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


The Truth About the Shroud of TurinS

Letter to the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of New York dated April 12, 2012
Dear Bishop Sullivan:
The following is a letter of complaint against the pastor of the Church of St Paul at East 117th Street in New York, Msgr. Greg Mustaciuolo, Sr. Joan Curtin, and Sr. Pauline Chirchirillo.

Sr. Maria Madre de la Sabiduria, SSVM, invited me to give a slideshow/lecture (http://www.holyshroud.info) about the Shroud of Turin on March 30, 2011, at the Church of St. Paul. On March 27 in a telephone conversation, Sr. Maria expressed some concern over the fact that I was not promoting the theory that the Shroud was authentic. I suggested that nobody in the audience would notice that nuance. We agreed that Sr.Maria would address the audience after my talk about the Shroud. The next day, Sr. Maria left a message on my answering machine cancelling the slideshow.

I didn’t check my messages and arrived at the church with my projector and slides. It was the pastor’s decision, not Sr. Maria’s, to cancel my talk. The pastor said he thought I believed the Shroud was authentic because I am on the Shroud Speakers Directory at The Shroud of Turin Website (http://www.shroud.com). He seemed to think the Catholic Church taught that the Holy Shroud was authentic. He certainly believed the image was created with a burst of radiation when Jesus rose from the dead. He mentioned how moved he was to see the Shroud up close up in Italy, but he deprived the group that night of the same experience.

The Catholic Church grants indulgences to people who pray before the Shroud itself or an image of the Shroud. I feel my slides of the Holy Shroud are just as deserving of veneration as the cloth itself. I feel that the pastor desecrated the Holy Shroud by depriving his parishioners of the experience of seeing a miraculous artifact.

I contacted the other individuals by email and telephone to tell them about my slideshow/lecture in 2011. No one gave me any help or encouragement. I was pretty much given a runaround. I feel they desecrated the Holy Shroud just as much as the pastor of The Church of St. Paul.

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Letter from Archbishop Sullivan dated May 10, 2012
Dear Mr. Roemer,
Your April 12th email to my office concerning Father Claudio Stewart outlines your complaint about him and Sister Maria Madre de la Sabiduria. I suggest that you should resolve the issue as it is personal between you and them. It is not a matter that requires my involvement on behalf of the archdiocese of New York as it is personal. I have shared your letter with Father Stewart and asked him to speak with Sister.

Sincerely yours, Bishop Dennis J. Sullivan, Vicar General

Letter to the Vicar General dated May 22, 2012
Dear Bishop Sullivan,
I got your letter of May 10, 2012, and had a lengthy conversation with Sister Maria Madre de la Sabiduria on May 17, 2012. There is no way I can resolve the issue with Fr. Stewart and Sister without the help of a third party.

What I suggest is that I give my slideshow/lecture about the history and science of the Holy Shroud to Sister and Fr. Stewart with other people in the audience, preferably Catholics knowledgeable about fundamental theology.

Religion produces conflict, conflict produces anxiety, and inhibition is a defense mechanism for anxiety. When it comes to the Holy Shroud, many people are inhibited from thinking intelligently. They have thoughts that give them some kind of personal satisfaction, but their thoughts cut them off from other people.

Fr. Stewart, for example, is personally devoted to the Holy Shroud. But he deprived his parishioners from learning about a relic about which over 1,000 books have been published.

I am a member of the Princeton Club at 15 West 43rd St., and can get a meeting room in the morning with breakfast cheap. Without breakfast it is more expensive.

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Email sent to Cardinal George on July 10, 2012, and letter to Cardinal Wuerl on July 31, 2012
Your Eminence,
I’v developed a slideshow/lecture about the Shroud of Turin that you can see at http://www.holyshroud.info. I told a number of officials in the Archdiocese of New York about my talk in 2011 with the expectation of getting support and direction. Instead, I was given a runaround.

Acting on the advice of Fr. Daniel Gatti, Alumni Chaplain of Fordham, I contacted churches directly. I was invited to give a talk at a church in Harlem on March 30. When I arrived with my projector, the pastor told me he cancelled the talk. His reason was that I was not promoting the theory that the Holy Shroud is the actual burial cloth referred to in the Gospels. I’v attached the flyer for the event.

The pastor deprived his parishioners of the experience of seeing the Holy Shroud and learning of its history and the science of the image. My presentation includes the prayer supposed to be said when looking at an image of the Holy Shroud. I feel the pastor desecrated the Holy Shroud. In my opinion, he is also deceiving himself about the history the Holy Shroud, which is part of our salvation history.

I filed a complaint against this pastor and the officials with Bishop Dennis Sullivan, the Vicar General. Bishop Sullivan’s response to my complaint and my subsequent correspondence is blameworthy in a number of different ways, so it seems to me. He is in effect supporting the actions of the pastor.

I’v already contacted Bishop David Ricken and Bishop Gregory Mansour of the Evangelization and Catechesis office of the USCCB in the hope that they would help me resolve my complaint against the pastor which has now escalated into a complaint against the Vicar General. They have not been helpful. Bishop Mansour told me in an email that he “believed in the Shroud.”

I’ll be grateful for any help or guidance you can give me.

If there is anything I can do to be of service to you or the Archdiocese of New York, please let me know.

Yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer

Email from Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com) dated August 16, 2012
Dear David,
Thanks again for your inquiry. I forwarded your suggestion to the production team but they are not interested in another Shroud of Turin show at this time.

We discussed the Shroud of Turin with Dr. Niels Svensson just last year– If you are interested you can listen to the archived show by following this link: http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/how-did-jesus-die-pre-recorded-5000 and selecting “Listen” or “Download” in the upper right corner of the page.

Thank you and God bless, the Radio Department

Email to Catholic Answers  on August 18, 2012

What concerns me is that your production team believes the Holy Shroud is authentic, and doesn’t want me to explain the true history and science of the relic. The Patrick Coffin podcast discussed the Holy Shroud in a way that might cause Catholics, in this age of atheism, to lose their faith. The theory that the Shroud is authentic is farfetched.

The Holy Shroud is a sign that Jesus is alive in a new life with God, and the history and science of the relic should be publicized in an honest and rational manner. The pastor in New York City, who cancelled my slideshow/lecture, deprived his parishioners of the experience of seeing the Holy Shroud. The pastor was also unwilling to discuss the history and science of the Holy Shroud with me. I suspect that he was inhibited from such a discussion because of anxiety. Christians should not be anxious about their faith, but should give their reasons for believing and should summon everyone to believe in Jesus.

It is not just that one pastor whose behavior was fearful. All the cardinals, bishops, and monsignors that I have contacted about my slideshow/lecture have reacted in a way that shows the Holy Shroud causes them anxiety.

The disingenuousness of your response is another instance of fearful behavior. Catholic Answers never acknowledged receipt of my correspondence with the Archdiocese of New York about the Holy Shroud. The proposed radio show is not just about the Holy Shroud, it is about the existing conflict I am having with the Archdiocese of New York. Did you really expect me to believe you were not interested because you just did a show on the Holy Shroud last year?

Email from Jeff Mirus of Trinity Communications dated August 24, 2012
David–
The shroud is not an important point of salvation history, and the Church has never pronounced on its authenticity, leaving that entirely to the scientific community.

However, I can understand why a pastor would not want to sponsor a program debunking the shroud, as he probably believes (as I do) that the evidence is far stronger pro than con– and–more important– he is aware as a pastor how easily people can be upset in their faith on an issue which should not affect their faith at all.

Jeff Mirus, Trinity Communications

Letter to Cardinal Dolan dated August 28, 2012
Your Eminence:
I developed a slideshow/lecture about the Shroud of Turin (http://www.holyshroud.info, attached transcript) and think you should know about the negative reaction of Catholics to my analysis of the science, history, and theology of the Holy Shroud. After sending emails to Newman clubs, Catholic colleges, and Catholic churches in Brooklyn and Manhattan, I got only one invitation to speak. To my chagrin, the pastor cancelled the talk at the last minute on the grounds that I was not promoting the authenticity of the relic. I am the only one on the Shroud Speakers Directory of The Shroud of Turin Website (www.shroud.com) who does not think the Holy Shroud is authentic.

My impression is that the question of the authenticity of this precious relic causes anxiety. Inhibition is a defense mechanism for anxiety, and everyone I have contacted seems to be afraid of even discussing the matter. Bishop Dennis Sullivan, for example, did not respond to my invitation of May 22, 2012 to attend a proposed lecture at the Princeton Club. My invitation was a response to his letter to me dated May 10, 2012 in answer to my letter of complaint against certain clerics in the Archdiocese of New York of April 12, 2012.

I’v included my email correspondence with Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com). There has been no response from Catholic Answers to my criticism of a radio show they produced about the Holy Shroud last year.

I also sent an email to Cardinal George that was not acknowledged. Cardinal Wuerl responded with the enclosed letter. I have also contacted Bishop David Ricken and Bishop Gregory Mansour. All are members of the Office of Evangelization and Catechesis of the USCCB.

The science and history of the Holy Shroud is part of our salvation history. The Catholic Church in America should broadcast our salvation history to everyone. No part of our salvation history should be obscured and covered up with half-truths and misrepresentations.

Yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer

Enclosures:
Announcement
Transcript
Letters dated April 12, May 10, May 22
Email to Cardinal George dated July 10
Emails to and from Catholic Answers dated August 16 and August 18.
Letter from Cardinal Wuerl
Emails to and from Catholic Culture

Letter from Cardinal Dolan dated September 5, 2012
Dear Dr. Roemer
Thank you most sincerely for your letter of August 28, 2012, together with the enclosures. Your thoughtfulness is deeply appreciated.

