My current legal name is David Roemer, and I am retired. I am presently 72 years old.
1) I am a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (No. 93091561).
2) I believe the members of the IEEE named in this document are guilty of behaving unethically, and am asking the Ethics and Member Conduct Committee to investigate this allegation and take the appropriate action.
3) I submitted the enclosed paper to an IEEE conference that requested philosophical papers, and received the enclosed rejection letter. On July 17, 2014, I emailed these two documents to the Vice President of Publication Services and Products, Gianluca Setti, with an account of my attempts to persuade the Italy Section and the conference organizers to accept my paper:
Dear Dr. Setti,
The rejection notice is dated June 30, and I responded as follows on July 4:
Dear Dr. Barberis and Dr. Lattarulo,
I’d appreciate your reconsidering your decision. I find the review unintelligible. If you don’t reconsider, I’ll be sending copies of this review, along with my paper, to all the members of the ATSI committee.
I want to go to Bari, give my paper, and answer any questions you might have about my submission.
I also emailed Amir Sandler, a Committee Member from Israel, who said that the reviewer gave “sound reasons.” This was my response, which I also sent to Ermanno Cardelli, another Committee Member:
Dear Dr. Sandler,
I don’t think there is any “sound reason” in the reviewer’s comments about my submission. In fact, I consider the review so absurd that it raises ethical questions about the committee’s commitment to the integrity of science and the ethical code of the IEEE. I have these comments to make about the review:
“Let’s bring to the heart of the problem regarding the quality of the submitted paper: all aspects of the TS invariably calls into question the person of Jesus Christ. The fact that the TS has been conserved up to now could either imply that it is a fake that goes far back in time or it is the true linen in which the corpse of Jesus Christ was wrapped.”
My paper argues that the Holy Shroud was created by Gnostics in the 1st or 2nd century. Using the word “fake” to describe this theory of Robert Drews betrays an irrational emotional attachment to the theory that the Holy Shroud is authentic. Gnostics venerated Jesus as a wise man and created the cloth out of veneration and with a desire to tell the story of Jesus’ passion.
“Provided the second hypothesis, corroborated up to now by stockpiled evidence, is assumed, then the resurrection of Jesus Christ could tacitly be understood, because if it didn’t the TS would have been destroyed in the brief course of the corpse corruption.”
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is both an object of faith and an historical event. As an historical event, it refers to the renewed fellowship of the followers of Jesus after the crucifixion. As an act of faith, it refers to the belief that Jesus is alive in a new life with God. The “stockpiled evidence” supports the Gnostic theory as well as the authenticity theory. My paper explains why the idea that the Shroud is authentic is irrational.
“Of course, this is only an example of reasoning. Note that even the scientific thinking advances, as the case may be, involving educated guesses, with all due respect to those which turn off immediately with apodictic – paradoxically non-scientific – pose when the above-mentioned guesses apply, say, to the Shroud.”
It is hardly a guess to say that the Holy Shroud was created by human beings. All images are created by humans. It should be the foundation of any inquiry into how the Shroud was created.
“What exactly regards Jesus Christ as Son of God, namely His identification with the risen Lord, invariably needs to be referred to His incarnation. This applies to any investigation, irrespective of whether the investigator is a worshipper or not. Contrary to a stagnant gnosis, there is a general consensus on regarding incarnation even from some attainable, practical aspects. This is the case when attention is paid to the available attestations of personally or collectively tangible, palpable, detectable, intelligible experiences, as well as purely terrestrial events and circumstances. As a consequence, any sagacious investigator that deals with this sensitive topic prefers not to get the still unresolved, vague – to the point of boredom! -, misleading problem, say, of the Big Bang in place!”
An honest and rational review would attempt to understand the connection I tried to make between the Big Bang and the Holy Shroud.
“The resurrection and what revolves around this crucial event – this is the case for the Turin Shroud – has nothing to do, let’s say with different words, with the “Chief World Systems” and cannot give someone room to slightest hints, sterile and pointless appraisals, as well as pseudo-philosophical lucubration to any large extent. What is conclusively demanded is that the author might be prone to appropriately propose any starting conjecture, at will, before working out a self-consistent view of the matter; if not, the approach runs the risk to be a waste of time. Unfortunately, this is the case for the paper at hand.”
This is not a critique of my explanation of the difference between science, metaphysics, philosophy, theology, and history.
“Roughly but bluntly speaking again, what caused the Big Bang, as well as taking a philosophical hike on derived issues, is not concern of this forum unless the investigation is, hypothetically speaking, so revised as to resolutely point, here and now, toward substantial, mature, convincing arguments focused on tentatively proving whether the TS is a fake or not. Since this is not realistically happening with reference to the paper under examination, then it is to be rejected without a second thought.”
The author is not answering my explanation of why the Shroud is not authentic.
“Supportive of the above detrimental judgment are the following specific details: there is a broad and valuable consensus in supporting the existence of God exactly through the Big Bang theory! This should have been adequately considered in the submitted paper, whatever the author’s persuasion;- the author seems to get theology and religions history mixed up.”
My paper explains why the Big Bang is evidence that God does not exist. A reasoned review, and not an emotional tirade, would attempt to refute my explanation.
On July 7, I got this email from Ermanno Cardelli:
Dear Dr. Roemer,
I have turned your mail to the organizers of the Symposium. I am not in charge for the paper rejection issue, but I’m certain the Publication committee will properly address your complaints.
On July 9, I got this email from Dr. Barberis and Dr. Lattarulo:
Dear Dr. Roemer,
Your paper #1569970437 (‘Science, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Theology, History, and the Holy Shroud’) submitted to the IEEE 2014 Workshop on Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation has been rejected because of all the Reviewers provided us a negative assessment about the scientific content. Please note that, according to the IEEE rules, we are not able to reconsider your paper for presentation at the Workshop.
This was my response:
Dear Bruno and Francesco,
What rule is that? It may be inappropriate to overrule a review that is within the bounds of reason. However, in this case, the reviewer is rejecting my paper because it explains why the Holy Shroud is not authentic. If the reviewers for this workshop are emotionally attached to the authenticity of the Holy Shroud, all of the papers accepted are tainted. I consider it my Christian duty to advise the editor of the IEEE Xplore Digital Library of this shortcoming of ATSI 2014.
I explain in my paper that it is the job of scientists to explain the Big Bang and how humans created the image on the Holy Shroud. Your conduct is similar to the unethical behavior of Richard Sternberg, who edited a peer-reviewed article about evolutionary biology that was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Association of Washington (“The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories”). It was a review article about the Cambrian explosion, and at the end of the article the author plugged the theory of intelligent design (ID). The peer-reviewers thought this was a harmless philosophical addendum that did not detract from the scientific value of the paper. It became the first peer-reviewed science article arguing in favor of ID. Dr. Sternberg behaved unethically because he should have deleted the reference to ID, or consulted with another editor. He was publicly criticized for his behavior. He could not be fired because his 9 to 5 job was with the Smithsonian Institute.
What happened to him at the Smithsonian Institute shows how much scientists, at least in the United States, hate pro-religion pseudoscience. The title alone of a 26-page congressional report criticizing the Smithsonian Institute tells the whole story: “Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution” (December 2006).
On July 14, 2014, I got this email from Dario Petrie:
Dear Dr. Roemer,
I am very sorry that your paper couldn’t be accepted for presentation at the ATSI 2014 Workshop. This was because all the Reviewers provided a negative assessment about the scientific content of your submission.
However, because of your previous email, I asked a further independent assessment of your paper. This further Reviewer fully agrees with the previous ones.
As a consequence, according to the rules of peer review conferences, there is no way to reconsider your paper for presentation at the Workshop.
