all genetic diseases and genetic deterioration. Yet, we would not violate the 2LoT by doing so because the 2LoT is distinctly about the thermodynamic potential of a system – not about what conformational order or disorder is produced via this thermodynamic potential.

          Again, these various entropy concepts are certainly related, but they are not the same. The 2LoT only deals with a very limited type of entropy – with a particular type of conformational entropy that is based on heat distribution within a system and the ability or potential of this heat distribution to give rise to “useful work”.

          So, please, do try to keep these concepts separate and do not continue to argue that evolution violates the 2LoT – a law which does not deal with the structural or functional order or disorder or conformational entropy of macrosystems.




          0
          View Comment
  26. Sean Pitman: I’ve never argued that evolution violates the 2LoT.

    Of course not. And that’s what I said. Bob Ryan, convinced that evolution does indeed violate the second law of thermodynamics, thought I was accusing you of disagreeing with him.

    Sean Pitman: Scientists always (or at least should always) take on the risk of being wrong and having to “back up” and try again.

    Scientists are cautious and skeptical above everything else. They don’t like to publish claims until they can back them up with strong evidence, sometimes waiting years on a major project to ensure they have adequate data. The peer review system is designed with risk aversion in mind. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary they want the evidence to be. You don’t have to believe me. Just ask some real, practicing scientists.




    0
    View Comment
  27. At the time that Louie gave the world and tiny glimpse into what was going on at LSU – one directive about exposing such actions done behind the backs of the SDA parents paying to send their students to such a place – was this.

    Eph 5:11 – Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  28. BobRyan: because as all the physicists I know freely admit – entropy is always preserved at the local level as long as you include both the reaction and the immediate surroundings.

    So your physicist friend is right and Dr. Pitman is wrong? I suggest you study up on the topic a bit more. Dr. Pitman is right. Evolution does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics.




    0
    View Comment
    • @Professor Kent: Everyone has their own field of study physics happens to be mine – and there are physicists that I happen to think know a thing or two about this field of study.

      You seem to view yourself in a position to pass judgment on Isaac Asimov when it comes to basic principles of physics.

      I am one who holds to the principle of free will Kent – you are free to do so as you wish. But that does not create some sort of demand on my part to follow you in that regard.

      Free will – each one of us has the opportunity to choose.

      And as it turns out in this basic principle of physics –

      entropy is always preserved at the local level as long as you include both the reaction and the immediate surroundings

      And “yes” the storytelling fictions of evolutionism are “not science” as Patterson observes in regard to the fossil record and stories about how one thing “came from another”. So it is not surprising that “not science” would feel comfortable making a claim to “a massive decrease in entropy” for its “molecule to human mind” fictions.

      It does not get any simpler than that.

      in Christ,

      Bob




      0
      View Comment
      • There would be no more decrease in thermodynamic entropy going from “molecules to man” than going from “man to molecules”. The functional or non-functional structural state of the body or machine is irrelevant to determining the thermodynamic entropy of a system.




        0
        View Comment
        • @Sean Pitman:

          It is entirely possible that your difference with Isaac Asimov about the fictional properties of that fictional form of nature that would invest molecules with the property complex self-organization to the point of forming human brains – is in some way justified.

          But since it is an exercise in fictional science and the fictional self-organizing properties of matter that we already know – does not exist, I am not prepared to share your dogmatic assurance one way or the other about Asimov’s conclusion that such a fictional system would require a vast decrease in entropy.

          in Christ,

          Bob




          0
          View Comment
        • The properties in question here are not fictional and can be easily tested – directly in real life. You, and Asimov, are mistaken when it comes to the thermodynamics of a system. The thermodynamics of a closed system are completely unrelated to the functionality of structures within the system that may or may not be able to take advantage of the thermodynamic potential of the system.

          You simply do not understand the 2LoT like you think you do…

          In any case, further discussion of the 2LoT will be blocked from this forum. If you are actually interested in discussing it with me further, you can send your thoughts to me by E-mail.

          Sean Pitman
          http://www.DetectingDesign.com




          0
          View Comment
  29. 1 Peter 2:23 – When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.




    0
    View Comment
  30. Bob, I’m no physicist, but I understand that 2LoT assumes a closed system, and no knowledgable physicist would consider the earth a closed system. Perhaps you could kindly explain why the 2LoT would apply to an open system, or why the earth is actually a closed system in spite of the massive amounts of energy received from the sun.

    Appealing to Asimov is an appeal to authority–a logical fallacy–rather than reasoning based on facts.

    This issue illustrates my concern: that creationists who rely on “evidence” or arguments to bolster their faith can fall apart when their arguments crumble. Their faith should be based on a personal relationship with Jesus–the creator–and not on inanimate objects or their own reasoning–the creation.




    0
    View Comment
  31. AzGrandpa: The 2nd law applies to the universe, including open and closed systems.
    Notice how sunlight (UV) degrades paint/skin/…

    So evolution therefore violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? And Sean Pitman and I are wrong? People here think I’m always wrong, but this is Dr. Pitman’s position, too.




    0
    View Comment
  32. Kent said: So evolution therefore violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? And Sean Pitman and I are wrong? =============

    The claim that a fictional science about the fictional properties of matter that can transform molecules into human minds over time – (i.e. the fiction that people like Isaac Asimov are claiming to be reality) — includes Asimov’s own claim that this fictional system would require a massive decrease in entropy.

    That is simply a fact about their own claims. You cannot blame the claims they make on Creationists.

    It just does not get any easier than that.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  33. Professor Kent: Bob, I’m no physicist, but I understand that 2LoT assumes a closed system, and no knowledgable physicist would consider the earth a closed system.

    What you’re missing is the fact that no informed physicist argues that we cannot observe an increase in entropy in local reactions taking place in the lab on earth. Entropy is observed in all local systems on earth without having to appeal to the sun (i.e. a fusion reaction on the sun to see that entropy is in fact increasing in that lab experiment).

    I think that even you at heart accept this fact – you are simply enjoying a bit of toying around with the EducateTruth forum on this topic (that you brought up on this thread) as a distraction from the point that Louie Bishop has made here.

    Here again is a pretty obvious detail that many here are not missing.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  34. All reading this know that this account is not very factual and that the only way to take this seriously is to investigate the other side. This is not news, it is perspective under bias.




    0
    View Comment
  35. Origins is an extremely complex and difficult academic subject area. Too often it is fraught with excessive emotion. I was a junior high biology teacher for many years and always found my students stimulating, refreshing and helpful to my understanding of the human spirit as we delved deeply into it. They taught me much about teaching. I learned that this is an area where teachers can not afford to be dogmatically conservative or extremely liberal. “Evidence” for evolution and for intelligent design should be presented in as fair and objective a way as possible without showing any bent for absolute conviction in favor of either ideology. This practice should be observed by teachers in every academic discipline and all subject matter, not just that of origins. What used to be considered “facts” have often proved to be falacies after additional observations and analysis. This is just as true of the study of the Bible and the writings of EGW as the study of nature. Teachers who “brainwash” their students with any theory at all are doing them an extreme injustice, wasting their tuition money and indoctrinating them with dogma. The tentativeness of science and all other academic disciplines are not being appropriately valued or taught. EGW valued “present truth” . . . deeply digging into the Word of God for fresh understandings of His/Her wisdom, workings and providence. The attitude of “El maestro dixit” (the master has spoken) should have no place in our institutions of learning.




    0
    View Comment
  36. Ray Renk: @Professor Kent: But what is GOD’s Position?/see Genesis chap 1 an on.

    Um…how about you tell me. I’ve never seen the word “thermodynamics” in Genesis 1. Have I missed something?




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.