To begin, Dr. Roemer, I don’t think that you should equate a lack of interest in your slideshow/lecture, with the Church’s unwillingness to determine the authenticity of the Shroud. Through the centuries, the Holy See has permitted the shroud to be scientifically tested, and there have been countless articles, books, and documentaries in this regard.

While I do no know Mr. Jeff Mirus, of Trinity Communications, I think the reasons he gives for the decision of the Harlem pastors to cancel your slideshow/lecture make perfect sense. Until the Church has made a final pronouncement on the authenticity of the shroud, with more pros than cons at this time, why would a pastor want to sponsor an event that debunks the shroud.

With prayerful best wishes for a blessed fall, I am

Faithfully in Christ, Timothy Michael Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York

Letter to Cardinal Dolan dated September 17, 2012
Your Eminence:
Thank you for your letter concerning the cancellation of my advertised (“Conference About the Shroud of Turin”) slideshow/lecture five minutes before I was to begin. The pastor in charge thought my slideshow was “debunking” the Holy Shroud because it gives an unbiased account of the history and science of this important relic.

The human mind is structured like the scientific method. The lowest level is observation, which requires paying attention. At the level of inquiry, humans ask questions about what they observe. This requires intelligence, and extremely intelligent humans invent theories or hypotheses to answer the questions. At the level of reflective judgment, humans marshal the evidence and decide whether a theory is true or just probable. This level requires being rational. The next level is deciding what to do with our bodies, which requires being responsible.

Intelligence is usually a measure of how fast or how slow it takes someone to grasp a theory or insight. In the case of religion, there is so much conflict and anxiety that people are inhibited from thinking intelligently and rationally. Humans have blind spots and are biased.

According to John Paul II (Slide #6), the Holy Shroud is a sign or a reason to believe in revelation because “no one at present can explain” the image. A related sign is the Resurrection of Jesus, which is an historical event that can’t be explained in terms of any other historical event. Whereas the Shroud is a miraculous artifact that everyone can see, the Resurrection is a miraculous event that cannot be seen. The Holy Shroud is part of the historical Jesus, and I consider its mysteriousness just as persuasive a reason to believe in Jesus as the Resurrection.

According to Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan (The First Christmas: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus’ Birth), the Resurrection can be traced to within a few years of Jesus’ death. Since Borg and Crossan do not have the gift of faith, this admission, and others like it by nonbelievers, proves Jesus appeared to his followers after he died. Crossan and Borg deny, however, that Jesus was buried in a tomb. On this matter, I side with Raymond Brown who said Jesus’ burial in a tomb is historically certain (The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: Commentary on the Passion Narrative in the Four Gospels).

The Holy Shroud is a reason to believe Jesus is alive in a new life with God not just because the image is inexplicable (Slides #7, #11 to #23, and #30). It is a sign because the Catholic Church believes in Jesus and the Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Shroud and images of the Holy Shroud should be venerated (Slides #6, #8, and #10). As with all relics, it is not the physical object that deserves to be honored, but the person the relic represents.

A similar sign, as I explain in Slide #6, is the discovery in the 1960s that the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang, as this phenomena is called, is a reason to believe God inspired the human authors of the Bible because John says that God created the universe from nothing (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God …”).

I don’t consider the Big Bang evidence of God’s existence. The evidence of God’s existence is the spirituality of the human soul and the intelligibility of the universe. The lack of any theory of the Big Bang is evidence the universe is not intelligible, so I consider the Big Bang evidence that God does not exist.

The question of what caused the Big Bang brings up the much-discussed conflict between science and religion. One supposed instance of this conflict was the disagreement between the Catholic Church and Galileo over the Copernican system. I think the Church exercised better judgment than Galileo because the stars were fixed in space. The shift in the position of stars during Earth’s rotation around the Sun was not observed until a century later with the improvement of telescopes. This was not a conflict, but a disagreement between rational and intelligent people about evidence.

In my opinion, the controversy over whether the Holy Shroud is the actual linen cloth referred to in the Gospels is indeed a conflict—not a disagreement about evidence. The question of the Holy Shroud’s authenticity is related to the question of what caused the Big Bang because of the scientific question of what caused the bloody image of a crucified man. Fr. Manuel Carriera, a physicist and member of the Vatican Astronomical Observatory, thinks that the Holy Shroud is authentic and the image is an epiphenomenon of the Resurrection. He also thinks God caused the Big Bang.

Thinking God caused the Big Bang is just speculating about the content of revelation. Likewise, there is very little evidence supporting the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. These two theories are anti-evangelical because we live in an age where there are many people who think believing in God is irrational. Preaching the gospel means preaching to nonbelievers and preventing believers from becoming nonbelievers. This requires understanding nonbelievers and following Matthew’s advice to present Christian doctrine judiciously (“…neither cast ye your pearls before swine…”)

Many nonbelievers have a blind spot about the mind-body problem. They grasp only two solutions to the question of what the relationship is between ourselves and our bodies: dualism and materialism. They don’t understand the insight that the human mind is a mystery and humans are embodied spirits. It is a failure at the level of inquiry, not a failure at the level reflective judgment.

However, these same nonbelievers are intelligent and rational about the cause of the Big Bang. They realize there is no evidence that God or an angel caused the Big Bang. They reject the idea that the universe is unintelligible, and hope that science will someday understand the cause of the Big Bang.

Many nonbelievers will admit that the human mind is a mystery, but they consider the Big Bang a mystery too. This means they don’t know what a mystery is. They don’t grasp the difference between these two questions: 1) Why is the sky blue? 2) What is knowing the sky is blue? Christians have a duty to explain the difference between these two questions so that nonbelievers can understand why humans are embodied spirits and why God exists. We should build upon what people already know and understand. Telling stories about the laws of physics being violated only confirms the assumption that believing in God is irrational.

On March 30, 2012, the pastor’s congregation was five minutes away from seeing the Holy Shroud and being moved by the image. How would the parishioners have reacted to the theory (Slide #30) that the blood stains and body image on the 14-foot by 3-foot piece of linen were somehow created by heretics in the 1st or 2nd century after torturing and crucifying a volunteer or victim?

There is a 2002 movie titled Signs about a married Catholic priest (Mel Gibson) who lost his faith because his wife died in a freak accident. The priest regained his faith when his son survived an attack by an alien from another planet. The weapon the alien used was a dose of poison gas injected into the child’s nostrils. By coincidence, the child had an asthma attack and was unable to breath in the poison. The Mel Gibson character interpreted the coincidence to be a sign from God and regained his faith. My hope is that the parishioners would have thought it is quite a coincidence that there exists a two-thousand-year-old image—not a painting or a photograph—of the man who is believed to have saved mankind two thousand years ago.

My metaphysics teacher in college was Fr. Norris Clark who told us that finding oneself in error is wonderful experience because it helps us understand how other people can be in error. I’m praying the pastor sees that he made a mistake.
Yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer
Enclosures
Script of slide show
DVD of Signs

Email to Archbishop Gomez of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles dated 10/1/2012
Your Excellency,
I have a slideshow/lecture about the Shroud of Turin (http://www.holyshroud.info), and have gotten into a conflict with Cardinal Timothy Dolan about it. The attached letter to His Eminence tells the story. The letter does not say so, but Cardinal Dolan indicated that he thought I was “debunking” the Holy Shroud. I’m hoping you will bring the matter up with the synode on the New Evangelization. My letter to the Archbishop and a transcript of the lecture is attached.

Sr. Paula Jean Miller, Sr. Sara Butler, and Fr. Ralph Martin have gotten this email, but they don’t seem interested in the subject of the Holy Shroud.

Asking Your Excellency’s blessing, I am, yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer

Email to Sister Mary Lou Wirtz dated 10/4/12. Subject: Re:Re Letter
Dear Sister,
I hope you agree that Cardinal Dolan and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which I have also contacted, is harming the new evangelization by suppressing my lecture/slideshow (http://www.holyshroud.info). All of my correspondence is at http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/. A related controversy is over the theory of intelligent design (ID).

I don’t have any ideas about how these two topics (Holy Shroud and ID) can be brought up at the Synod. But I can tell you about the conflict I am having with the Academy of Catholic Theology and First Things about evolution.

Evolution is the theory that life evolved from bacteria to mammals in a period of 3.5 billion years. There is a lot of evidence for it, and scientists judge the theory to be true. Creationists are including evidence from the Bible, which makes their point of view a matter of faith.

The only theory that even attempts to explain evolution is the theory of intelligent design, but there is no evidence for this bright idea. The theory of natural selection only explains the adaptation of species to the environment. Natural selection explains why giraffes have long necks, but now how giraffes evolved from bacteria in only 3.5 billion years. Biologists always speak of “adaptive evolution.” The old model for evolution was a tornado hitting a junkyard and producing a Boeing 747 in flight. The new model is a computer generating an English sonnet by the random selection of letters. The advantage of the new model is that you can calculate how long it will take a computer to do such a thing.

Advocates of ID compare ID with natural selection to make ID look better. Atheists go along with the scam because they don’t want to admit that ID is a better theory than natural selection, in some sense.

The second law of thermodynamics is that nature tends towards a state of disorder. This is why a gas will fill up the entire container it is in. The second law does not apply to biological evolution or the evolution of stars. Nevertheless, the American Journal of Physics published an article with an absurd equation proving that evolution did not violate the second law. The Catholic Truth of Scotland newsletter published my explanation of why the AJP should retract the article.