4) On July 21, 2014 I sent this email to Dr. Setti:
Dear Dr. Setti,
I tried calling you at +39 0532 974997 (Ferrara) +39 051 2095405 (Bologna), but could not get through. There is some additional information I’d like to give you about Bruno Barberis.
Dr. Barberis is a science advisor to the Papal Custodian of the Shroud and is scheduled to give a presentation about the Shroud at a conference in St. Louis, Missouri, from October 9 to October 14, 2014 (http://www.stlouisshroudconference.com/).
I submitted an abstract of a presentation, and it was rejected. No written reason was given, but one of the Committee Members of this conference (Mark Antonacci) told me over the phone that my presentation was rejected because I was not advocating the authenticity of the Shroud. I complained about this to Dr. Barberis in an email on May 7, 2014, and asked him to withdraw his participation in this conference.
I developed a slideshow about the Shroud three years ago (http://www.holyshroud.info). Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York and many other Catholics have suppressed my presentation because I don’t promote the authenticity of the Shroud. I filed a complaint against Cardinal Dolan with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in Rome and against Dr. Barberis with the Papal Custodian of the Shroud (Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia). All of this correspondence is at:
I consider the following quotation from an article Dr. Barberis wrote proof that he is not qualified to evaluate scientific papers about the Shroud of Turin:
“It appears to me that until now all the proposed theories, interesting ones in themselves, have always come up lacking either because they were not correlated by serious experimental verification or because such verifications have demonstrated the physical and chemical features on the obtained images to be very different from those present on the Shroud’s image.” (http://www.sindone.org/the_holy_shroud__english_/news_and_info/00024401_The_Shroud__Make_over___science_or_marketing.html.)
What Dr. Barberis is saying is that any theory about the origin of the Shroud must be supported by “experimental evidence.” This means is that he is excluding non-experimental evidence. Non-experimental evidence that the Shroud is the work of artists or craftsmen is that blood marks on the Shroud are not smeared. The blood coming from the thorns in Jesus’ head flows in narrow streams as blood tends to flow out of small wounds. The other bit of non-experimental evidence is the detailed nature of the image. It is a true image with shading, not an outline.
Saying the Shroud is authentic is like saying the sculptures on Mount Rushmore were created by wind erosion.
5) My accusation against the Italy Section and the conference leaders is that the conference was organized to generate peer-reviewed science articles supporting the authenticity of the Shroud. The motive behind this is to provide evidence supporting the New Testament stories that a prominent Jewish citizen provided a tomb for the crucified Jesus, a burial cloth covered the corpse of Jesus in the tomb, and the tomb was found empty on Easter morning. My paper argues that it is very unlikely that the Shroud touched Jesus, and this is why the conference rejected it. This implies that all the papers submitted have been judged on how much the paper supports the New Testament stories. In my opinion this makes the entire conference an exercise in pseudoscience. This conference undermines the integrity of science, and diminishes the value of conference papers published by the IEEE.
6) I am willing and able to attend any meeting where my allegations against the Italy Section are investigated
I hereby state that the information above is true, to the best of my knowledge. I also confirm that the information here is both accurate and complete, and relevant information has not been omitted.
Signature of the Individual Notary Public
Date: 7/22/14 Mahmood Amer
Letters to Joseph Kalasky from David Roemer
July 29, 2014
My allegation against Gianluca Setti, Bruno Barberis, Francesco Lattarulo, Amir Sandler, Ermanno Cardelli, and Dario Petrie is that they are using the IEEE conference in Bari to promote the absurd idea that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. The enclosed article (Tristan Casabianca, “The Shroud of Turin: A Historiographical Approach,” The Heythrop Journal, 2013) is in favor of this pseudoscience and reveals the motives and reasoning behind it.
The article is based on a book titled, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” and I have enclosed a copy of my review of this poor exercise in Christian apologetics (http://www.newevangelization.info/licona.html).
I have also enclosed an article I wrote that was published in Spero News on January 18, 2008. This article explains why the Shroud is not authentic. I wrote it before I found out about the book I referred to in my IEEE submission which argues that Gnostics made the unusually shaped piece of linen to tell the story of the crucifixion of Jesus (http://www.newevangelization.info/shroud.html ).
August 1, 2014
I read Bylaw I-110 and Policy 7.10 and understand it to mean that the preliminary investigation should only involve determining whether there is a cause of action and whether the complaint can be proven.
The cause of action is that Bruno Barberis and Francesco Lattarulo are selecting papers submitted to an IEEE conference, not on their scientific merit, but on whether the paper supports the Biblical stories saying Jesus was buried in a separate tomb (not in a common grave for criminals) on Friday, his body was covered with a linen cloth, and the body was not in the tomb on Sunday morning.
I feel my affidavit and the documents I mailed on July 29, 2014, proves that this allegation can be proven and in fact proves it. I think your report of the preliminary investigation should be given to the president of the IEEE before the conference is over and the damage to the IEEE is done.
August 4, 2014
I think it might help to if I spelled out the relevance of “The Shroud of Turin: A Historiographical Approach” by Tristan Casabianca (Heythrop Journal LIV (2013), pp. 414–423) which follows the reasoning in the book, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,” by Michael Licona.
The Resurrection of Jesus is both an historical event and an object of faith. As an object of faith, it means believing Jesus is alive in a new life with God and if you follow Jesus the same good thing can happen to you. As an historical event, it refers to the renewed fellowship of the disciples of Jesus after the crucifixion. This historical event is sometimes referred to as the Easter experience. These two works spell out the way many Christians relate to the Resurrection of Jesus.
Licona and Casabianca both understand that all historians agree that the Easter experience occurred within a few years of the crucifixion. Their response to this event is to ask what caused the Easter experience and to offer hypotheses. The explanation these apologists think is supported by the most evidence is what they call the “bodily resurrection of Jesus.” By this they mean that a video camera could have recorded the corpse of Jesus disappearing without humans relocating the body. They assign a high probability to this explanation and call the total certitude that Jesus is alive a “leap of faith.” Similar reasoning leads people to believe it is highly probable that the Shroud is authentic, and those who think it is a work of craftsmen or artists are being unscientific. This is why the reviewer of my submission was driven to refer to the Resurrection of Jesus and the doctrine called the Incarnation.
August 6, 2014
What follows is a link to an article written in Italy about the upcoming IEEE conference in Bari, Italy:
I think the article proves that the conference organizers are tricking the IEEE into publishing peer-reviewed articles that proselytize in favor of Christianity and against other religions.
August 11, 2014
I’v enclosed a printouts of the three emails I sent to Gordon MacPherson. “Springer.pdf” is an example of the kind of garbage the IEEE will be publishing if the IEEE does not withdraw its sponsorship of conference #32930.
August 18, 2014
I have asked Howard Michel and Dom DeMarco for an appointment so I can explain why I think the IEEE should withdraw its endorsement of the ATSI conference (Advances in Turin Shroud Investigations). I’v enclosed the email I sent Dr. Michel.
I’v also enclosed the screenshot of my LinkedIn message from Jose Roberto de Marca asking for information. According to Dom DeMarco, it would be “inappropriate for the President to comment or intervene in an on-going process.”
I’v enclosed screenshots of my correspondence with Chris Brantley on LinkedIn. There is a perfect analogy between the theory that the Shroud of Turin is authentic and the theory of intelligent design. They are both examples of pro-religion pseudoscience. The ATSI conference organizers and participants are trying to prove the Shroud is authentic and are using the IEEE’s reputation to bolster their religious enthusiasms.
