Massachusetts Institute of Technolgy

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 (science_editors@aaas.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

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/513781/moores-law-and-the-origin-of-life/#comments

The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to biological evolution and the evolution of stars. I explain this here:

http://www.creationwiki.org/Pseudoscience-in-the-American-Journal-of-Physics

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.[7904]

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:

http://newevangelist.me/2013/04/12/national-science-foundation/.

The head of the NSF should hate fraudulent research, as should you all.

Email message from Jason Pontin on April 27, 2013
David,
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.

Jason

Email message to Jason Pontin on April 27, 2013
Dear Jason,
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


Committee on Publication Ethics

Posted on LinkedIn COPE group:

I’m trying to get the American Journal of Physics to retract an absurd article titled, “Entropy and evolution.” The article uses a fake equation to prove that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The truth is that the second law does not apply to the evolution of stars or biological evolution. I pointed out the error to the editor. Instead of giving my comments to the author, who a conscience and a reputation to protect, the editor suggested that I submit my own article. I did so, and an anonymous reviewer said I was wrong. In this way, the AJP is avoiding responsibility. I explain why the equation is wrong at

http://creationwiki.org/Pseudoscience_in_the_American_Journal_of_Physics

My correspondence with physicists about this issue is at

http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/22/physics-department-of-new-york-university/

 http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/02/american-journal-of-physics/

 http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/23/american-association-of-physics-teachers/

http://newevangelist.me/2012/05/06/american-institute-of-physics/

 http://newevangelist.me/2011/12/07/american-scientific-affiliation/

 http://newevangelist.me/2012/08/02/first-things/

 Correspondence with Natalie Ridgeway starting March 28, 2013

Dear Natalie,
I submitted a post exposing unethical conduct by the editors and publishers of the American Journal of Physics (Code 1.8) in failing to correct an error in a peer-reviewed article. Why hasn’t it been posted? I could not find the FAQ you referred to. Am I following the wrong procedure? Are you deliberately helping the AJP to cover up its mistake in publishing the article? Are you assuming a peer-reviewed physics article can’t be absurd? I told the editor of the AJP (David Jackson) about the error. Instead of referring the matter to the author (Daniel Styer), he suggested I submit my own article. I did so, and an anonymous reviewer said I was wrong. In this way, the AJP is avoiding taking responsibility for the article. I also complained to the publishers of the AJP. Give me a call at 347-417-4703, if that is the easiest way for you to respond.

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Dear David,
Thank you for your email via our LinkedIn account. Having checked our membership I am afraid that the American Journal of Physics is not a member of COPE. Therefore we are unable to consider a complaint against them (see the terms & conditions for complaints on our website here: http://publicationethics.org/contact-us ).

I am sorry that we cannot be of any assistance.

Kind regards, Natalie 

Dear Natalie,
Why don’t you publish my submitted post on your LinkedIn site? Lisa McLaughlin, Marc Cassar, John H., and Daniel K. are members of the American Institute of Physics and the American Physical Society, which are affiliated with the publishers of the American Journal of Physics, the American Association of Physics Teachers. They are all members of your LinkedIn group. They should know about this matter.

By not publishing my post, you are helping the American Journal of Physics perpetrate a hoax about biological evolution and religion that victimizes many people. The absurdity of the AJP article is the culmination of four pseudoscientific ideas about evolution:

  1. Natural selection acting upon innovations explains common descent. This is untrue. It only explains adaptation. Evolutionary biologists always speak of “adaptive evolution.” Atheists, creationists, and advocates of intelligent design are responsible for disseminating this misinformation.
  2. Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is an error because the second law does not apply to the evolution of stars or biological evolution.
  3. Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because of the sun. This idea is unintelligible.
  4. You can perform a thermodynamic calculation to prove # 3. This is what Eq. 4b in the AJP article does. The equation is incorrect for reasons explained in a number of publications.

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Dear David,
The COPE LinkedIn site is for members who are interested in publication ethics in scholarly journals to disseminate information and discuss items of interest, it is not intended to be used as a medium to discuss specific cases. COPE does have a formal procedure for reviewing complaints against member journals if they have not abided by COPE’s Code of Conduct for Journal Editors (all journals agree to abide by this when they join COPE, see: http://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct ). However, as the American Journal of Physics is not a member of COPE we are not able to follow this procedure. Even if the AJP was a member we would not use LinkedIn to discuss the case but would look at it formally via our complaints procedure.