Stephen Barr is a prominent physicist who writes about evolution on the pages of First Things. He is also a member of the Academy of Catholic Theology. He told me in an email that I was wrong and the AJP article was right, and that I was harming the Catholic Church. In my opinion, Barr is harming the Catholic Church. Barr does not go so far as to advocate ID, but he doesn’t say there is no evidence for ID. His argument is that ID is not science. In my opinion, Barr is helping atheists propagate misinformation about evolutionary biology. Barr should be expelled from the Academy of Catholic Theology because he is lying about science (http://newevangelist.me/2012/08/02/first-things/).

I’v attached the AJP article and a version of the article published in the Catholic Truth of Scotland. These are some links to more information about my conflict with the AJP, First Things, and the Academy of Catholic Theology:

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf

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-2/

My YouTube video titled “The Truth About Evolution and Religion” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ) also sheds light on this issue.

Email sent to Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, on November 13, 2012
Your Excellency,
Cardinal Dolan is suppressing my slideshow/lecture on the history, theology, and science of the Shroud of Turin (www.holyshroud.info), and I am hoping you can help us resolve this conflict. My correspondence with the Archdiocese of New York is on my blog at

http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/

Cardinal Dolan did not answer my rebuttal to his letter of September 5, 2012.

I’v attached a transcript of the slideshow.

Yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer

Letter sent to Vatican on 11/19/12Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella,Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization, on November 19, 2012
Your Excellency,
I sent the following message on the contact page of http://www.annusfidei.va on November 18, 2012:

On March 30, 2012, I arrived at a church in New York City to give a slideshow/lecture (“The Truth About the Shroud of Turin”; http://www.holyshroud.info). To my dismay and chagrin, the pastor cancelled my presentation because it does not promote the authenticity of this important relic. After explaining the science, history, and theology of the Holy Shroud, the slideshow gives evidence that Gnostics created the artifact in the 1st or 2nd century with methods that have been lost to history.

I complained to Bishop Denis Sullivan, Vicar General, to no avail. My invitation to attend a proposed my slideshow/lecture was ignored. Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, sent me a letter saying I was “debunking” the Holy Shroud. He did not respond to my answer of this criticism, which is at http://newevangelist.me/shroud-of-turin/.

The Cardinal Archbishops of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington D.C. all ignored my requests for support, as did Bishops David Ricken and Gregory Mansour of the Office of Evangelization and Catechesis of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Archbishop Vignanò, papal nuncio to the United States. Most of my correspondence is at http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/.

The science and history of the Holy Shroud is part of our salvation history. The Catholic Church in America should broadcast our salvation history to everyone. No part of our salvation history should be obscured and covered up with half-truths and misrepresentations.

Respectfully yours in Christ, David Roemer

Email from Under-Secretary for the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization on October 3, 2013
Dear Mr. Roemer,
We are in receipt of your recent fax, dated October 2, 2013, in which you inquire if Archbishop Rino Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization, is in receipt of your letter of November 19, 2012. I can inform you that Archbishop Fisichella did indeed receive the letter in question. We have not replied to your letter thus far owing to the considerable volume of work in our Dicastery engendered by the onset of the Year of Faith, of which we hold the organizing secretariat, and to the subsequent attribution to us of the competency over Catechesis hitherto exercised by the Congregation for Clergy.

Given the subject matter of your letter, I would suggest that you write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Concerning your request as to whether Cardinal Schönborn has received your letter of August 15, 2013, we would have no way of knowing this and I can only suggest that you make inquiries of the Cardinal’s secretariat in Vienna.

With every good wish, Msgr. Graham Bell

Letter sent to Archbishop Stefan Soroka of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia on November 27, 2013
Your Excellency:
This is a follow-up of the conversations I had with your secretary and the emails I sent about the Shroud of Turin. I’m in a conflict with Timothy Cardinal Dolan about the authenticity of the Holy Shroud and an article published by the American Journal of Physics about evolutionary biology. I am writing to ask to see you in person about these matters.

The reasons for believing in Jesus can be grouped under these facts:

  1. Jesus was a Jewish prophet.
  2. The Resurrection of Jesus is an historical event.
  3. According to Robert Drews (In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins), the Shroud of Turin was created by Gnostics in the 1st or 2nd century with methods that have been lost to history, except that the body of a crucified victim or volunteer must have been used.

I consider the cosmological proof of God’s existence to be part of #1. People who feel strongly the Holy Shroud is authentic don’t fully understand the proof and why there are so many atheists and agnostics. You can’t effectively preach the gospel in this day and age without understanding the blind spots of non-believers.

Cardinal Dolan, with the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, is suppressing my slideshow/lecture (http://www.holyshroud.info) because I don’t promote the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. This replicates a common mistake made by historians and Christian apologists. They ask and attempt to answer these questions: What caused the Resurrection? Did Jesus really cure a lame person? I don’t consider these to be reasonable historical questions because there are no theories with any evidence to support them. Rational people ask whether Jesus is alive in a new life with God and consider out entire salvation history.

Concerning the AJP, Cardinal Dolan told me he did not have jurisdiction over the Jesuits whose integrity I was questioning. I’v brought the matter to the attention of the American Association of University Professors and was told that the Executive Director (Julie Schmidt) is investigating my allegations.

Very truly yours, David Roemer
faxed and mailed with a certificate of mailing
letter to AAUP enclosed

Letter sent to Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church on February 15, 2014
Your Beatitude,
I have the grounds and authorization to file a complaint against Timothy Cardinal Dolan of the Archdiocese of New York and Archbishop Stefan Soroka of the Metropolitan Archeparchy of Philadelphia with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for discouraging the veneration of the Shroud of Turin and inhibiting evangelization. My correspondence about this matter is at:

http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/

Archbishop Soroka is relying on Russ Breault (http://shroudencounter.com/) for his information about the Holy Shroud. In his lectures about the Holy Shroud, Mr. Breault fails to mention the theory that Gnostics created the Holy Shroud in the 1st or 2nd century using a crucified victim and methods that have been lost to history. In my opinion, Mr. Breault is misrepresenting our salvation history.

I have asked the Office of Evangelization and Catechesis of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for help in resolving this conflict to no avail. I am hoping you will use your influence to resolve this matter on American soil.

Asking Your Beatitude’s blessing, I am, yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer
registered letter, return receipt requested
Cc: Bishop David L. Ricken, Diocese of Green Bay, PO Box 23825, Green Bay, WI 54305, mailed with certificate of mailing

Letter sent to Gerhard Cardinal Müller of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on February 21, 2014
Your Eminence,
I was invited to present my slideshow/lecture (http://www.holyshroud.info) about Shroud of Turin at a Catholic church in New York, N.Y., on March 30, 2012. At the last minute, the pastor cancelled my presentation. He objected to my defense of the theory that Gnostics created the Holy Shroud in the 1st or 2nd century using a crucified victim and methods that have been lost to history (Robert Drews, In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on its History and Origins). Cardinal Dolan supported the pastor’s decision and stated that I was “debunking” this important relic in a letter dated September 5, 2012. I filed a complaint with the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization and was advised to bring the matter to your attention. I sent an email to cdf@cfaith.va on October 3, 2013. My correspondence about this matter and my attempt to explain to Cardinal Dolan why his conduct is harmful is at

http://www.newevangelization.info/shroud.html
http://www. newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/

In the meantime, I found out about books published in 2006 and 2012 that use the assumption of the Shroud’s authenticity to give an atheistic explanation of the Resurrection of Jesus. It gave me greater reasons to think Cardinal Dolan does not understand our salvation history and is weak in fundamental theology. I reviewed these books at

http://www.newevangelization.info/loken.html
http://www.newevangelization.info/wesselow.html

I’v had telephone conversations with the new Vicar General of the New York Archdiocese (Bishop Gerald Walsh) and his chief of staff. They are aware of my intention to ask you to correct Cardinal Dolan.

Asking the blessing of Your Eminence, I am, Yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer

Sent by registered letter, return receipt requested
faxed to 3906698834809 and emailed

Email sent to Bruno Barberis (museo@sindone.org) on May 7, 2014
Dear Prof. Barberis,
I submitted an abstract promoting the theory that Gnostics created the Holy Shroud (http://www.holyshroud.info) in the 1st or 2nd century using a crucified victim and methods that have been lost to history. The administrators have rejected my offer without giving any explanation.

I asked another speaker, Bishop Michael Sheridan of the Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs, to boycott the conference. I think you have a moral duty to do the same because the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith is considering my request that they correct Cardinal Dolan of New York for suppressing my slideshow/lecture about this sacred artifact. My correspondence with the Pontifical Council on the New Evangelization and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is at

www. newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/

In my letter to Cardinal Mueller, I referred to two books written by atheists that assumed the Holy Shroud was authentic in order to give an historical explanation for the Resurrection. You should not preach the gospel by misrepresenting our salvation history.
Very truly your, David Roemer

Letter faxed to Very Rev. Michael Sheridan, Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs and Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia, Archdiocese of Turin, on May 8, 2014
Dear Bishop Sheridan,
I just spoke to Mark Antonacci (636-938-3708), who is on the committee of the St. Louis Shroud Conference (Oct. 9 to Oct. 12, 2014) that rejected my request to be a presenter. He very clearly stated that there is more evidence the Holy Shroud is authentic than the theory presented in my slideshow/lecture (http://www.holyshroud.info), which is that Gnostics created this official relic using methods that have been lost to history. He thought there was so little evidence Gnostics were involved that it did not deserve to be presented at the conference. This means the presenters at the conference will be misrepresenting our salvation history.