August 18, 2014
On May 8, 2014, I filed a complaint (see enclosure) against Bruno Barberis, a general chair of the IEEE-ATSI-2014 and a science advisor to the Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin (Cesare Nosiglia), for participating in the St. Louis Shroud Conference to be held on October 9, 2014. Like the ASTI conference, the St. Louis conference rejected my submission because I argued that the Shroud was not authentic.
The abstracts of the papers presented in St. Louis have been posted and this will give you some idea about the papers that will be presented at ATSI-2014. I recommend that you read the following abstracts at
http://www.stlouisshroudconference.com/program/title-of-abstract. My comments are beneath the titles:
In 1988, a carbon dating procedure authorized by the Catholic Church indicated that the Shroud was created in the middle ages. This dating has been thoroughly discredited because of the choice of the sample tested and the historical evidence that the Shroud predates the middle ages. This paper will only remind people who think the Shroud is authentic of their great victory over the 1988 setback. What this paper does is create a straw man. People are being led to believe that the choice is between the authenticity of the Shroud or its middle age date. The papers of this conference completely ignore the theory of Robert Drews that Gnostics created the Shroud of Turin in the 1st or 2nd century using a crucified victim or volunteer and methods that have been lost to history. There are a number of other papers in this conference that have no purpose other than to refute the 1988 fiasco. They are:
This article reports evidence of spontaneous human combustion.
This article argues that there should be a new radiocarbon dating of the Shroud.
This paper give evidence for “Near Death Experiences.”
I can’t comment because I found the abstract unintelligible.
This abstract is based on the paper published by Springer (DOI 10.1007/s11012-013-9865-x) titled “Is the Shroud of Turin in relation to the Old Jerusalem historical earthquake.”
My opinion is that the editor of this article had a responsibility to make changes that the peer-reviewers and authors may have overlooked. This is the same mistake Richard Sternberg made, as I mentioned in the affidavit I sent to the IEEE (see “Sternberg peer-review controversy” in Wikipedia).
These are excerpts from the first and third paragraphs:
After the first photographs of the Shroud, taken by Mr. Secondo Pia during the Exposition of 1898 in Turin , a widespread interest has been generated among scientists and curious to explain the image formation and to evaluate its dating.
Starting from the first photographs of the Shroud, which highlighted a figure of a human body undraped with hands crossed (Fig. 1), a large debate on the mechanism that may have produced such an image has been conducted in the scientific community.
The paper does not address the question of how the image was formed. The paper only states that neutron radiation may have caused the discoloration of the shroud fibrils. This quote is from the second paragraph:
In this work, the authors consider that neutron emissions by earthquake—as for the conventional gadolinium-like neutron imaging technique— could have induced the image formation on Shroud linen fibres through thermal neutron capture on nitrogen nuclei…
The editor should have replaced the phrase “image formation” with the phrase “changing the color of the fibril from white to yellow at those points on the fibril where the image exists.”
The article says the source of the neutrons in an earthquake is the crushing of stones. The authors call the process “piezonuclear fission,” and there is a lot of controversy about it. See:
As with the article about earthquakes discussed above, this abstract refers to “image formation,” but in fact only discusses the discoloration of the linen fibrils. This means there are five the kinds of radiation that are used to explain the discoloration: photons from the transformation of the corpse of Jesus into a spiritual body, neutrons from an earthquake, corona discharge, alpha particles, and biophotons.
The “second-image-of-the-face” is really, I think, the third image. The first image is only on one side of the linen. The second image is on the other side, and is not visible to the naked eye. However, this faint image can be detected with computerized image enhancement. I personally could not see even this enhanced image, which is why I did not include it in my slideshow. Apparently a third image was detected in this way. The author of the article is skeptical about this third image, but not the second.
This paper advances the theory that the discoloration of the fibrils, misleadingly referred to as the image, was caused by an electric field.
John’s gospel is the most Christian and least Jewish of the four gospels. It supports the doctrine of the Incarnation. The author is saying we can understand the image by reading John’s gospel, not the Jewish gospels.
This is part ii of the above paper. I can’t tell if the author is seriously supporting the theory that the discoloration was caused by alpha particles or making fun of this theory.
The Sudarium of Oviedo supposedly covered the face of Jesus when he was being transferred from the cross to the tomb. The author considers the connection between the two to be evidence of the Shroud’s authenticity.
The author disputes the theory that the Shroud of Turin is the Image of Edessa, called also the Mandylion.
The author states that the Shroud is almost certainly authentic. I am sure the author thinks it is almost certainly true that Jesus’ corpse transformed into a “spiritual body” on Sunday morning. In other words, he thinks it is highly probable that a video camera could have recorded Jesus’ appearances and the disappearance of the corpse. This means he is criticizing the historical judgment of people who do not agree the bodily resurrection of Jesus, which is how they think of the Resurrection, is highly probable. This is why he feels justified in criticizing the scientific judgment of people who think the Shroud is a work of human ingenuity.
It is not clear that Jesus was buried in a separate tomb. According to John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, Jesus’ body was put in a mass grave for criminals and devoured by dogs. This means there was no empty tomb on Sunday morning. A Catholic biblical scholar, Raymond Brown, argues that it is historically certain that Jesus had a separate tomb. However, Brown does not think it is an historical fact that the tomb was empty. But there is no disagreement between Brown and Crossan about the Resurrection of Jesus. They both agree that within a few years of the crucifixion, the disciples of Jesus renewed their fellowship and started Christianity. There is, however, a conflict between Crossan and Brown because Brown has the gift of faith and Crossan thinks Brown is irrational. I mention this because conflict produces anxiety and inhibition is a defense mechanism against anxiety. Religion inhibits people from thinking rationally and intelligently.
The author says that the pollen on the Shroud proves it is authentic. It only proves the Shroud was made near Jerusalem in the 1st or 2nd century.
This paper implies that the image on the Shroud is miraculous.
This paper will argue that early missionaries used the Shroud to prove Jesus rose from the dead. Atheists use this scenario to explain how the myth of the Resurrection got started.
This abstract states that there is evidence the Shroud image was created by “UV or particle radiation emanating from a stationary or disappearing human body.”
The author of this is Bruno Barberis. He repeats the same misleading statement that permeates the papers being presented. He says scientists have been studying the image on the Shroud for years. They have not because every rational person knows craftsmen or artists create images. There is one exception. On April 21, 1902, Yves Delage, an internationally acclaimed zoologist, told the French Academy of Science in a lecture that ammonia vapors from the decaying body of Jesus created the image. Members of the audience shouted out “traitor” and shook their fists. For his safety, Delage had to make a quick exit from the auditorium. The scientific work Baberis is referring to is just about what caused the discoloration of the linen fibrils.
This abstract says “that a very small fraction of neutrons in the body of Jesus were emitted from the body as it disappeared in the resurrection.”
One of the reasons rational people think the Shroud is a work of craftsmen is that the blood marks are not smeared. The abstract said the blood marks were formed because the body appeared outside the cloth, but the blood remained in the cloth. I consider this disingenuous because no mention is made of the fact that the blood marks are not smeared. There are two other abstracts that repeat this misinformation:
I did not understand this abstract.
On October 14, 2014, the IEEE dismissed the complaint.
To the AAUP:
Subject: Request for help at Gordon College, Wenham, MA
The American Journal of Physics published an article (“Entropy and evolution,” Am. J. Phys., Vol. 78, No.11, Nov. 2008) that incorrectly applies an equation in physics and has no scientific value. I have been advised that Congressman Yvette Clarke (D-NY, 9th District) is investigating my allegations against the AJP because it undermines the integrity of science (http://www.newevangelist.me/2013/04/12/national-science-foundation). An article has since been published that refutes the AJP article (Sewell G. (2013) Entropy and evolution, BIO-Complexity 2013(2):1-5).