I am sorry that we cannot be of any further assistance.

Yours sincerely
Natalie Ridgeway
Operations Manager

Dear Natalie,
What you could do is expel Lisa McLaughlin from your LinkedIn group because she is possibly following unethical orders from her bosses. The email I sent is the discussion you are refusing to post. This is the letter I wrote to her boss with a certificate of mailing:

Mr. John Haynes
AIP Publishing
Suite 1NO1
2 Huntington Quadrangle
Melville, NY 11747

Dear Mr. Haynes,

I am writing to ask for an appointment to discuss a conversation I had yesterday over the telephone with Lisa McLaughlin. I called to see if Ms. McLaughlin got the email I sent her arguing that the article “Entropy and evolution” (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008) is a hoax analogous to the infamous Piltdown Man hoax. Ms. McLaughlin admitted getting the email, but said, “I cannot comment about this matter. Thank you.” I did not get the opportunity to ask why the AIP’s Director of Publication Operations and a member of the Committee of Publication Ethics LinkedIn group can’t comment on an accusation of fraud against a member organization.

At our meeting I’ll attempt to explain to you why the AJP article should be retracted. I made a similar request to Beth Cunningham of the American Association of Physics Teachers, but it was ignored.

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Dear David

I have removed your recent post from the COPE Facebook site as, as I have explained before, The AJP is not a member of COPE and this is the not the correct forum for allegations such as this. It is not appropriate for our site to be used in this way.

Kind regards
Natalie

Dear Natalie,
There is no question that the article “Entropy and evolution” is fraudulent. It is like the Piltdown Man hoax because it promotes the atheistic error that human beings evolved from apes, not just their bodies. In the case of the Piltdown man, an amateur paleontologist used human and ape bones. In the case of the two AJP articles, the authors used the Boltzmann/Plank physics equation to prove evolution does not violate the laws of physics.

You are behaving just as badly as the editors and publishers of the AJP and causing just as much harm. That the articles are not retracted sheds light on how the Nazis could kill so many civilians 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 censorship and keeping quiet.

Very truly yours,
David Roemer


National Science Foundation

Letter sent to director  on April 6, 2013
Dear Dr. Cora B.  Marrett,
I am writing to request a personal appointment with you to discuss the importance of getting the American Journal of Physics to retract an article about biological evolution and thermodynamics (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008). I’v send hundreds of faxes, emails, and letters to individuals and organizations who should be against pro-religion and anti-religion pseudoscience. I’v included a letter to the director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and an open letter to Howard Wactlar. I contacted Mr. Wactlar because one of his consultants is a member of the AAAS. I’v also enclosed the letter to the CEO of AIP Publications, LLC.

I asked 9 presidents of universities for appointments to explain why the chairs of their physics departments either don’t understand thermodynamics or have poor character. I’v enclosed the letter to the president of New York University because that is where I got a Ph.D. in physics. The only response was from the president of City College of New York, who was under the impression that I am advocating creationism. No physicist has rebutted the article in Creationwiki.org explaining the correct connection between evolution and thermodynamics.

Very truly yours, David Roemer
Faxed to 703-292-9732
Mailed with a certificate of mailing

NSF

Fax sent to Congressman Yvette Clarke (D-NY, 9th District) on April 2013

Dear Scott,
Thank you for considering my allegation of fraud against David Jackson, editor of the American Journal of Physics (AJP), Beth Cunningham, Executive Officer of the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), and John Haynes, Chief Executive Officer of the AIP Publishing LLC for failing to retract “Entropy and evolution” (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008) and for failing to follow generally accepted procedures for peer-reviewed science journals. My allegation is that the article disseminates misinformation about evolutionary biology with the goal of promoting atheism and discrediting religious faith. Dr. Cora B. Marrett, director of the National Science Foundation, is complicit in this misconduct because she ignored my request for an interview to explain to her why the article should be retracted. I acknowledge your criticism that the information I recently sent does not explain why you should be my advocate in this allegation. The following will explain the matter step by step and list the exhibits proving malicious intent.