I have asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith to correct Cardinal Timothy Dolan for his handling of an incident that occurred on March 30, 2012, at a parish in Manhattan. See: http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/.

I arrived to present my slideshow, and the pastor cancelled it. When I complained to Bishop Walsh, the Vicar General, he said the matter did not concern him. Cardinal Dolan sent me a letter saying I was “debunking” the Holy Shroud.

I want to meet with the referees of the conference and explain to them why people who think the Holy Shroud is authentic should keep it to themselves. I am mailing this with a certificate of mailing in the event I decide that the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is not doing its duty. If this happens, I will file a complaint with the Holy Father against Cardinal Müeller. I am sending this to the Custodian of the Shroud because his advisor is a scheduled presenter.
Very truly yours, David Roemer

Letter faxed and emailed to Gerhard Cardinal Müller, mailed to Timothy Cardinal Dolan, emailed to Dr. Ermano Cardelli, and faxed to Bishop Michael Sheridan and Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia on July 7, 2014.
Your Eminence,
There are some new developments concerning my complaint against Cardinal Dolan of New York (mailed and faxed on February 21, 2014 and emailed on October 3, 2013) and Bishop Michael Sheridan of the Diocese of Colorado Springs (emailed and faxed on May 7, 2014) for suppressing my slideshow/lecture (http://www.holyshroud.info) about the Holy Shroud because it discusses the history and science of this important relic honestly. In the 20th century, pro-religion apologists argued that the Holy Shroud was authentic, but now atheists use the authenticity of the Holy Shroud to explain away the Resurrection of Jesus.

I have submitted the attached paper to the Italy section of the International Electronic and Electrical Engineers for a conference titled “2014 IEEE Workshop on Advances in the Shroud of Turin Investigations.” It supports and helps clarify my slideshow/lecture. If it is accepted, I will go to Bari, Italy, on September 4, 2014, and present the paper. This means my paper will be published in the IEEE Xplore Digital Library.

Unfortunately, Dr. Bruno Barberis, who is the scientific consultant to the Papal Custodian of the Shroud (Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia), rejected my submission. Fortunately, Dr. Ermanno Cardelli of the University of Perugia has agreed to ask the committee to reconsider its hasty decision.
Asking the blessing of Your Eminence, I am, Yours respectfully in Christ,  David Roemer

Letter sent to João Bráz de Aviz of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Life on August 20, 2014
Your Eminence,
To my dismay and shock, a number of Catholic clergy and laymen are suppressing my slideshow/lecture about the Shroud of Turin (http://www.holyshroud.info). A presentation I was scheduled to make on March 30, 2012, was cancelled. I have asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to correct Timothy Cardinal Dolan for his handling of this incident.

My correspondence with the Archdiocese of New York, the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Francis Cardinal George, Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop Josè Gòmez, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Stefan Soroka, Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, Bishop David Ricken, Archbishop Michael Sheridan, and Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia (Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin) is posted at

http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/

There has been a new development that has the potential of exposing the Catholic Church to criticism. I submitted a paper to a conference sponsored by the International Electrical and Electronic Engineers about the Shroud of Turin. This paper is posted at

https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/roemer.pdf

One of the science advisors to Archbishop Nosiglia (Bruno Barberis) rejected my submission, and I filed a complaint against him with the Ethics and Members Conduct Committee of the IEEE. My complaint against Cardinal Dolan and Dr. Barberis is that they are misrepresenting our salvation history and practicing pseudoscience by promoting the irrational theory that the Holy Shroud is authentic. Their motive for doing this may be to evangelize, but it will be viewed by the world as dishonest proselytizing.

If the IEEE rules against Dr. Barberis, it will in effect be ruling against Cardinal Dolan. It will be better for the Catholic Church if the Catholic Church corrects Cardinal Dolan rather than an organization whose dedication to scientific and historical truth is not questioned by any rational person.

On August 6, 2014, I requested an appointment with the Archbishop Viganò to explain why Cardinal Dolan and Dr. Barberis are behaving recklessly and irresponsibly in hope that he would facilitate a resolution of this conflict. I have not gotten a response to this request.

Asking the blessing of Your Eminence, I am, Yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer
Faxed to 39.06.69884526, sent by registered mail, and emailed on August 19, 2014.
Enclosed: Flyer; letters from Bishop Sullivan, Cardinal Wuerl, Cardinal Dolan, IEEE, and Bishop Soroka; proof of mailings (Archbishop Sheridan, Archbishop Fisichella, Archbishop Shevchuk, Cardinal Müller, Bishop Ricken)

Letter mailed to Timothy Cardinal Dolan and Bishop Michael Sheridan on August 25, 2014
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Your Eminence,
I am writing to ask for an appointment to explain to you why you are quite mistaken in thinking there is evidence that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. I’v enclosed the letters I sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (2/21/14) and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Life (8/20/14) about this matter. As it stands, I think you and Bishop Michael Sheridan of the Diocese of Colorado Springs are guilty of violating Canon 279 §3, which concerns your duty to “acquire knowledge of other sciences, especially of those which are connected with the sacred sciences….” Bishop Sheridan is supporting the St. Louis Shroud Conference 2014, which, like the 2014 IEEE Workshop on Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation, accepts only presentations that promote the authenticity of the Holy Shroud.

If we can’t resolve this conflict between us, I’ll be filing a canonical complaint against you with the Holy Father. If you refuse this invitation for a meeting, I will consider it evidence of lack of sincerity and lack of respect for non-clerical members of the Catholic Church.

Asking the blessing of Your Eminence, I am, Yours respectfully in Christ,
David Roemer
Sent by registered letter, return receipt requested
cc Very Rev. Michael Sheridan
Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs
228 N. Cascade Ave
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Sent by registered letter, return receipt requested

Letter faxed to Rev. Msgr. Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Chancellor of The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on September 11, 2014
Dear Monsignor,
Some comments you made were quoted at

http://shroudstory.com/2014/09/11/a-reason-to-not-do-more-scientific-testing-on-the-shroud/.

I think you should know that the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers withdrew its sponsorship of a conference that took place last week in Bari, Italy, about the Shroud of Turin. I am a member of the IEEE and have pending before its Ethics and Members Conduct Committee a complaint against Bruno Barbaris, et. al., for rejecting the paper I submitted to the conference because it did not support certain stories in the gospels. This is the rejected paper:

https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/roemer.pdf

I am also planning to file a canonical complaint against Cardinal Dolan of New York with the Holy Father for suppressing my slideshow/lecture about the Holy Shroud. My correspondence with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Life is at

http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/

This essay tries to explain why Catholics without any training in fundamental theology think the Shroud is authentic:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Cognitive-Dissonance-and-the-Shroud-of-Turin&id=8716559

Very truly yours, David Roemer
Faxed to +39 06 698 85218, Cardinal Müller (+390669883409), and Cardinal (390669884526), and Archbishop Nosiglia (0115156338)

Letter to His Holiness Francis mailed on October 1, 2014
Your Holiness,
Enclosed is a canonical complaint against Cardinal Timothy Dolan for suppressing my slideshow/lecture about the Shroud of Turin. Only one pastor in New York and Brooklyn invited me to speak, and that invitation was canceled. I’v enclosed the flyer advertising that talk, and Cardinal Dolan’s letter supporting the pastor’s decision. I asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Life to correct Cardinal Dolan in letters dated February 21, 2014 and August 20, 2014. Copies of the proof of delivery enclosed, as well as proof of delivery of letters to Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk and Bishop Michael Sheridan. My correspondence is at http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin.

Pseudoscience is misrepresenting science with the conscious or unconscious motive of promoting a religious sect or philosophy. The theory that the Shroud of Turin is authentic is an example of pseudoscience. Another example of pseudoscience that involves the Catholic Church is the error that biological evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the study of the temperature of things and has nothing to do with the evolution of stars or evolutionary biology. Nevertheless, the American Journal of Physics published an article with an absurd calculation proving that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The article disgraces every physicist in America and shows how irrational and dishonest people can be about biological evolution.

I’m sorry to say that Catholic universities in the United States are helping the American Journal of Physics cover up its mistake. This causes me to think there are many Catholic scientists who are more loyal to the science establishment in the U.S. than our Lord, Jesus Christ, who stands for truth in science and faith. I wrote to the Father General of the Jesuits about this matter on July 16, 2013, and to the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Life on September 23, 2013.

Humbly yours in Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,
David Roemer
Tracking number: EZ 016752379 US

TO HIS HOLINESS FRANCIS
CANONICAL COMPLAINT
in the cause of

DAVID ROEMER
-against-
CARDINAL TIMOTHY DOLAN

under canons 279, 766, 779, 781, and 1188 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law

Most Holy Father:

This document serves as my formal complaint and request for penal sanctions against Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

Cancellation of Shroud of Turin Slideshow

On March 30, 2012, I arrived at the Church of St. Paul in the Archdiocese of New York with a slide projector and slides to present my slideshow/lecture about the Holy Shroud (Appendix I) to a group of parishioners who were assembling to attend a religious retreat. To my dismay and chagrin, I found out that the pastor cancelled my presentation. In doing this, the pastor deprived his parishioners of the blessings that come when a certain prayer is said before the Holy Shroud or a picture of it. I am accusing the pastor of violated Can. 1188 (“The practice of displaying sacred images in churches for the reverence of the faithful is to remain in effect.”) and Can. 766 (“Lay persons can be permitted to preach in a church or oratory, if necessity requires it in certain circumstances or it seems advantageous in particular cases… ”).