The AJP article was written and published in a zealous desire to ridicule creationism. The refusal of the AJP to correct its mistake means the AJP is perpetrating a fraud upon the public in order to promote atheism. A number of Catholic colleges are refusing my request to confront the AJP with its misconduct. On September 9, 2013, I met with Fr. Brian Mulcahy (212-xxx-xxxx), President of the Providence College Corporation, and explained that a biology professor and physics professor at Providence College were being dishonest in their communications with me about the AJP article. Fr. Mulcahy promised to ask about my accusations.
The “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” refers to the “common good” and the “advancement of truth.” What occurred at Gordon College is directly connected to academic freedom. On Nov.1, 2013, I sent emails to Janel Curry (provost), David Lee (physics professor), and Karl Giberson (email@example.com) saying they had a Christian duty to resign from the American Scientific Affiliation because this organization supports the AJP’s refusal to retract the article. I got an email response from M Ryan Groff, who is an adjunct professor at Gordon College, expressing an interest in investigating my allegation of pseudoscience. Suddenly, Dr. Groff refused to respond to my emails and return my telephone calls. My suspicion is that Curry, Lee, and Giberson threatened Dr. Groff with professional retaliation if Dr. Groff followed through with his initial interest. On Nov. 9, I sent an email to Dan Tymann, Executive Vice President and Chief of Staff of Gordon College, telling of my plans to ask the AAUP to investigate.
The following is a list of people I mailed letters to with a certificate of mailing explaining why the AJP article should be retracted or why one or more of their subordinates has poor character:
Marietta DeChristina, Scientific American
Leon Wieseltier, New Republic
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, American Museum of Natural History
Cora Marrett, National Science Foundation
Joan Haynes, American Institute of Physics Publishing
David Ciancimino, New York Province of the Society of Jesus
Thomas Smolich, Jesuit Conference
Michael Sheeran, Association of Jesuit Universities
Lee Bollinger, Columbia University
Lisa Coico, City College of New York
William Durden, Dickinson College
John D. Gioia, Georgetown University
Donald Harrington, St. John’s University
Richard M. Joel, Yeshiva University
Joseph McShane, Fordham University
James Muyskens, Queen’s College
David Burcham, Loyola Marymount U.
John Sexton, New York University
Thomas Curran, Rockhurst University
Samuel Stanley, Stony Brook University
Harvey Stenger, Binghamton University
P. K. Norton, University of North Colorado
I’ll be very glad to travel to Washington DC to explain why your organization has a responsibility to investigate this matter.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
Mailed with a certificate of mailing on 11/13/13 and faxed to (202) 737-5526
To Leon Wieseltier:
I thought you might be interested in my campaign to get the American Journal of Physics to retract the attached article about evolution. It is a matter of national concern because it undermines the integrity of science. My congressman, Yvette Clarke (D-NY District 9), said the matter is being investigated. My correspondence with her staff is at:
In a nutshell, creationists have the incorrect but intelligible idea that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, according to which a cube of sugar will dissolve in a cup of coffee but will not un-dissolve. For the same reason, a gas will fill up the entire container it is in. This law does not apply to the evolution of stars or biological evolution because thermodynamics is the study of liquids, solids, and gases.
Nevertheless, a number of peer-reviewed and scholarly works in physics say that evolution does not violate the second law because of the sun. This is literally unintelligible, like thinking the planet Earth is a tetrahedron. The idea that Earth is flat is an intelligible error.
The attached article goes so far as to perform a fake calculation proving that the sun caused evolution. The article disgraces every physicist in the United States.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
Mailed on October 3, 2013 with certificates of mailing to The New Republic, 60 Madison Ave., NY, NY 10010 and to Marietta DeChristina, Scientific American, 75 Varick St., NY, NY 10013
email to Marietta DeChristina sent on October 8, 2013
I have sent a number of emails to Scientific America at firstname.lastname@example.org about the absurd article published by the American Journal of Physics (attached). I live in New York City, and want to meet with you to explain how much harm the AJP is doing by not retracting the article. I will be making a similar request to Leon Wieseltier because of his interest in the fallacy called scientism. The Scientific American is guilty of practicing scientism because its editors have ignored my emails.
Hayden Planetarium & Department of Astrophysics
American Museum of Natural History
Central Park West at 79th Street
New York, New York 10024
Dear Dr. Tyson,
The article I’v enclosed (“Entropy and evolution”, Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008) is so absurd that it disgraces all physicists in the United States. I am writing to request an interview so I can explain why the article should be retracted.
This is a matter of national concern because it undermines the integrity of science. I’v brought the matter to the attention of the staff of Yvette Clarke (NY-D, 9th district), and was told the matter is being investigated. My correspondence with Clarke is at
I’v made a similar request to Leon Wieseltier of the New Republic magazine because he has written against scientism, and Marietta DeChristina because she is the editor of Scientific American and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
Mailed with a certificate of mailing and faxed to (212) 769-5007
Email sent to Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science on April 29, 2013:
I’m trying to get the American Journal of Physics to retract the attached article because it propagates misinformation about evolution and thermodynamics. My correspondence with the AJP and other physics organizations in on my blog at http://www.newevangelist.me. I recently submitted a 10-page document with 9 exhibits to my congressman explaining why the fraudulent nature of the article and its maliciousness is a matter of national concern. The absurdity of the AJP article is explained at http://creationwiki.org/Pseudoscience_in_the_American_Journal_of_Physics.
If the article is not retracted, I’d like to submit a manuscript explaining this affair. What follows is a redaction of what I gave Congresswomen Yvette Clarke of New York. None of this material is copyrighted. Feel free to do with it whatever you want.
The theory of evolution is that microscopic organisms evolved into whales and elephants in about a billion years. This gives rise to the question of what caused this to happen. The only theory supported by the evidence is natural selection acting upon innovations. Not enough is known about the innovations to understand this increase in the complexity of life. In other words, natural selection doesn’t explain common descent. Evolutionary biologists always speak of “adaptive 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. To make their theory look better, ID advocates compare ID with natural selection. Many people go along with this scam because they don’t want to admit ID is a better theory than natural selection in some sense. They are more interested in arguing against God’s existence than in evolutionary biology.
As a result of this conflict about ID, many non-biologist think natural selection does explain the complexity of life and common descent. I call this ignorance and irrationality level 1 of the fraud being perpetrated upon the citizens of the United States by an article published in the American Journal of Physics (“Entropy and evolution,” Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008). Level 2 of the fraud is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Level 3 of the fraud is the idea that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because evolution did not occur in a closed system.
Level 4 of the fraud is the absurd calculation in “Entropy and evolution.” The author estimates the probability of an organism A evolving into organism B in 100 years as being 1/1000. He then plugs this number into the Boltzmann equation for entropy to calculate the change in entropy of the biosphere.
Email from editor on May 14, 2013
Dear Mr. Roemer:
Thank you for sending Zygon your manuscript entitled “Exploring the Conflict Between Science and Religion” (ID: ZYGON-A-2013-05-0043).
We receive many proposals that, for one reason or another, we must decline to pursue. Yours falls in this category given our current volume of papers. I don’t think that it is of sufficient interest for the readers of Zygon to become involved in a dispute regarding another journal. Furthermore, a central element in the argument seems to be that the conflict between ID and Darwinists is due to different views of the cosmological argument, which seems historically and philosophically inaccurate.
Please accept my best wishes for your future work.
Willem B. Drees
Editor, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science
Faxed letter to Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science dated May 14, 2013
To: Debra H. Van Der Molen, Willem B. Drees, and Karl E. Peters:
I think my submitted manuscript proved that the AJP article (“Entropy and evolution,” Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008) is a hoax analogous to the infamous Piltdown Man. I made it very clear in my submission and in my email to Karl Peters dated April 29 that I am not interested in publishing another article exposing this scam. My goal is to get the AJP to retract this article. I consider Willem B. Drees’s email to me dishonest. Just like the AJP, Zygon is trying to create a fraudulent paper trail that will make it look like Zygon carried out its professional and moral responsibilities.