Step 1

The theory of evolution is that single-celled organisms evolved into mammals in about a billion years or so. Calling this a fact is insulting to creationists who believe, as I do, that the Bible is the word of God and therefore communicates only truth. People who call evolution a fact tend to think it is a fact that free will is an illusion.  The human mind creates both theories to answer questions. In the case of evolution, the question is where do fossils come from? In the case of free will, the question is what is the relationship between myself and my body?

Step 2

Free will and evolution are connected to religion, and religion causes conflict between people. Conflict causes anxiety, and inhibition is a defense mechanism against anxiety.  As a result, people are inhibited from thinking intelligently and rationally and behaving honestly about evolution. Usually, intelligence is a measure of how much time it takes a person needs to grasp a theory or insight. But with topics touching upon religion, people are so inhibited they can’t even grasp certain insights and theories. Atheists generally don’t understand the mind-body problem, and can’t grasp the theory that humans are embodied spirits. The only theories of the mind they understand are dualism and materialism. Advocates of the theory of intelligent design think the Big Bang, the origin of life, evolution, and the fine-tuning of physical constants constitute evidence that God exists. In my opinion, these phenomena constitute evidence that the universe in not intelligible, which is evidence that God does not exist. However, the Big Bang, etc. is evidence that God is the primary author of the Bible because the Bible says God created the universe from nothing.

Step 3

Fact or theory, evolution gives rise to the question of what caused it. The only theory supported by the evidence is natural selection acting upon innovations. The old paradigm for innovations was random mutations, but the new paradigm is “natural genetic engineering,” according to James Shapiro of the University of Chicago. In any case, natural selection only explains the adaptation of species to the environment. Not enough is known about the innovations natural selection acts upon to understand the increase in the complexity of life in only a billion years. In other words, natural selection doesn’t explain common descent. Evolutionary biologists always speak of “adaptive evolution.” This is my interpretation of quotes #1, #2, #3, and #7 on the sheet titled “Thirteen Quotes About Evolution.”

Step 4

The only theory that even attempts to explain the complexity of life and common descent is the theory of intelligent design (ID). The trouble with this theory is that there is no evidence for it. It is an example of how anxiety about religion can inhibit people from thinking rationally. There is of course evidence that an immutable and infinite being, called God in Western religions, does exist.

Step 5

Quote # 4 is from an evolutionary biologist who advocates ID (Michael Behe), and quote #5 is from a mainstream biologist (Kenneth Miller). Miller in quote #5 is refuting quote #4. Notice that Miller does not deny or disagree with quote #4.  From what I have read, there is no disagreement between Behe and Miller about the limited explanatory power of natural selection. There is only a conflict about intelligent design. I call it a conflict, not a disagreement, because both of them, I am sure, cannot define the word intelligence. They are both fighting about something they don’t understand. We can comprehend the word intelligence because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. But the operations of the human mind can’t be explicated or defined.

Step 6

As a result of this conflict about ID and the misinformation propagated by both sides, many people think natural selection does explain the complexity of life and common descent. Quote # 6 is from a science writer with a Ph.D. in linguistics. Christine Kenneally thinks a billion years is plenty of time for a bacterium to evolve into a mammal even though it takes 20 years for a fertilized human egg to produce all of the cells in a human body. I call this ignorance and irrationality level 1 of the fraud being perpetrated upon the citizens of the United States by the AJP article.

Step 7

The second law of thermodynamics is that a gas will fill up the entire container it is in. The second law does not apply to gases in outer space. In outer space, the gravitational attraction between hydrogen atoms is what causes stars to form. The second law also also does not apply to a living organism because a living organism is not a thermodynamic system. A living organism is like a Boeing 747 in flight with the added ability of being able to repair a broken propeller. Nevertheless, a number of pro-religion advocates say mistakenly that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Quote #11 alludes to the connection between evolution and thermodynamics, but does not make this statement. This is level 2 of the fraud.

Step 8

Level 3 of the fraud is the idea that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, as opposed to the truth. The truth is that a living organism is not a thermodynamic system. Many people who should know the difference between a machine and a thermodynamic system are victims of the level 3 fraud. I suggest that the motive for this nonsense is that saying a living organism is not a thermodynamic system is very close to saying we don’t understand how mammals evolved from bacteria. Admitting this truth helps promote the theory of intelligent design and creationism. Many people are more interested in opposing ID and creationism than in promoting scientific knowledge.