The pastor apologized for withdrawing the invitation, and explained he thought I supported the authenticity of the Holy Shroud because I am on the Shroud Speaker Directory of the Shroud of Turin Website (www.shroud.com/speakers.htm). The pastor said the Resurrection of Jesus involved the production of radiation and that this same radiation discolored the blood-stained long and narrow piece of linen that is the Holy Shroud. In short, the pastor cancelled my slideshow because I was giving evidence that the Holy Shroud is not authentic. In doing this, the pastor violated Can. 279 §1 (“They are to avoid profane novelties and pseudo-science.”).

Historical and Scientific Background

In the 19th century, it was generally understood that the Holy Shroud was the work of a medieval artist, as can be seen from the entry on the Shroud of Turin in the 1912 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm). The following quote explains why it is injudicious to express the belief that the Shroud is authentic to someone who does not have the gift of faith. Mueller, Marvin, “The Shroud of Turin: A Critical Appraisal,” The Skeptical Inquirer, Spring 1982, p. 27:

There are only three classes of possibilities for the image formation: by human artifice, through natural processes transferring the image to the linen from a real crucified corpse, or by supernatural means. Of the third, not much can be said, because then all scientific discussion and all rational discourse must perforce cease…But a lot can be said about natural processes. In terse summary, they can be ruled out definitely by the quality and beauty of the shroud image.

In the 20th century, scientific and historical investigations support the theory of Robert Drews (In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins, 1984) 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.

In the 21st century, Thomas De Wesselow (The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection, 2012) and John Loken (The Shroud Was the Resurrection: The Body Theft, the Shroud in the Tomb, and the Image that Inspired a Myth, 2006) argue that the Shroud of Turin is authentic in order to prove that Christianity is a myth.

Refusal to Review Slideshow

On April 12, 2012, I wrote to Bishop Dennis Sullivan, Vicar General of the Archdiocese of New York, and accused the pastor of the Church of St. Paul of desecrating the Holy Shroud. I also criticized three other officials of the archdiocese for giving me a runaround about my slideshow/lecture. Bishop Sullivan ignored my request to give my presentation to Catholics knowledgeable in fundamental theology. On September 5, 2012, Cardinal Dolan wrote to me saying, “Until the Church has made a final pronouncement on the authenticity of the shroud, with more pros than cons at this time, why would a pastor want to sponsor an event that debunks the shroud.”

On November 19, 2012, I wrote a letter to the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization criticizing Cardinal Dolan, Bishop David Ricken, Chairman of the Committee of Evangelization and Catechesis of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop José Gomez of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Cardinal Francis George, and Cardinal Donald Wuerl, and Archbishop Vignanò, papal nuncio to the United States, for suppressing my slideshow. On October 3, 2013, the Under-Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization, Msgn. Graham Bell, advised me to file the complaint with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

By failing to correct the pastor of the Church of St. Paul, I think Cardinal Dolan is guilty of violating the same canons violated by the pastor. By refusing even to consider supporting my slideshow, Cardinal Dolan is violating Can. 279, §3 (“They are also to acquire knowledge of other sciences, especially of those which are connected with the sacred sciences, particularly insofar as such knowledge contributes to the exercise of pastoral ministry.”) and Can. 779 (“Catechetical instruction is to be given by using all helps, teaching aids, and instruments of social communication which seem more effective so that the faithful, in a manner adapted to their character, capabilities and age, and conditions of life, are able to learn Catholic doctrine more fully and put it into practice more suitably.”)

Unethical Conduct of Bruno Barberis

The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers was persuaded by the Italy Section of the IEEE to sponsor a conference titled “Workshop of Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation” that was held at Bari, Italy, on September 4, 2014. In May 2014, I submitted a paper (Appendix II) to the organizers of the conference titled, “Science, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Theology, History, and the Holy Shroud.”

On June 30, 2014, I got an email rejecting my submission with many references to Catholic doctrine but no mention of the difference between faith and reason. The email was sent by Bruno Barberis, who is a science advisor to the Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin.

I filed a complaint against the conference organizers with the Ethics and Members Conduct Committee of the IEEE on July 22, 2014. My pending allegation is that the conference rejected my paper, not because of its scientific merit, but because it presented scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin is not authentic and that the organizers of the conference were engaging in pseudoscience (Appendix III). The IEEE has not yet made a decision, however, shortly before the beginning of the conference, the IEEE withdrew its sponsorship. Had the IEEE not discovered that it was being deceived, the papers that were accepted and presented would have been published in the IEEE Xplore Digital Library and had the status of being peer-reviewed.

My complaint against Cardinal Dolan with Your Holiness is the same as my complaint against Bruno Barberis, et. al., with the IEEE. Both are rejecting my analysis of the history and science of the Holy Shroud without rational justification with the goal of causing people to think the Holy Shroud is authentic. Prof. Barberis is guilty of pseudoscience and Cardinal Dolan is guilty of misrepresenting our salvation history. Our salvation history includes an historical event (Resurrection of Jesus) and a miraculous artifact (Shroud of Turin). Cardinal Dolan is conflating the two signs and thereby distorting and misrepresenting the reasons and signs God has given us to believe in Jesus.

It is well known that most members of the IEEE do not have the gift of faith, however, no educated person questions this organization’s dedication to truth in science and history. Because of Prof. Barberis’s association with the Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin, his repudiation by the IEEE is a scandal that harms the Catholic Church. Cardinal Dolan’s statements and actions concerning my slideshow are scandalous for the same reason. Cardinal Dolan is violating Can. 781 (“Since the whole Church is by its nature missionary and the work of evangelization must be held as a fundamental duty of the people of God, all the Christian faithful, conscious of their responsibility, are to assume their part in missionary work.”)

Cognitive Dissonance and the Shroud of Turin

The author of the review of the paper I submitted to the conference is clearly a believing Christian, just as Thomas De Wesselow and John Loken are sincere about Christianity being a myth. They both think, to quote Cardinal Dolan, that there are “more pros than cons” supporting the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. The reality is that there is very little evidence for the authenticity of the Holy Shroud and very much evidence it is the work of craftsmen or artists. My review of a book about cognitive dissonance attempts to explain why some Christians think the Holy Shroud is authentic (Appendix IV). In the case of members of the Catholic clergy, there is added scandalous possibility that they don’t care whether or not the Holy Shroud is authentic. This is the impression I get from the behavior of members of the clergy in the Metropolitan Archeparchy of Philadelphia, Archdiocese of Colorado Springs, Archdiocese of Brooklyn, and Archdiocese of New York.

Metropolitan Archeparchy of Philadelphia

On December 2, 2013, the Director for Evangelization for the Ukrainian Church in Philadelphia sent me a letter stating:

I have received your letter and email regarding the Shroud of Turin slide show which you have offered to present. We appreciate your offer but have already profited from the expertise of Russ Breault, of Atlanta Georgia, whose expertise provided us with an excellent and inspiring presentation for those pilgrims who have visited with us. We view the Shroud of Turin with the same sentiments as the late Pope John Paul II had shared in his visit to Turin: “The Shroud is an image of God’s love as well as human sin… the imprint left by the tortured body of the Crucified One, which attest to the tremendous capacity for causing pain and death to one’s fellow man, and stands as an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age” Pope John II

On February 15, 2014, I sent a registered letter, return receipt requested, to Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuck in Kiev about Bishop Stefan Soroka’s lack of interest in the Holy Shroud and lack of understanding of our salvation history owing to his reliance on Russ Breault. There has been no response from Archbishop Shevchuck.

Catholic Archdiocese of Colorado Springs

Bishop Michael Sheridan is the keynote speaker at the St. Louis Shroud Conference to be held on October 9 to October 12, 2014. The conference committee rejected my request to make a presentation. In a telephone conversation with one of the committee members, I was told that my presentation was rejected because there is more evidence that the Shroud is authentic than there is that Gnostics created it. This is the abstract I submitted to the conference:

According to Robert Drews (In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on its History and Origins), Gnostics in the 1st or 2nd century created the Holy Shroud using a crucified victim and methods that have been lost to history. Saying or implying that the Holy Shroud is authentic misrepresents our salvation history and shows a lack of understanding of the cosmological argument for God’s existence.

The Holy Shroud is a scientific sign or reason to believe in Jesus analogous to the discovery of microwave background radiation in the 1960s. In the 1920s, it was discovered that the universe was expanding and a Catholic priest invented the theory of the Big Bang. According to this theory, the universe began to exist 14 billion years ago as a particle smaller than a grain of salt. Within seconds, electrons and protons were formed. After 500,000 years, hydrogen atoms were formed and photons of a particular wavelength were emitted. Relativistic effects cause these photons to appear as microwave radiation.

The cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas, as explained by Etienne Gilson, is based on the existence of finite beings and the assumption or hope that the universe is intelligible. I consider the Big Bang evidence that the universe is not intelligible. However, the Big Bang is a reason to believe in Jesus because Jesus was a Jewish prophet and the Bible is filled with the idea of the pre-existence of God.