What Zygon should do re-write the article in a way that your readers will be interested in. If you don’t do this, you will be helping the AJP perpetrate a fraud. All of the supporters of Zygon will become collaborators. I will make sure that their guilt will be documented by sending faxes, emails, and certified letters.
This scandal sheds light on the murders committed by the Nazis during WWII. No one was ever forced to kill anyone. However, there were severe penalties for telling about the murders. Collaboration took the form of being silent.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
Faxed to 773 256 0782, emailed to email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org
Email to presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America sent on May 22, 2013
Dear Right Reverend Mark Hanson,
The American Journal of Physics published an article with a fake calculation showing that biological evolution did not violate the laws of physics (“Entropy and evolution,” Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008). I have a Ph.D. in physics, and I cannot understand how such an article could be written and published. In its correspondence with me, the editor of the AJP engaged in trickery to avoid having to retract the article. That the science establishment is allowing the AJP to continue to spread misinformation about physics and evolution is even more unfathomable. The closest I can come to a real-life analogy is the murder of civilians by the German government during World War II. No one was ever forced to kill anyone. But, there were severe penalties for telling about the murders.
The AJP article is a piece of anti-religious propaganda. Creationists are explicitly mentioned and slandered with the accusation that they think evolution violates the laws of physics. Creationists know no more about physics than Lutherans, Muslims, and any other religious group. The science of the Big Bang, the origin of life, evolution, and fine-tuning of physical constants are nevertheless part of our salvation history because the Bible says God created the universe from nothing. The inability of science to explain these phenomena is a reason to believe in the Bible. Lying about science, or covering up a lie, is equivalent to lying about our salvation history.
One of the persons I’v accused of wrongdoing is Willem Drees, the editor of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, which the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American has a close association with through the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago and its Zygon Center for Religion and Science. Dr. Drees rejected the attached article in a disingenuous manner. I’v asked James Nieman to mediate this dispute with Willem Drees and gave him the attached letter and manuscript. I have also contacted through email, faxes, and telephone calls the 46 editors Zygon lists on its website. Only Frans de Waal, an anthropologist at Emory University, has shown an interest.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
Open letter sent to advisors of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science on March 11, 2014
To Francisco J. Ayala, Zainal Abidin Bagir, Anindita N. Balslev, Joseph Bulbulia, Ronald Cole-Turner, Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi, Terrence Deacon, Celia Deane-Drummond, Willem B. Drees, George Ellis, Dirk Evers, Owen J. Flanagan, Mohammed Ghaly, Ursula Goodenough, Niels Henrik Gregersen, Nidhal Guessoum, Peter Harrison, Philip Hefner, Michael S. Hogue, Antje Jackelén, Melvin J. Konner, Seung Chul Kim, Li Jianhui, Liu Xiaoting, Lu Feng, Ann Milliken Pederson, Gregory Peterson, James F. Moore, Andrew B Newberg, Karl E. Peters, Varadaraja V. Raman, Holmes Rolston III, Robert J. Russell, Robert A. Segal, Christopher Southgate, Ann Taves, Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, Mary Evelyn Tucker, Claudia Vanney, Frans de Waal, Wesley J. Wildman, Amos Yong, Solomon H. Katz, Edwin C. Laurenson, Michael Ruse, John A. Teske, and Gayle E. Woloschak
I am accusing the editor of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science (Willem Drees) of rejecting two manuscripts I submitted (ZYGON-A-2014-03-0019 and ZYGON-A-2013-05-0043) in a dishonest manner with the goal of helping of the American Journal of Physics cover up the mistake it made in publishing an article about evolution and the second law of thermodynamics (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008).
The AJP article mistakenly applies the Boltzmann equation for entropy to a living organism in order to squelch creationists for saying that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics has nothing to do with the evolution of stars or biological evolution. I told my congressman (Yvette Clarke, D-NY, 9th district) that the AJP is perpetrating a hoax with the goal of promoting atheism. My correspondence with the U.S. House of Representatives is here:
Instead of forwarding my correction of the article to the author, the AJP suggested that I submit my own article. I did so (manuscript ID No. 25055), and an anonymous reviewer said that I was wrong. In this way, the AJP and Zygon are undermining the integrity of science in the United States.
This hoax is related to the conflict over the theory of intelligent design. The following 3-minute podcasts gives my explanation for this conflict:
Very truly yours, David Roemer
Email to the president of Providence College on December 11, 2012
Dear Fr. Shanley,
I’v asked Nicano Austiraco, Gary Culpepper, Paul Gondreau, James Keating, Sandra Keating, and Tomas Petri to resign from the Academy of Catholic Theology to protest the actions of fellow members Stephen Barr, who writes about evolutionary biology on the pages of First Things, and Russell Reno, who is the editor.
Russell and Barr are helping the American Journal of Physics and the American Association of Physics Teachers cover up the mistake of publishing an absurd article (Daniel F. Styer, “Entropy and evolution,” Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008). I explain why the article should be retracted in an essay published by the newsletter of the Catholic Truth of Scotland (http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf).
In an email to me, Stephen Barr said the AJP article was okay and that I was harming the Catholic Church. This is like mathematicians arguing about whether 2 +2 = 4 because the AJP article is based on an erroneous equation in physics and we both have PhDs in physics. Also, you don’t need to be a physicist to see why the article is anti-creationist propaganda with no scientific value. This is why I expect the above faculty members of Providence College to respond to my request in a more reasonable way than they have.
I asked Russell Reno for a personal interview so that I could explain why Barr and the editor and publisher of the American Journal of Physics are violating accepted procedures for peer-reviewed journals. Reno’s negative response to my request for an interview is similar to the response of many members of the Academy of Catholic Theology.
The behavior of mobs is part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries. The Academy of Catholic Theology has become a mob that lies about science, not the kind that breaks glass windows.
The following are links to my conversations with physicists about the AJP article. (see below)
Very truly yours, David Roemer
Letter sent to Fr. Joseph Daoust of “Domus Interprovinciales Romanae”on January 17, 2013
Dear Fr. Daoust,
I am writing to complain about the 10 Jesuits who are members of the Academy of Catholic Theology (http://www.academyofcatholictheology.org/) and four Provincials. One such Provincial is Father Provincial David S. Ciancimino of New York who refused my request for a personal interview. I’v asked the 10 Jesuits to resign from the Academy of Catholic Theology to protest the conduct of three other members: Stephen M. Barr, R. R. Reno, and Robert Louis Wilken who are affiliated with the journal First Things. My complaint against First Things is that it is refusing to republish my letter in the Catholic Truth of Scotland (http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf).
The Catholic Truth of Scotland explains why an article titled, “Entropy and evolution,” (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008, https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bw0xQqr5YbtJQ09ybDR0ejd2TTA), should be retracted. My reasons for recommending such a drastic remedy are here:
Dr. Barr, who received the Benemerenti medal from Pope Benedict, said I was mistaken about evolution and was harming the Catholic Church. First Things is helping the American Journal of Physics and its publishers (American Association of Physics Teachers and the American Institute of Physics) cover up its mistake. The phenomena of the Big Bang, the origin of life, and evolution are reasons to believe in the Bible because the Bible says God created the universe from nothing for the sake of mankind. For a peer-reviewed journal to disseminate misinformation about evolution is outrageous.
My correspondence with physicists about this issue is here:
My YouTube video titled “The Truth About Evolution and Religion” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ) also sheds light on this issue.This is a link to my submission to First Things: http://newevangelist.me/evolution-and-the-culture-war/.