Step 9

Level 4 of the fraud is the one that I am saying you should be an advocate against. It emerges from level 3. If evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, it should be possible to perform a calculation to prove this. The fact that such a calculation is impossible is consistent with the fact that the second law does not apply to evolution. Daniel Styer, the author of “Entropy and evolution,” performs such a calculation by misusing the Boltzmann equation in for entropy (Eq. 4b). It was undoubtedly an honest mistake, considering how widespread is the error that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Exhibit No. 1

An explanation of why “Entropy and evolution” is absurd was published on October 31, 2011. See: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/more_philosophical_than_scient052441.html

Exhibit No. 2

On February 1, 2012, I told David Jackson, the editor of the AJP, about the error in the article. His response was to tell me to submit my own article “stating my case.” This was an incorrect procedure for a peer-reviewed science journal. I did not express a different point of view. I said the calculation was erroneous. Jackson should have referred my comments to the author for comment. Daniel Styer has a conscience to follow and a reputation to protect. It was up to Styer to decide whether my criticism was valid.
See: http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/02/american-journal-of-physics/

Exhibit No. 3

On February 15, 2012, I sent an email to Robert Richardson, a professor of physics at New York University, where I got a Ph.D. in physics in 1971, telling him the American Journal of Physics invited me to write a paper. I told him about the erroneous equation, and asked if I was right. I interpreted his response to mean that I was right, and I sent him all of my information about the article. When he realized that I was trying to get the American Journal of Physics to retract an article, he became hostile and refused to consider the matter. He did not make any attempt to explain to me why I was wrong.
See: http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/22/physics-department-of-new-york-university/

Exhibit No.4

On February 24, 2012, I submitted a document to the AJP explaining why the article was absurd. The document included links to other articles and to my YouTube video titled “The Truth About Evolution and Religion.”
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ

It was given to an anonymous reviewer who said that I was wrong, but did not address my arguments. If the anonymous reviewer was honest, they would have told the editor to give the document to the author.
See:http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/23/american-association-of-physics-teachers/

Exhibit No. 5

On March 7, 2012, I got an email letter from Istvan Kolossvary, a member of the American Scientific Affiliation and a Research Scientist at D. E. Shaw Research, LLC, New York, NY. Referring to my criticism of the AJP article, Dr. Kolossvary says:

You are absolutely right, using the particular numerical value of k_B in Eq. 3 and 4 is ludicrous.  More than ludicrous, it is dangerous and damaging to students who are subjected to learning physics from teachers who try using numerology in defense of an agenda.  This particular value of k_B is for ideal gas in SI units. It is so elemental, I am embarrassed to point it out.  Even the name says it, this particular k_B value multiplied by Avogadro’s number is the ubiquitous gas constant ‘R’ that appears in every single page of every single introductory text to thermodynamics. The author of this paper, therefore, implicitly proclaims that evolution can be quantified/modeled as ideal gas.  Now, show me another journal in the scientific world that would allow a paper to be published on modeling evolution as ideal gas. Even if one could make an intelligible statement about evolution in the ideal gas context, WHERE IS THE ARGUMENT? In this paper, the author does not bother giving any argument, but willingly or unwillingly feeds numerology to science students.  This is clearly wrong.

Exhibit No. 6

In May 2012, the newsletter of the Catholic Truth of Scotland published my explanation of why “Entropy and evolution” was absurd. I have gotten no communication from this organization saying that my analysis was criticized by anyone.
See: http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf.

Exhibit No. 7

In January, 2013, Creationwiki.org published my explanation of why “Entropy and evolution” was absurd. There have been over 1000 hits, but to my knowledge no one has logged onto the site and suggested a correction.
See: http://creationwiki.org/Pseudoscience_in_the_American_Journal_of_Physics

Exhibit No. 8

From February 21, 2013, to February 27, 2013, I sent letters to the presidents of Columbia University, City College of New York, Fordham University, Georgetown University, Queen’s College, New York University, St. John’s University, Stony Brook University, Yeshiva University, University of Delaware, Binghamton University, Dickenson College, Loyola Marymount College, and Creighton University saying that their chairs of physics were “moral cowards” for not supporting my efforts to get the AJP to retract the article. All but one was sent with a certificate of mailing, and all in the New York area included a request for a personal interview. I got no responses from the chairs of physics to this criticism of their character, and only one response from one of the presidents. No attorney contacted me with an accusation of slander or malicious interference. All of my letters included a link to the Creationwiki.org article.