I wrote the following letter to Bishop Sheridan on May 8, 2014: [see above]

I wrote this letter to Cardinal Dolan and Bishop Sheridan on August 25, 2014: [see above]

Appendix I

http://www.holyshroud.info

Appendix II

https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/roemer.pdf

Appendix III

http://newevangelist.me/2014/10/01/ethics-complaint-against-bruno-barberis/

Appendix IV

http://ezinearticles.com/?Cognitive-Dissonance-and-the-Shroud-of-Turin&id=8716559
Letter mailed to Reverend Monsignor Pietro Milite, Promoter of Justice of the Roman Rota, on November 18, 2014
Dear Monsignor Milite,
On November 13, 2014, in a conference call with an interpreter, I asked the employee who answered the phone to connect me with Msgr. Pinto. Msgr. Pinto’s line was busy, and I was told to contact you about my request for a list of canonists authorized to represent me in my canonical complaint against Timothy Cardinal Dolan. Two prominent canonists in the United States advised me that you are obligated to give me such a list. This is my fifth request. The complaint and my letter to the Holy Father is at

http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/

My complaint against Cardinal Dolan is essentially the same as the ethics complaint I filed with the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers against Prof. Bruno Barberis, et. al., who is an advisor to the Papal Custodian of the Shroud of Turin. The IEEE Ethics and Member Conduct Committee (EMCC Case # 14-07-23) dismissed my complaint on October 14, 2014, and my canonical complaint should be updated.

The Italy section of the IEEE tricked the IEEE into sponsoring a conference on the Shroud of Turin. Had this scam succeeded, the papers accepted by the conference organizers and presented in person at the conference would have been published in the IEEE Xplore Digital Library and have the status of being peer-reviewed. Shortly before the conference began on September 4, 2014, the IEEE protected its reputation for integrity by withdrawing its endorsement of the conference. My theory is that the IEEE did not punish its members because no harm was done to the IEEE and because the organizers of the conference sincerely believe the authenticity of the Holy Shroud is a reasonable scientific hypothesis and not pseudo-science (to use the spelling in Can. 279 §1).

Very truly yours, David Roemer
Faxed to +39 06 698 87554
Sent by registered mail with copies to Cardinals João Bráz de Aviz and Gerhard Müller

Letter sent Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco on November 20, 2014
Your Eminence,
On November 19, 2014, I submitted http://www.holyshroud.info to the Italian Episcopal Conference in order to “contribute to the growth of the service ‘Recommended Sites.’” John Paul II said, “The Shroud is thus truly a unique sign that points to Jesus…”. Everyone should know the history, science, and theology of the Holy Shroud. If you have any comments or criticisms of my slideshow, I am humbly requesting that you tell me.

I am in the process of providing the site with an Italian translation with the goal of promoting knowledge about this precious relic in Italy. If you can recommend a translator, I’ll be grateful.

On October 1, 2014, I filed a canonical complaint against Timothy Cardinal Dolan with the Holy Father for suppressing my slideshow. My complaint and correspondence with the Roman Rota is at http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/.

Respectfully yours in Christ, David Roemer
Sent by registered letter, return receipt requested
Faxed to the Holy Father, Rev. Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto, Gerhard Cardinal Müller, João Cardinal de Aviz, Rev. Msgr. Cesare Nosiglia

Letter sent to Very Rev. David Ciancimino, Provincial for New York Province, on November 24, 2014
Dear Fr. Ciancimino,
On October 1, 2014, I filed a canonical complaint against Timothy Cardinal Dolan with the Holy Father for suppressing my slideshow about the Shroud of Turin (http://www.holyshroud.info). My complaint and correspondence with the Roman Rota is here:

http:// http://www.newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/.
I noticed that you are on the Board of Trustees of the Loyola Retreat House in Morristown, New Jersey. I was told there was an opening for me to give my presentation in January or February of 2015. I think it would be helpful to the Holy Father and the Roman Rota if I was invited to explain the history, science, and theology of the Holy Shroud.

I have asked Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco to review my slideshow to see if it is suitable to be placed in the list of recommended sites published by the Italian Episcopal Conference.

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


Messiah College and Calvin College

email to Ted Davis on 8/27/2012
Dear Dr. Ted Davis,

I think you should know that if you don’t take any action at all, I’ll be bringing the matter to the attention of Dr. Phipps.

Dear Dr Roemer,

This is simply a threat. Shame on you—is this how you respond to people who don’t do your bidding? You dragged me into this entirely on your own, Dr Roemer. I don’t encourage you to contact President Phipps, not because I fear any action she might take—she fully supports my involvement with BioLogos, and she understands that you are simply on a crusade to cause trouble for me (and others), because we won’t help you fight your own battles—but because it will simple waste some of her very valuable time. I needn’t add, that you are doing that already with my time. If you raise this issue with me again, I will have no choice but to block your messages. I have classes to teach, and students to meet with, and your concerns are not high on the agenda.

Since you did not send me information about any articles you’ve written for “First Things,” I gather that you actually are not a writer for that magazine, as you claimed. At least, I can find no evidence of such activity.

Edward B. Davis
Professor of the History of Science
Messiah College
One College Avenue Suite 3030
Mechanicsburg PA 17055
tdavis@messiah.edu
Voice: 717-766-2511, ext 6840
Fax: 717-691-6046

Dear Dr. Phipps,

I think you should be aware of the conflict I’m having with a number of physicists and scientists about an absurd article published by the American Journal of Physics (Entropy and evolution, Nov. 2008). One of them is Ted Davis, who you are trusting to teach Christian students. His behavior is no worse or better than the behavior of a number of other scientists that I have confronted about this article.

The core of the article is an incorrect equation for entropy, a concept in thermodynamics. I think the only remedy is for the AJP to retract the article, a corrective undertaken usually in cases of fraud. I explain all this in an article published by The Catholic Truth of Scotland newsletter in May (http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf). I’v attached a version of this article, as well as the AJP article, to this email. This Christian organization published my article because it squelched some statements made by Richard Dawkins about evolution and entropy. Granville Sewell, a professor of mathematics, gave a similar explanation for why the AJP article is nonsense in this link:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/more_philosophical_than_scient052441.html
The AJP is using trickery to avoid having to publish a retraction. I’v recorded my email correspondence with the editor and publisher on my blog. The links are
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/
The first physicist I appealed to for support was Robert Richardson of New York University, where I got a Ph.D. in physics. In an initial exchange of emails, he was friendly and made a comment supportive of my criticism of the AJP article. But when he saw what I was getting at, he behaved towards me in a rude and insulting manner. The email exchange is here:
http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/22/physics-department-of-new-york-university/
The next physicist I interacted with was Randy Isaac, the Executive Director of the American Scientific Affiliation. On the ASA forum, I explained why the AJP article is wrong. Isaac’s comments were inane. Nonetheless, he is taking responsibility for the AJP article. He is saying publicly that the article is okay. I suggested to Robert Kaita, the President of the ASA, that he assign a moderator to another discussion between me and Isaac on the forum. Kaita has not responded to this request, effectively supporting Isaac’s dishonesty and the dishonesty of the AJP. My correspondence with the ASA is here
http://newevangelist.me/2011/12/07/american-scientific-affiliation-2/
Another physicist I contacted was Stephen Barr, who writes for First Things, just like Ted Davis. Barr is a prominent Catholic and an orthodox Christian. He does his best to squelch atheism and explicate the conflict between religion and science. To my shock and amazement, Barr criticized me in a email that was not responsive to my article but fully supported the AJP article.
The problem that Stephen Barr, Ted Davis, and Randy Isaac have is that they actually do not understand evolutionary biology. They are not biologists. Yet they write about evolutionary biology and think of themselves as experts. They are laymen, who learn about biology from reading magazines and popular books. They agree with the AJP article. The very suggestion that a peer-reviewed article about evolution is wrong is not something they can not deal with in a rational way.  My correspondence with Barr and First Things is here:
http://newevangelist.me/2012/08/02/first-things/
On the BioLogos forum, I recently posted a list of true statements about evolutionary biology that many educated people, even those who write about science, don’t understand or don’t know. I’m hoping this list will help you understand the importance of getting the AJP to retract the article. One of the most wonderful experiences is finding oneself in error. It helps you to understand how other people can be mistaken about something. Let’s help Ted Davis, Stephen Barr, and Randy Isaac have this experience.
  1. The theory of natural selection only explains the adaptation of animals to the environment, not common descent. Not enough is known about the innovations natural selection acts upon to understand how bacteria evolved into mammals in only 3.5 billion years.
  2. The only theory that explains common descent is intelligent design, but there is no evidence for ID. Many scholars think that what is wrong with ID is that it is “not science.”
  3. The second law of thermodynamics (entropy or disorder increases in an open system of non-interacting particles) does not apply to evolution. Some scholars think evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics and others think it does not. The second law also does not apply to the evolution of stars from hydrogen gas.
  4. The sun increases disorder in the biosphere because it heats things up. Some scholars think that evolution does not violate the second law because the earth is exposed to energy from the sun.
  5. The entropy of the biosphere cannot be calculated using the Boltzmann constant and an estimate of the thermodynamic probability of living organisms. An article published by the American Journal of Physics (Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008) performs such a calculation. You can download this article at https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bw0xQqr5YbtJQ09ybDR0ejd2TTA
I’ll be giving you a call to make sure you got the email, and to see if you want to discuss the matter.

Email to Clarence Menniga and Provost of Calvin College on 10/11/12. Subject: American Scientific Affiliation

Dear Clarence,

Why haven’t you responded to my review of your book on Amazon.com and the Open Forum of the American Scientific Affiliation? It indicates that you know the attached American Journal of Physics article (“Entropy and evolution”) should be retracted. Your comments about entropy and evolution are just a mindless repetition of the errors in the AJP article.

Your silence raises questions about your integrity. Your book criticizes creationists for distorting science. You and the AJP are lying about science, as I explained to the AJP. The AJP should have given my critique to the author of the article. If the author said I was wrong, I would have written to his college and told them he wasn’t qualified to teach physics.