I’m willing to drop my complaint against Fr. Ciancimino if he sends someone to attend a lecture I am giving in New York City on March 15, 2013. There is no cost for the lecture and no ticket, but to obtain a reservation and the exact location and time click on the following link:
<A HREF=”http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/316545″>Reservation for “Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics”</A>
Very truly yours, David Roemer
Letters sent on June 4, 2013
Dear Fr. Ciancimino and Fr. Smolich,
I am writing to ask you to reconsider your decision not to meet with me so that I can explain why “Entropy and evolution,” (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, Nov. 2008) should be retracted and why your behaviors are damaging the reputations of Catholic priests.
The newsletter of the Catholic Truth of Scotland published my explanation of why the article is absurd to rebut atheistic propaganda. Stephen Barr, a member of the Academy of Catholic Theology and a Benemerenti Medal winner, said I was mistaken and that I was “harming the Catholic Church.” I accused him of not reading my analysis and demanded an apology. He ignored my emails and faxes. Nor did he advise the Catholic Truth of Scotland that I was mistaken. I might add that no one has answered the analysis at http://creationwiki.org/Pseudoscience_in_the_American_Journal_of_Physics. I am accusing Dr. Barr of lying about our salvation history.
The AJP article also undermines the integrity of science and is a matter of national concern. I am communicating with Congressman Yvette Clarke’s office. A member of her staff named Scott initially told me that he could not be my advocate based on the information I initially gave him. I then gave him a 10-page document with 9 exhibits, and he told me the matter was being considered. Fr. Smolich’s remark that Scott was giving me a runaround is without basis, so far as I know.
If my accusation against Dr. Barr and his Jesuit enablers is not resolved, I will file a complaint with Cardinal Dolan against Fr. Joseph Koterski and Fr. Joseph Lienhart because of their connection with Barr through the Academy of Catholic Theology, and Fr. Ciancimino and Fr. Joseph McShane.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
Faxed to 212-794-1036 and 202-328-9212
Mailed with certificate of mailing
Letter sent on June 6, 2013 to Timothy Cardinal Dolan
I am filing a complaint against Fr. Thomas Smolich, President of the Jesuits Conference in the United States, for refusing to meet with me to discuss what I hope will be a sign that God has communicated Himself to mankind: The American Journal of Physics retracts an article about biological evolution published in 2008.
In my opinion, creationists and advocates of the theory of intelligent design are not good witnesses to faith in God because they promote scientific theories not supported by evidence. They make humanists and atheists look like paragons of reason. This peer-reviewed AJP article does the exact opposite. It makes creationists look like paragons of reason, and mainstream scientists look like lunatics. It proves there is something rotten in the scientific culture of the United States.
Richard Dawkins repeated the atheistic propaganda in this article, and the Catholic Truth of Scotland published my rebuttal in May 2012. First Things, America Magazine, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and Zygon: the Journal of Religion and Science are refusing to expose this scandal. I blame a prominent Catholic physicist, Dr. Stephen Barr, for this because he has explicitly stated that I am wrong and am “harming the Catholic Church.” Because so many Jesuits are affiliated with Dr. Barr though their membership in the Academy of Catholic Theology, I think Fr. Smolich has a duty to determine which of us is harming the Catholic Church. I describe Dr. Barr’s conduct in a letter to the President of New York University.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
1) Letter to Fr. Smolich and Fr. Ciacimino, dated June 4, 2013
2) “Entropy and evolution,” Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008
3) Letter to Congressman Yvette Clarke, undated to Scott
4) Addendum to above letter titled “Thirteen Quotes About Evolution”
5) Manuscript submitted to Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science
6) Manuscript submitted to First Things and Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
7) Letter to President of New York University, dated February 24, 2013
Letter from Timothy Cardinal Dolan dated June 7, 2013
Dear Dr. Roemer,
Thank you most sincerely for your letter of June 6, 2013, together with your enclosures. Your thoughtfulness is deeply appreciated.
While I am grateful for your kindness in writing, neither as Archbishop of New York nor as president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops do I have canonical (Church law) jurisdiction over Father Thomas Smolich, S. J. I trust that you will understand.
With prayerful best wishes, I am, Faithfully in Christ,
Timothy Michael Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York
Letter sent to webmaster of http://www.sjweb.info on June 19, 2013 by David Roemer
Acting upon the advise of my pastor, I recently filed a complaint against the President of the Jesuit Conference of the United States (Thomas Smolich) with Cardinal Timothy Dolan for refusing to see me about a matter that compromises the integrity of Catholic priests who are part of the scientific culture of the United States because of their roll as teachers and editors. These priests are showing more devotion and loyalty to this atheistic culture than to the Catholic Church. Cardinal Dolan advised me in a letter that he has no jurisdiction over Fr. Smolich even though he is president of the United States Association of Catholic Bishops.
Fr. Smolich and other Jesuits are putting me in the position of calling Catholic priests liars and moral cowards over an absurd article published by the American Journal of Physics about evolution and thermodynamics. This link (http://newevangelist.me/zygon/) is to an article I wrote about this shocking scandal.
I told Fr. Smolich’s assistant about Cardinal Dolan’s refusal to get involved today. Hopefully, Fr. Smolich will screw up his courage and deal with this situation in a responsible manner. If not, I would like to send the Superior General the same information I gave Cardinal Dolan.
Open Letter to Jesuits
I am complaining about a number of Jesuits to the Superior General and Timothy Cardinal Dolan for taking the side of atheists in the culture war about evolutionary biology. Cardinal Dolan’s response to my letter is at http://newevangelist.me/2013/06/21/priests/.
This scandal began when I started criticizing Richard Dawkins for some drivel he wrote about evolution and a branch of physics called thermodynamics. One of the reasons to believe in God is that those who don’t usually give bad reasons for not believing. Showing that a famous atheist doesn’t understand thermodynamics is a good way to preach the gospel. To understand this disagreement about evolution you need to know the four laws of thermodynamics:
- Temperatures are measured with a thermometer (zeroth).
- Energy is conserved (first).
- Heat flows from hot to cold (second).
- Minus 270 degrees on the Celsius scale is as cold as it gets (third).
Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education squelched me by citing an article (“Entropy and evolution,” Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008) disseminating the same mistaken ideas as Dawkins backed up with an erroneous calculation and the authority of a peer-reviewed science journal.
I was amazed at the stupidity of the article and emailed a protest to the editor. Instead of forwarding my criticism to the author, the editor suggested I submit an article of rebuttal.
I graduated from New York University in 1971 with a Ph.D. in physics, and contacted a professor at NYU with expertise in thermodynamics. He confirmed that the calculation in the American Journal of Physics article was wrong, but declined to help me when he realized that I was trying to get the article retracted. His last email to me was hostile and insulting.
I submitted an article of rebuttal, and an anonymous reviewer rejected it. I told the American Association of Physics Teachers, the American Institute of Physics, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Science Foundation about this pseudoscience to no avail. In April 2013, I began communicating with a member of the staff of my congressman, Yvette Clarke. I submitted a 10-page document arguing that the AJP was perpetrating a fraud upon the citizens of the United States by not retracting “Entropy and evolution.” I was assured me that my allegation is being investigated. The documents I submitted to Congressman Clarke are at
In the meantime, the newsletter of the Catholic Truth of Scotland published my refutation of the AJP article. In the hope of getting support, I contacted Stephen M. Barr, who writes about science and religion for First Things. Dr. Barr is a member of the Catholic Academy of Theology, a fellow of the American Physical Society, and a recipient of the Benemerenti Medal by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007. Dr. Barr told me that I was wrong and was “harming the Catholic Church.” Nothing in his email attempted to defend or explicate the absurd calculation.