See: http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/22/physics-department-of-new-york-university/

Exhibit No. 9

The following are links to my conversations with other individuals about this matter:

http://newevangelist.me/2013/04/18/mit/

http://newevangelist.me/2013/04/15/cope/

http://newevangelist.me/2013/04/12/national-science-foundation/

http://newevangelist.me/2013/04/12/american-association-for-the-advancement-of-science/

http://newevangelist.me/2012/08/28/messiah-college/

http://newevangelist.me/2012/08/02/first-things/

http://newevangelist.me/2012/05/06/american-institute-of-physics/

http://newevangelist.me/2011/12/07/american-scientific-affiliation/

Very truly yours,
David Roemer

Letter sent to Yvette Clarke (D-NY, 9th district) on January 5, 2014
Dear Ms. Clarke,
In a telephone conversation in April 2013, your communications director (Scott) indicated he would be my advocate in getting the American Journal of Physics to retract a malicious article (“Entropy and evolution”) that promotes atheism. It was written by Daniel F. Styer, a physicist at Oberlin College, and was peer-reviewed.  Scott initially refused my request, but had a change of mind when he saw the document with exhibits I sent him. My correspondence with your office is at

http://newevangelist.me/2013/04/12/national-science-foundation/

A version of the article by Granville Sewell in Exhibit No. 1 was published last year in a peer-reviewed journal. It has the same title as the Styer article and is at

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.2.

Also, I discussed the article with Professor Styer and exchanged emails with him on December 23, 2013. Apparently, Professor Styer did not know about my correspondence with the American Journal of Physics, which started in February 1, 2012, until he got my email dated June 28, 2013.

Dr. Styer did not admit that he misused the Boltzmann equation for entropy. However, he was unable to discuss the article in a rational manner. When I asked Dr. Styer what the entropy of a pendulum was, he replicated the absurdity of the article itself by saying, “Zero.” The AJP article disgraces every physicist in the United States, and shows how irrational people can be about anything connected to belief in God.

Very truly yours, David Roemer
Mailed with a certificate of mailing, faxed, and emailed.
Faxed to Beth Cunningham, American Association of Physics Teachers, and Julie Schmidt, American Association of University Professors

Clarke

Letter sent to Charles E. Schumer (Senator, New York) on March 20, 2014
Dear Senator Schumer,
With an email dated March 14, 2014, and numerous emails and telephone calls to her staff, I made a request to see the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (Rose Gottemoeller) on March 14, 2014, about a matter that concerns national security. What happened is that I told Al Jazeera that Congresswoman Yvette Clarke (D-NY, 9th district) was investigating of an article about biological evolution published by the American Journal of Physics. The article undermines the integrity of science and promotes atheism. It is evidence indeed that the United States is the “Great Satan.”  I am afraid Yvette Clarke’s staff and Rose Gottemoeller’s staff are giving me a runaround because they are unable to wrap their heads around the idea that a peer-reviewed physics article is absurd.  My correspondence with Congresswoman Clarke is here:

http://newevangelist.me/2013/04/12/national-science-foundation/

My last letter (1/05/14) to Congressman Clarke is being faxed along with this letter. There has been no response to this letter. I’ll be more than happy to travel to Washington DC to explain why the American Journal of Physics should retract the article, and why it is your responsibility to make the AJP aware of its obligations.

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Letter sent to Kirsten Gillibrand (Senator, New York) on April 7, 2014
Dear Senator Gillibrand,I spoke to Senator Schumer’s NYC office this afternoon to inquire about my correspondence with his office. I am under the impression that Senator Schumer has an ethical duty to assign a caseworker to my complaint against the State Department in connection with my request for a personal interview with Rose Gottemoeller.

I want to explain to the caseworker why an article (“Entropy and evolution”) published in the American Journal of Physics is fraudulent and should be retracted and why the article endangers the United States. I had such a meeting with the President of the Providence College Corporation (Fr. Brian Mulcahy, O.P.) on September 9, 2013. I accused the physics and biology departments of Providence College of helping the American Journal of Physics cover up the mistake it made in publishing the article. Fr. Mulcahy indicated that he would investigate my allegations, however, he has not told me what the results of his investigation were. Fr. Mulcahy is located in New York City (212-737-5757).