I posted my explanation of why the article should be retracted in the Open Forum of the ASA. Randy Isaac replied with nonsense and Robert Kaita is letting him get away with it. The ASA is effect is helping the AJP cover up its error.

If the AJP retracts the article it will be very embarrassing for atheists. Atheists promote the scam that natural selection explains the complexity of life and that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The truth is that natural selection only explains the adaptation of species to the environment, though there is no way to draw a hard line between adaptation and common descent. The truth is that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution, just as it does not apply to the evolution of stars.

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-2/

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

A version of my attached article was published by the Catholic Truth of Scotland:

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf
My YouTube video titled “The Truth About Evolution and Religion” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ) also sheds light on this issue.

What you and all the members of the ASA, especially those who profess to be Christians, is resign from the ASA.

Email sent on 10/18/12
Dear Clarence,

2. Natural selection means natural selection acting upon innovations. According to James Shapiro (University of Chicago), the old paradigm for innovations was random mutations and the new paradigm is genetic engineering. Natural selection only explains the adaptation of species to the environment. It does not explain how bacteria evolved into mammals in only 3.5 billion years. The only theory that explains this is intelligent design, but there is no evidence for intelligent design.

3 and 4. All you need to know about the evolution of stars is that the hydrogen atoms in outer space go from a large volume to a small volume. This is the exact opposite of what happens in the free expansion of a gas. The second law is not universal. The second law is absolutely true because a system of non-interacting molecules will always fill up the entire container it is in. I understand that the second law can account for and include chemical reactions. The second law does not apply to the evolution of stars or the evolution of life.

5. A living organism is not a sum of chemical reactions. A chemical reaction can be described with a balanced equation. A living organism engages in genetic engineering. If you place a single bacterium in a solution of sucrose, a set of proteins will ingest the sucrose and another set will transform the sucrose into new cellular matter. The number of bacteria will increase until the sucrose runs out. If you place the bacterium in a solution of sucrose and fructose, the bacteria will ingest the sucrose, but not the fructose, until the sucrose is gone. The bacteria will stop reproducing for a time. During this time, the bacteria create a new set of proteins that enable it to ingest and synthesize the fructose. This is called genetic engineering.

6. All substances, like an object made from FeO, have a temperature because it can be measured with a thermometer. A Boeing 747 in flight does not have a temperature. Since the concept of entropy is derived from the concept of temperature and heat, a Boeing 747 does not have entropy. Likewise, a living organism does not have entropy. The science articles that discuss the entropy of an organism are breaking the organism down into the parts that can be described with chemical reactions.

7. I noticed with interest your insight that the term complexity is not easy to define. Nevertheless, biologists consider a mammal to be more complex than a bacterium. Since we agree that the second law does not apply to evolution, what is it that we disagree about? Why don’t you agree that the AJP article is absurd? The article calculates the entropy of a biological system using the Boltzmann constant and an estimate of the thermodynamic probability. The connection between evolution and the second law is this: Physicists calculate the probability that all the molecules in a gas will huddle into one corner of the container. Biologists calculate the probability of getting the primary structure of a protein with the random selection of amino acids. They do the same kind of probability calculations.

8. The growth of a tree is not the result of chemical reactions. The biological process involves cell differentiation. The tree starts as one cell and becomes two identical cells, and then four identical cells. Then the cells start to change. The next eight cells are not identical. A grown tree has a large number of different cells. Your statement that it is the result of “natural processes” is quite puzzling. Are there unnatural processes? As I understand developmental biology, there is very little known or understood about how a single cell develops into a multi-cellular organism. This is one of the complexities of life, in addition to molecular machinery, genetic engineering, and the primary structure of a protein.

9. Again we agree that evolution does not violate the second law. The second law does not apply to evolution. It applies only to non-interacting particles and chemical reactions. Evolution is not the result of chemical reactions. Why then don’t you agree that the AJP article should be retracted?

In conclusion, saying evolution violates the second law is an ignorant way of expressing the limited explanatory power of natural selection. It is just as ignorant to say evolution does not violate the second law. It is unintelligent to say evolution doesn’t violate the second law because the Earth is not a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system because it gets heat energy from the Sun. Heat tends to increase disorder and entropy. The AJP article exceeds in stupidity and ignorance these ideas because it includes an incorrect equation for entropy.

The motivation for this nonsense is clear to me. Atheists don’t like to admit that intelligent design is a better theory, in some sense, than natural selection. They don’t like to admit that the second law does not apply to evolution because that sounds like saying evolution violates the second law. Saying evolution violates the second law sounds like creationism and intelligent design. Atheists are more interested in marginalizing intelligent design and creationism than in understanding and teaching evolutionary biology.

Email received from Clarence Menninger on 28 Oct 2012
David,

1.     The meaning of “genetic engineering” as you use it to describe the growth process of an oak tree, and presumably the growth process of any other living organism, is very different from the usual meaning of that term. The usual meaning is a modification of the genetic makeup of a living cell by human intention and human intervention. In whatever sense the growth of an oak tree is genetic engineering, it is self-engineering. I prefer to think of it as the product of God’s design, taking place as He intended it to.

2.     By “natural processes” I mean those events that take place without human intention or intervention. Well, I guess I intend to eat, and natural processes take over from there. Certainly the growth processes that you erroneously call “genetic engineering” are included in my “natural processes.”

3.     Quite a few years ago, Michael Polanyi wrote a brief piece entitled “Life is more than physics and chemistry.” I subscribe to that perspective. Nevertheless, life involves chemical processes. I don’t understand your aversion to considering chemical processes; God used/uses a lot of them in his design for living organisms.

4.     With this email, my participation in this conversation is concluded. I wish you God’s abundant blessings in your outreach ministry.


First Things

Email exchanges with Stephen Barr starting on 6/4/12. Subject: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics
Dear Dr. Barr,
A member of the American Scientific Affiliation (Phillip Marsdon, Washington State U.) suggested that you might have some ideas about getting the AJP to retract the attached article titled, “Entropy and evolution.” My own efforts are not meeting with any success. The article sets forth a fake equation to prove that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

I’v attached two articles that deal with the connection between evolution and entropy in a scientifically sound way. My own analysis was published by the Catholic Truth at

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf

I’v kept track of my conversations with the AJP on my blog:

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/

Dear Dr. Roemer,
I have read your article given in the first link. I haven’t the time to go through all the articles and letters, as I have many other things to do. I will merely say the following things.

(a) The fact that evolution produces orderly structures from more disorganized matter does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

(b) The second law allows order to increase in one system if energy is supplied to the system. For example, the entropy of the things placed in a refrigerator decreases as they cool. But energy (e.g. electrical) must be supplied to the refrigerator.

The sun supplies energy to the biosphere, some of this energy can be turned into work. This work can be used to decrease the entropy of some systems on earth. Consider the following set-up, as an illustration. The sun heats ocean water and makes clouds form. The clouds produce rain, which then fills a lake and drives a hydro-electric power plant. That plant produces electricity, which then powers a refrigerator in my home. That refrigerator decreases the entropy of the water I place in the freezer and makes its randomly moving water molecules form into highly structured ice crystals, which have lower entropy than the water did. The decrease in entropy of the water as it froze, could only happen because energy (work) was supplied. That energy ultimately came from the sun. There are several Carnot cycles going on in this illustration. One can think of the sun, ocean, clouds as a Carnot cycle. Energy is going from a hotter reservoir (the sun) to a cooler one (the ocean). This allows some of the sun’s heat to be converted into work — this work lifts the water from the ocean to the clouds. That work is converted by the hydro-electric plant into electrical energy. That electrical energy then drives another Carnot cycle in my refrigerator. That electrical energy (work) allows heat to be pumped from a colder reservoir (the contents of my refrigerator) into a hotter reservoir (my kitchen). All this obeys the second law.

(c) You are also wrong that entropy can only be defined for a system that has a uniform temperature.

I don’t have the time to get involved in controversy with you. I think you are on the wrong side of this argument. I don’t think it helps the Church to make bad arguments.

The Catholic Church has never condemned the idea of the natural evolution of plants and animals from simpler forms. Using bad science to support bad theology is a profound mistake. Leave that to the fundamentalist Protestants.

Dear Dr. Barr,
With all due respect, there is nothing in your email that shows you read my article. My guess is that you are a victim of the scam perpetrated by Protestants and atheists about evolution.

Scientists invented the theory of evolution to explain the existence of fossils, and a considerable amount of evidence supports this theory. This gives rise to the question of what caused life to evolve from bacteria to mammals in 3 billion years. The only theory that explains this is intelligent design (ID), but there is no evidence for ID. To make this theory look better, advocates of ID compare it with the theory of natural selection. Natural selection is supported by the evidence, but only explains the adaptation of species to the environment, not the increase in the complexity of life. Atheists go along with this misinformation because they don’t want to admit that there is no scientific explanation for evolution at the present time.

Saying evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics is way of promoting this scam. The article you are approving of goes so far as to give a phony equation proving that evolution does not violate the second law.

The connection between evolution and the second law is not the drivel you repeated in you email. The connection is that the model biologists use for the primary structure of a protein is an English sonnet, just as physicists use a deck of playing cards as the model for a gas. Physicists and biologists do the same kind of probability calculations, just like in statistical mechanics.

I think you owe me an apology. You can apologize by giving my email to someone who has the time to reconsider whether or not they understand biological evolution and thermodynamics. As a starter, watch my youtube video titled, “The Truth About Evolution and Religion,” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ.