I contacted the 10 Jesuits who are members of the Academy of Catholic Theology, and asked them to expel Dr. Barr for helping the AJP to cover up its mistake. They all are ignoring my entreaties even though I complained to their Provincials (James Shae, David Ciancimino, J. Daniel Daley, Timothy Kesicki) and the president of the Jesuit Conference in the United States (Thomas Smolich).
In addition to the references I gave Congressman Clarke, a new article was just published that explains why the AJP article is so wrong. [Sewell G (2013) Entropy and evolution. BIO-Complexity 2013 (2): 1-5. doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2013.2]. I’d like to supplement Sewell’s analysis with an explication of a statement made by a biologist about the imagined connection between evolution and thermodynamics:
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)
The unnecessary adverbial phrase “Considered thermodynamically” encapsulates the error of creationists and advocates of intelligent design who think evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics and anti-religion advocates who think evolution does not.
Bertalanffy doesn’t understand there are different meanings of the word order and the phrase random events. A gas consists of many molecules, and a protein is composed of hundreds of amino acids bonded together. This famous biologist thinks there is something to be learned by comparing a gas and a protein.
Each amino acid has to be in exactly the right place for a protein to work in a living organism. Bertalanffy presumably thinks we know the location of amino acids in a protein, but we don’t know the location of molecules in a gas. The exact opposite is true. All we know about the location of amino acids is which amino acid is next to which. We don’t know the location of the amino acids in x, y, and z coordinates. On the other hand, we know the x, y, and z coordinates of all of the molecules in the gas because we know where the container that holds the gas is located. Because of this confusion, Bertalanffy thinks a protein has more “order” than a gas.
Concerning “random events,” Bertalanffy can’t distinguish between improbable events and probability calculations. Biologists calculate the probability of getting the primary structure of a protein by the random selection of amino acids. Physicists can calculate the probability that oxygen molecules in a room will randomly drift out the windows and doors leaving the room short of oxygen. An oxygen-deprived room is an improbable event. The calculation by biologists is just a probability calculation.
Very truly yours,
Letter sent to Very Rev. Adolfo Nicolás Pachón on July 15, 2013, by registered mail (RE862697742US) to Borgo Santo Spirito 4, 00193 Roma, Italy
Dear Father General,
A number of Jesuits in the United States are helping the American Journal of Physics cover up its mistake in publishing an article about evolution and creationism in 2008.
I currently reside in the parish of the Church of Notre Dame in Manhattan. I discussed the matter with my pastor before filing the enclosed complaint against Fr. Smolich with Cardinal Dolan. Cardinal Dolan said that he does not have jurisdiction, so I am telling you about my low opinion of the character of many Jesuits. A version of my article published by the newsletter of the Catholic Truth of Scotland (“Evolution and the Culture War”) and a manuscript (“Exploring the Conflict Between Science and Religion”) are also enclosed. I am broadcasting the enclosed “Open Letter to Jesuits,” and sent it to all of the Jesuits I have previously contacted.
Since the integrity of science is a matter of national concern, I filed a complaint with my congressman, Yvette Clarke. A member of her staff (Scott) assured me that my accusation of pseudoscience is being investigated after receiving the enclosed letter and Thirteen Quotes About Evolution.
Concerning my enclosed letter to Fr. McShane, Fr. Koterski told me over the phone that it would be inappropriate for him to question Dr. Barr about his knowledge of physics. Fr. McShane ignored my written and oral request for an appointment.
Concerning my enclosed letter to Fr. Daoust, I am accusing Fr. Ciancimino of not accepting my invitation to the lecture because he would be obliged to tell Fr. Koterski and Fr. Lienhard that he was taking seriously my accusation against them and Dr. Barr. I try to explain in my enclosed letter to Fr. Sheeran the reason nobody wants to hear what I have to say in person.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
Letter to Cardinal Dolan dated June 6, 2013
Evolution and the Culture War
Exploring the Conflict Between Science and Religion
Open Letter to Jesuits
Letter to Scott
Thirteen Quotes About Evolution
Letter to Fr. Joseph McShane dated February 21, 2013
Letter to Fr. Joseph Daoust dated January 17, 2013
Letter to Fr. Sheeran dated July 2, 20
Letter sent to Timothy Cardinal Dolan on August 7, 2013
I have not yet gotten a response to the registered letter (RE862697742US) dated July 16, 2013, I sent Fr. Adolfo Nicolás Pachón after you said you had no jurisdiction over the Jesuits I am criticizing for helping the American Journal of Physics cover up the mistake of publishing article about evolution that promotes atheism. I’v enclosed the USPS confirmation that his office got it on July 25, 2013. If I don’t get a response from Fr. Pachón in a few weeks, I will bring the matter to the attention of Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization.
I sent a registered letter to Archbishop Fisichella on November 19, 2012, about the Shroud of Turin and your criticism that my slideshow/lecture “debunked” the Holy Shroud (http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/). I have not even gotten an acknowledgment that this letter was received. I will ask the Pontifical Council to consider both matters.
Very truly yours, David Roemer=
Faxed to Frs. Ciancimino, Smolich, and Sheeran
Letter sent to João Bráz de Aviz, Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Life, Palazzo della Congregazioni, Piazza Pio XII, 3, 00193 Rome, Italy by registered mail (RE862673644US) on September 26, 2013, and faxed to 39.06.69884526.
I’m complaining about the character of a number of Jesuits and Dominicans teaching in the United States for helping the American Journal of Physics cover up its mistake in publishing the enclosed article (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, Nov. 2008). The article promotes atheism because it misrepresents evolutionary biology. The inability of science to explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the evolution of whales from single-celled organisms in a hundred million decades, and the “fine-tuning” of physical constants is a sign that the Bible was divinely inspired because the Bible says God created the universe from nothing and cares about our welfare.
The article undermines the integrity of science and is a matter of national concern. I have filed a complaint against the AJP with my representative in the United States House of Representatives. If the AJP retracts the article, it will show how irrational atheists can be about biological evolution and religion.
Jesuits and Dominicans are involved through their connection with Stephen Barr, Ph.D., who is a prominent physicist and a member of the Academy of Catholic Theology. Dr. Barr told me that I am mistaken about the AJP article and am “harming the Catholic Church.” I asked the Jesuit and Dominican members of the Academy of Catholic Theology to expel Dr. Barr or resign from this organization. One Jesuit, a theologian, told me that it would be “inappropriate” for him to question Barr about his knowledge of physics. My allegation against that particular Jesuit is that he is a coward.
I had no success in getting the Jesuit provincials to meet with me. I filed a complaint with the Father General, and my registered letter was received on July 27, 2013. On August 25, 2013, I got an email from email@example.com saying some office would contact me. No Jesuit did, but on September 9, 2013, I met with Rev. Brian Mulcahy, O. P., who is the chairman of the Providence College Corporation. A physics teacher and a biology teacher at Providence College have been giving me a runaround about the article. Fr. Mulcahy promised to confront these two teachers with my allegations. The biology teacher is a Dominican, and Fr. Mulcahy knows him personally. On September 13, 2013, I told the Jesuit webmaster about this meeting in an email.
My correspondence with Catholics is at http://newevangelist.me/2013/06/21/priests/. My correspondence with the U. S. House of Representatives is at http://newevangelist.me/2013/04/12/national-science-foundation/. I was interviewed on a radio show about this matter. A podcast of this interview is called “Evolution Hoax” and it is at http://www.buzzsprout.com/16337.