Very truly yours, David Roemer
Faxed to 866-824-6340
Attachments: Letters dated March 20, March 27, April 3; email dated April 1; two certificates of mailing.

Letter sent to Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, on April 21, 2014
Dear Mr. Secretary,
On 4/18/2014, I filed a complaint on the Homeland Security Investigations Tip Line against Rose Gottemoeller, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, and her science advisor Ronald Nelson for their reaction to the information I gave them concerning America’s security and foreign relations.
I want to meet with a member of your team in person to explain what I am concerned about.

Very truly yours, David Roemer
mailed with a certificate of mailing

Johnson

Letter sent to Rush Holt (D-NJ, 12th district) on April 25, 2014
50 Washington Rd
West Windsor, NJ 08550
Dear Congressman Holt,
I hope you accept the challenge I explained to you at yesterday’s reception of getting the American Journal of Physics to retract the divisive article about evolution and thermodynamics. As you well know, thermodynamics is the study of solids, liquids, and gases, and has nothing to do with the evolution of stars or living organisms.

The culture war about evolution is currently raising its ugly head at Ball State University where a professor of science is advocating the theory of intelligent design. A previous occurrence was reported in a 29-page congressional document titled, “Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution” (December 2006).

A retraction will constitute an admission that the scientific establishment in the United States is capable of being irrational about evolution. This might inspire advocates of intelligent design to stop promoting their irrational ideas about evolution.

We know that God exists because we are embodied spirits and because we are hoping or assuming the universe is intelligible. In my opinion, evolution is evidence that God does not exist because it is evidence that the universe is not intelligible. Evolution is, however, a reason to believe in the Bible because the Bible says God created the universe from nothing.

I recently sent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand a privacy release form in the expectation she will assign a caseworker for this scandal that involves the National Science Foundation, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State.

Very truly yours, David Roemer
Faxed to 609-750-0618 and  866-824-6340 (Sen. Gillibrand)

Letter sent to Senator Gillibrand on May 16, 2014
Dear Trisha and Jake,
One of your colleagues yesterday indicated that he did not know how to proceed with the National Science Foundation, the Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department concerning the absurd article about evolution published by the American Journal of Physics. I’d like to meet with you to explain why I think you have a duty to take the following steps:

Step 1: Contact Yvette Clarke (D-NY, 9th district) and inquire about the status of the congressional investigation of the AJP article. My correspondence with the NSF, Congressman Clarke, and Rush Holt (D-NJ, 12th district) is at http://newevangelist.me/2013/04/12/national-science-foundation/.
Congressman Holt has a Ph.D. in physics from New York University, which is where I got my Ph.D. in physics.
Step 2: Contact Jeh Johnson and Rose Gottemoeller about my request for an appointment. The AJP and its publishers are reluctant to retract the article because of the culture war in the United States about the teaching of evolution. One can describe this ongoing conflict as atheists vs God-fearers. This article makes the atheists look bad, in addition to disgracing every physicist in the United States. The article impacts negatively on our national security and international relations with Muslims. My correspondence about this is here:
http://newevangelist.me/2014/05/01/letter-to-secretary-of-homeland-security/
My discussions with the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security have been with Matthew Hoppler, who works in her office.
If I don’t hear from you in a week, I’ll file a complaint against Senator Gillibrand with the U. S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics.
Very truly yours, David Roemer

faxed to 866-824-6340 and mailed with a certificate of mailing

Letter received from Senator Gillibrand on June 2, 2014

Dear Mr. Roemer,
Senator Gillibrand has received your request for assistance regarding your concerns with the American Journal of Physics.

The Senator appreciates the trust and confidence that your request represents; however, we are unable to influence the publication, amendment, or redaction of articles appearing in peer reviewed scientific journals. Insofar as the staff of Rep. Yvette Clarke’s office has expressed a willingness to assist you, please contact them directly.

Please be assured that your request has received a through review, and it is our hope that your matter can be resolved to your satisfaction as soon as possible.

Sincerely yours, Kirstin Gillibrand

Letter faxed to U. S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics on June 8, 2014
John Sassaman, Chief Counsel
Re: Ethics Complaint Against Sen. Gillibrand faxed to your office on April 7 and May 16, 19, and 21.
Dear Mr. Sassaman,
In the accompanying fax, Sen. Gillibrand states she reviewed the material I submitted about “Entropy and evolution,” (American Journal of Physics, November 2008). In fact, her staff refused my request to explain the matter to them in person. In a nutshell, I am accusing the American scientific establishment of engaging in pseudoscience to promote atheism. The article undermines the integrity of science, exacerbates the controversy about the teaching of evolution, and interferes with our relationships with other nations. There is no way her staff could have investigated such an allegation without interviewing me.

Sen. Gillibrand also suggests that I contact Congressman Yvette Clarke (D-NY, 9th district). Congressman Clarke has already agreed to investigate my complaint against the American Journal of Physics and the National Science Foundation. My correspondence with Congressman Clarke and Congressman Rush Holt (D- NJ, 12th district) is on my blog (http://newevangelist.me/2013/04/12/national-science-foundation/). Congressman Holt has a Ph.D. in physics from New York University.

I asked Sen. Gillibrand for help in my request to see Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (Rose Gottemoeller) and the Secretary of Homeland Security (Jeh Johnson) about the negative impact the absurd article might have on American security and foreign relations. I was told that the Under Secretary was considering my request for an appointment.  I have not gotten any response from Mr. Johnson.

I suggest reading Evolution Revolution: Evolution is True. Darwin is Wrong. This Changes Everything by Alan BennettThis book exposes the anti-religion cult of Darwinism that many mainstream evolutionary biologists either follow or are browbeaten into following.

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Faxed to Phillip Sharp (American Association for the Advancement of Science), Beth Cunningham (American Association of Physics Teachers), John Haynes (American Institute of Physics), France Cordova (National Science Foundation), Yvette Clarke (D-NY, 9th district), Rush Holt (D-NJ, 12th district), Mariette DiChristina (Scientific American), Neil DeGrasse Tyson (Hayden Planetarium), David Ciancimino (New York Province of the Society of Jesus), John Sexton (New York University), Julie Schmid (American Association University Professors), and Willem Drees (Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science).

Letter sent to John Sassaman, Chief Counsel of U. S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics on June 23, 2014
Dear Mr. Sassaman,
On June 18, 2014, I faxed a letter to your office requesting an appointment and saying I would file a complaint against you with the D.C. Bar for unethical conduct for dismissing my complaint against Sen. Gillibrand.

Some time ago, I filed a lawsuit that was dismissed because there was no cause of action. This decision was just if the writing and reading skills of all involved were sufficient. However, I appealed and explained the case to a judge in person. This is the basis of my belief that due process of law requires face-to-face meetings. The decision against me was just because the judge took full responsibility for dismissing my case.

I feel that if you do not accept my request for a personal meeting with you, you will be behaving unethically.  It is as if the judge in my case turned off his hearing aid when I was talking. My accusation is that you are replicating the unethical behavior of Sen. Gillibrand.

Sen. Gillibrand’s dereliction of duty is her unwillingness to investigate the behavior of Rose Gottermoeller (Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security) and her science advisor, Robert Nelson.  On March 11, 2014, I sent a LinkedIn message to Dr. Nelson telling about Rep. Yvette Clark’s investigation of “Entropy and evolution,” (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008). The article is atheistic pseudoscience, and can have a negative effect on our foreign relations and security.

Nelson and Gottermoeller are no doubt mindful of the culture war in the United States about evolution. Scientists at the Smithsonian Institute behaved like a Nazi mob towards one of their colleagues for publishing a review article (“The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories”) because the author (Richard Sternberg) plugged the theory of intelligent design (ID). The peer-reviewers considered the reference to ID a harmless philosophical addendum that did not detract from the scientific value of the paper.  (See the 29-page congressional document titled, “Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution,” December 2006).

If the American Journal of Physics retracts the absurd article, it will be a victory for people that are “Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution” and a loss for atheists. This is why Dr. Nelson ignored my LinkedIn message. He could not defend the article, but he dared not agree that the article should be retracted. The Committee on Ethics, Rose Gottemoeller, and Kirstin Gillibrand are simply following Dr. Nelson’s dishonorable lead with the same cowardly motives.

The DC Bar complaint form asks “Have you filed a complaint about this matter elsewhere?” The answer is that I filed the complaint with Rep. Yvette Clarke and that the matter is under investigation.