Asking the blessing of Your Eminence, I am,
Yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer
Email sent to Nicano Pier Giorgio Austiraco and Robert La Montagne on December 23, 2013
Dear Fr. Austriaco and Dr. La Montagne,
I met with Fr. Mulcahy on September 9 and explained to him why the AJP article was absurd, and why you two are being dishonest. He told me he would confront Fr. Austriaco with my criticisms.
In the meantime, I got an email from Daniel Styer, the author of the absurd article. I called him at home, and we discussed the matter for sometime. He seemed to be stressed out by what I am doing and saying. His suffering, and all the other suffering I have caused, is not on my conscience. I am following my conscience.
What you can do is contact your congressman and ask about the status of the investigation being conducted by Yvette Clarke (D-NY, 9th district) according to Scott, her director of communications. If there has been no investigation, I will file an ethics complaint against Congressman Clarke. Maybe I can get Scott fired, just like, I hope, I got David Grier fired.
My offer to go to Providence and tell you two off to your faces is still open.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
Email from Robert La Montagne on December 23, 2013
You are becoming scary. Please do not come to my campus. I keep a 32 revolver in my desk to protect me from people like you. Please have no doubts about me using it on you.
Please take me off your mailing list and never contact me again.
I hope you have a happy Christmas –
Email sent to Robert La Montagne on December 25, 2013
Subject: Criminal Charges
Please call me about this matter ASAP. Basically, I threatened to come up to Providence College from New York City and confront you and Fr. Austriaco with my accusations of dishonesty. I am a gentleman, and the worst that could have happened is a fair fist fight. I cannot ignore your threat to shoot me dead with the revolver in your desk draw because it hows how irrational you and others are behaving about the American Journal of Physics article titled, “Entropy and evolution” (November, 2008) by Daniel Styer of Oberlin College. Consider this timeline:
1) On Feb. 1, 2012, I told the AJP about the error in the article.
2) On June 28, 2013, I told Dr. Styer about the error.
3) On Sept. 9, 2013, I told Fr. Mulcahy about the error and said that you and Fr. Austriaco were helping the AJP cover up its mistake by lying to me. Fr. Mulcahy promised to confront Fr. Austriaco with my accusations in an email to Fr. Austriaco, who was abroad at that time.
4) On Dec. 20, 2013, a creationist emailed Dr. Styer about my efforts to get the AJP to retract the article..
5) On Dec. 21, 2013, Dr. Styer emailed me “CreationWikiReply.pdf.” In a long and emotional telephone conversation he said my article in Creationwiki.org titled “Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics” was wrong. Styer’s document and his statements on the telephone were irrational and incoherent.
This raises the question of what transpired between Fr. Mulcahy, Fr. Austriaco, and you. Why do I get threatened with death after telling Fr. Mulcahy that you and Fr. Austriaco are Satan’s rag babies.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
I sent the following email to Philip Sharp on January 18, 2013
Dear Dr. Sharp,
As a director of the AAAS you should be committed to its second mission (“Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use”), and should want the American Journal of Physics (AJP) to retract an absurd article titled, “Entropy and evolution” (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008). The article repeats the creationist error that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, and the even more nonsensical idea that evolution does not because of the sun. Unfortunately, the article goes so far as to write down an incorrect equation in thermodynamics to prove this quantitatively in units of entropy.
The AJP, the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), and the American Institute of Physics (AIP) are resorting to trickery to avoid publishing a retraction. The following article explains why the AJP article is absurd: http://creationwiki.org/Pseudoscience_in_the_American_Journal_of_Physics.
There is a considerable amount of correspondence between me and the AJP/AAPT about this matter. I have given this information to Science, by email (firstname.lastname@example.org) and fax (202-289-7562).
Very truly yours, David Roemer
I submitted the following on April 16, 2013, to the MIT Technology Review at
The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to biological evolution and the evolution of stars. I explain this here:
It also does not apply to the origin of life, as I explain in my comments about Walter Bradley’s essay in Debating Design, edited by William Dembski and Michael Ruse. My review of this book is on Amazon.com with the title, “20 Essays and 20 Blindspots.” See: http://newevangelist.me/2013/03/25/debating-design/
The following is a quote from Bradley’s essay followed by my refutation:
The total entropy change that takes place in an open system such as a living cell must be consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and can be described as follows: ∆S(cell) + ∆S(surrounding) > 0.
This is like saying ∆S(airplane in flight) + ∆S(surrounding) > 0. An airplane can be broken up into a number of thermodynamic systems, e.g., the engine, pilot’s cabin, metal wing, etc. Each thermodynamic system will have its surroundings and this law will apply. But to suggest that there is such a thing as the entropy of an airplane in flight is nonsense. A living cell has much more machinery in it than an airplane. It is like an airplane that can replace or repair a broken wing.
I explained all this to Edmund Bertschinger and Max Tegmark so they would cancel their subscriptions to the American Journal of Physics to protest the fraudulent article titled “Entropy and evolution.” They ignored my emails and faxes. More importantly, they did not refute the Creationwiki.org article. I am not a creationist, so I can’t edit the article. I’m sure the creationists in charge will correct any mistakes. In any case, I will answer any comments you have about the AJP article and my Creationwiki article.
Message sent to staff of MIT Technology Review on April 17, 2013:
I suggest that you either post my reply to Prof. Gladyshev’s comment or invite me to the the lecture of thermodynamics that I offered to give the chair of your physics department. You should also know that I have taken this matter up with the NSF and my congressman in the 9th District of Brooklyn:
The head of the NSF should hate fraudulent research, as should you all.
Email message from Jason Pontin on April 27, 2013
The AJP publication is *nothing* to do with MIT Technology Review, its editor David Rotman, or me. Even if I agreed that the article is fraudulent (which I do not: it sounds as if you have a difference of opinion, based on your religious views), it’s not my role to denounce every single fraudulent publication.
I don’t see how any of this has anything to do with Second World War.
If you manage to get through to my secretary you can tell her what you want. If you can find someone to listen, you can denounce us as somehow complicit in this matter. That’s free speech. But I have no interest in meeting with you. This is not my business.
Email message to Jason Pontin on April 27, 2013
Edmund Bertschinger, Max Tegmark, and David Rotman know or should know that the AJP article is based on an incorrect application of the Boltzmann equation in order to refute the religiously motivated fallacy that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. To this list of MIT sleaze I’m adding the biologist Philip A. Sharp, who also ignored my faxes and emails. Sharp is the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and pays lip service to “Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use.”
What you should do is schedule an appointment to see me and invite David Rotman. At that time, I’ll explain the connection between genocide and pseudoscience and explain why Rotman should not be the editor of MIT Technology Review. This certainly is your business. The question is whether or not you have the character to carry out your responsibilities.
Very truly yours, David Roemer
Open Letter to Board of Directors of MIT Technology Review (Reid Ashe, Judith Cole, Jerome Friedman, Israel Ruiz, Megan Smith, Sheila Widnall, Ann Wolpert)
The Editor in Chief and Publisher, Jason Pontin, has not responded yet to the following message that is a response to his email refusing to meet with me:
(See above email dated April 27, 2103)
The AJP article is “Entropy and evolution” (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008). MIT Technology Review is involved because it published Georgi Gladyshev’s online comments about evolution and thermodynamics, but did not publish my reply referring to http://creationwiki.org/Pseudoscience_in_the_American_Journal_of_Physics.
By deleting my reply and not deleting Gladyshev’s comment, MIT Technology Review is helping the AJP spread anti-religious propaganda. I explained the maliciousness of “Entropy and evolution” to Congressman Yvette Clarke in a 10-page indictment with 9 exhibits. I’d like to come to MIT to explain to Pontin, Rotman, Bertschinger, Gladyshev, Tegmark, and Sharp the harm that the AJP article is doing.
Very truly yours, David Roemer