Very truly yours, David Roemer
Enclosures:
Certificate of Mailing to Yvette Clarke (1/6/14)
Screen Shot of LinkedIn message to Robert Nelson
Faxed to 202-638-0862 (Office of Bar Counsel)
mailed with a certificate of mailing

Sassaman
Letter sent to Hon. Johnny Isakson on July 25, 2014, and all other members of the Senate Ethics Committee (Barbara Boxer, Pat Roberts, Mark Pryor, Sherrod Brown, and James Risch)
Dear Senator Isakson,
I sent you an email concerning my campaign to get the American Journal of Physics to retract an absurd article about evolution that exacerbates the conflict in the United States about the teaching of evolution and undermines the integrity of science in the United States. I believe my congressman, Yvette Clarke (D-NY, 9th district), investigated this matter or forwarded the issue to the Subcommittee on Research and Technology. I am writing to ask you to contact Rep. Clarke and find out the status of the investigation.

You have a special duty to do this because you are on the Committee on Ethics. On June 23, I sent a letter to Mr. John Sassaman threatening to file ethics charges against him with the Bar Association of the District of Columbia if he refused to meet with me so that I could explain the scandal. I faxed a copy to the D.C. Bar, and the Office of Bar Counsel ruled against me. In a telephone conversation July 22, 2014, Wallace Shipp, Bar Counsel, explained to me that Mr. Sassaman only has an ethical duty to meet with his clients. Mr. Shipp said that I should bring ethical charges against Mr. Sassaman with his clients “on the hill.”

My correspondence with Mr. Sassaman and Congressman Clarke is at:
http://newevangelist.me/2013/04/12/national-science-foundation/

I am willing to travel to Washington DC, at my own expense, to explain this entire matter to you.
Very truly yours, David Roemer

Faxed to 202-228-0724 and 770-661-0768
Faxed to 202-224-7416 (John Sassaman)
Faxed to 202-226-0112 (Yvette Clarke)
Mailed with certificate of mailing

BoxerIsaksonPryorBrown

 

Roberts


American Association for the Advancement of Science

Email from Science Magazine on May 23, 2012

Thank you for your note. As you might imagine, we do not get involved in these kinds of activities of other publishers.
Alan Leshner
CEO, AAAS
Executive Publisher, Science

Letter faxed to director of the AAAS on January 18, 2013

Dr. William H. Press
University of Texas at Austin
Department of Computer Science

Dear Dr. Press,
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.

Because of her leadership position in the AAPT, Jill Marshall (marshall@mail.utexas.edu) is supporting the AJP’s refusal to stop spreading misinformation about evolution. 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 (science_editors@aaas.org) and fax (202-289-7562).

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Open letter to Allen Goldman (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Physics Section) and Howard Wactlar (National Science Foundation, Division of Information and Intelligent Systems):

The American Journal of Physics published an article (“Entropy and evolution,” Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008) that begins with the statement: “The creationist argument is that advanced organisms are more orderly than primitive organisms, and hence as evolution proceeds living things become more ordered, that is less disordered, that is less entropic. Because the second law of thermodynamics prohibits a decrease in entropy, it therefore prohibits biological evolution.”

The author says, “Two anonymous referees made valuable suggestions that improved this article significantly.” This raises the possibility that the peer-reviewers were more interested in anti-creationist propaganda than in making sure the article is a contribution to scientific knowledge.

The article says evolution decreased the entropy of the biosphere and estimates the decrease in joule/degrees. The article’s statements about evolution and entropy are unintelligible.

I pointed out the errors and misinformation in the article to American Journal of Physics, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics in a number of communications. The AJP, the AAPT, and the AIP are refusing to retract the article, which I think is the only remedy for its nonsense. I refer you to the following sources of information about evolution and thermodynamics:

  1. McIntosh, A.C., “Information and entropy – top -down or bottom-up development in living systems?”, Int. J. of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol. 4, No. 4 (2009), pp. 351 to 385.
  2. Fourth paragraph of Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis, and Agnes Babloyantz, “Thermodynamics of evolution”, Physics Today 25(11) (1972), pp. 23 to 28. View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3071090.
  3. http://creationwiki.org/Pseudoscience_in_the_American_Journal_of_Physics
  4. My article in http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf
  5. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/more_philosophical_than_scient052441.html

Very truly yours, David Roemer