Emails starting on 7/12/12 to First Things. Subject: Evolution and the culture war.
I thought you might be interested in the attached essay which concerns an absurd article titled “Entropy and evolution” published by the American Journal of Physics.

Don’t show it to Stephen Barr, who is a Catholic physicists known to First Things I believe. I sent Dr. Barr a version of this article that was published in the Catholic Truth of Scotland newsletter (http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf). He could not wrap his head around the idea that a peer-reviewed physics journal could be in error.

Dear Mr. Roemer,
Thank you for your interest in First Things! And for your submission, which has been forwarded to our editorial staff. They will be in touch with you in two to four weeks. Should you have any questions, feel free to send them to this address. Thanks again.

All the best, Anna Williams, Junior Fellow

Dear Mr. Roemer,
Just to follow up on the email I sent earlier — I see that your piece already appears on your personal website, and we generally do not reprint pieces that have already been published elsewhere. If you’re interested in submitting other pieces in the future, our full guidelines can be found here.

Thanks again for your submission,
Anna Williams
Junior Fellow

Email to First Things, James Peterson, and Robert Kaita on 7/16/12.
Dear Anna,
I’m not really interested in getting “Evolution and the culture war” published. My goal is to get the American Journal of Physics to retract the article I attached for the reasons I give. My explanation of why the article is absurd was already published in the Catholic Truth of Scotland newsletter. The editor of AJP, David Jackson, is not taking responsibility for misinformation that undermines a reason to believe in the Bible. Jackson is shifting the responsibility to an anonymous reviewer of a version of my article I submitted to the AJP. An anonymous reviewer has no reputation to protect and cannot take responsibility for anything.

I submitted my essay to James C. Peterson, editor of the peer-reviewed Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, published by the American Scientific Affiliation. Peterson rejected my article for reasons that I consider disingenuous. My essay is not publishable in a peer-reviewed journal because PSCF’s readers would have wondered: Why doesn’t the AJP correct its mistake?

On the Open Forum of the ASA, I explained why the article is nonsense, but Randy Isaac, the Executive Director of the ASA, squelched me. Isaac posted comments saying that I didn’t understand the second law of thermodynamics. In effect, Isaac is doing Jackson’s dirty work, and Peterson is backing him up. Robert Kaita is the Vice President of the ASA.

The person at First Things who needs to be educated about evolutionary biology and the second law of thermodynamics is Stephen M. Barr. In a private email, Barr claimed to have read the Catholic Truth of Scotland article and told me I was wrong. He just repeated the nonsense in the AJP article and similar articles.

What the editors of First Things and PSCF should do is explain to Jackson what his responsibilities are and that his behavior is putting them in a difficult position. Barr and Isaac made fools of themselves because they assume peer-reviewed physics articles have no egregious errors and because they swallow the hogwash advocates of ID and mainstream biologists spew when discussing evolution on TV and other popular media. I learn about evolution by reading textbooks, scholarly works, and peer-reviewed articles.

Email sent on 7/23/12 to Robert Louis Wilken and First Things. Subject: Stephen Barr
Dear Dr. Wilken,
I’m writing to you about Stephen M. Barr who is a member of the Academy of Catholic Theology and on the Advisory Council of First Things. I submitted the attached article to First Things, a version of which was published in the Catholic Truth of Scotland newsletter (http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf).

My article (“Evolution and the culture war”) explains why the attached peer-reviewed article published by the American Journal of Physics (“Entropy and evolution”) contains such an absurd equation in thermodynamics that the entire article should be retracted.

Dr. Barr, who is a physicists and should understand the second law of thermodynamics, told me that I was wrong in an email. He declined to answer my demand for an apology and my implication that he did not read slowly enough the Catholic Truth of Scotland article. I’m holding Dr. Barr responsible for the editorial decision of First Things to not publish my article.

I’d appreciate your asking Dr. Barr to reconsider his hasty judgement which has the effect of allowing the American Journal of Physics to continue to propagate false information. I am more than willing to walk Dr. Barr and the editors at First Things through the second law of thermodynamics and its relationship to biological evolution. If he does not apologize and remedy his mistake, I can make a good case for expelling him from the Academy of Catholic Theology.

Email sent to George Weigel and First Things on 7/24/12
Dear Mr. Weigel ,

I submitted the attached essay (“Evolution and the culture war”) to First Things. The essay explains why the attached peer-reviewed article published by the American Journal of Physics (“Entropy and evolution”) should be retracted. A version of the essay was published in the Catholic Truth of Scotland newsletter (http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf). The scientific misinformation in the article supports atheistic propaganda.

I sent the Catholic Truth version to Dr. Stephen Barr, who is a physicist and on the Advisory Council of First Things. Dr. Barr writes books about science and religion, and should understands entropy, which is a concept in thermodynamics. Dr. Barr told me that I was wrong. Since his comments just repeated the nonsense in the AJP article and similar articles, I did not tell the editor of the Catholic Truth of Scotland.

Dr. Barr declined to answer my demand for an apology and my suggestion that he re-read the essay. I’m advising you that there is a trembling and fearful conflict between the Catholic Truth of Scotland and First Things.

Email recieved on 7/24/12
Dear Dr. Roemer,

Thank you for your interest in First Things! And for your submission, which has been forwarded to our editorial staff. They will be in touch with you in four to six weeks. Should you have any questions, feel free to send them to this address. Thanks again.

All the best,Mark Misulia, Junior Fellow

Email received on 7/31/12
Dear Mr. Roemer,
Thank you for your concern. I don’t think meeting would accomplish anything substantive, especially when we are busy working on the October issue and don’t have much time to spare. Dr. Barr is a physicist of distinction and a member of our Advisory Council and we aren’t inclined to question his judgment in these matters. In any case, it’s a controversy to be waged in the journals involved.

Faithfully, David Mills
Executive Editor
First Things

Email sent to First Things on 7/31/12
Dear Mr. Mills,
I complained about First Thing’s handling of the situation with George Weigel and Robert Wilken, but I don’t know if they got my emails. In any case, I’ll be taking the matter up with them. You might consider that they are probably just as busy as you, and will appreciate the Executive Editor handling responsibly the morally perilous situation Stephen Barr has put you in.

Understanding evolutionary biology and the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t require judgment, as you seem to think. It requires knowledge and intelligence. In addition to the email he sent me in what must have been a fit of anger, I’v read a number of things by Stephen Barr about evolution. He subscribes to the errors I describe and explicate in my submitted essay. Barr should have either explained to me why I was wrong, or tell the Catholic Truth of Scotland newsletter about my error.

I’v done everything I can to persuade the American Journal of Physics to retract the article. David Jackson, the editor of the AJP, should have forwarded my critique to Daniel Styer, the author. If Styer said I was wrong, I would have told his employer that he is not qualified to teach physics.

Instead, Jackson told me to submit my own article to the AJP. I did so, and an anonymous reviewer said that I did not know what I was talking about. Jackson is using this anonymous review to justify not printing a retraction. I accused Jackson of dishonesty and told his boss at the American Physics Teachers Association that he should be fired. In effect, Stephen Barr is doing the AJP’s dirty work. He is publically saying that the AJP article is okay and is preventing First Things from publishing my essay.

My essay was written in order to explain the absurdity of the AJP article to everyone. I’m repeating my offer to explain the matter to you, Anna, and Mark step-by-step, and why Stephen Barr owes me an apology.

Email sent on 8/1/12 to First Things
Dear Anna and Mark,
I want to explain what is motivating David Mill’s irresponsible behavior. First Things and Stephen Barr stand behind the atheistic propaganda that “the theory of intelligent design is not science.” If Stephen Barr is wrong about evolution, then First Things is wrong about evolution. Just as the American Journal of Physics erred in publishing the Styer article, First Things erred in publishing Stephen Barr’s superficial and ignorant musings about evolutionary biology. As someone who had a short business career, I know how important it is to be a company man.

ID is irrational because there is no evidence supporting this theory. Anxiety about religion inhibits ID advocates from thinking rationally. They consider, as do atheists, the Big Bang, the origin of life, and evolution evidence of God’s existence. My metaphysics teacher at Fordham was Norris Clarke, S. J., and he said the success of the scientific method is evidence of God’s existence because it supports the hope that the universe is intelligible. I consider the Big Bang, etc., evidence that the universe is not intelligible and that God does not exist. The Big Bang, etc., however, is evidence that God has communicated Himself to mankind because the Bible says God created the universe from nothing and that God cares about our welfare.That there is no evidence for ID raises the question of what evidence there is for the theory of natural selection. There is plenty of evidence that natural selection explains adaptation, but there is no evidence it explains genetic engineering, molecular machinery, cell differentiation, and animal instincts. Biologists understand this, but dilettantes like Barr do not. First Things has been helping atheists suppress one of the reasons to believe in the Bible. This is not something First Things wants to think about.Fortunately, First Things has to think about it because the American Journal of Physics published an incorrect equation for entropy and is refusing to correct its error.

Email to First Things on 8/1/12
Dear Mark,
Intelligence is usually a measure of how fast or slow it takes someone to grasp a theory or insight. In the case of religion, there is so much anxiety that people are inhibited from thinking intelligently. Because of blind spots, they can’t even grasp a theory.

I went to a Catholic college and am intelligent enough to grasp and formulate four solutions to the mind-body problem and four answers to the question of what caused the Big Bang. I give myself an IQ of 100: 20 points for understanding the mind-body problem and 10 points for each theory. My guess is that your IQ is no higher than Stephen Barr’s, which I estimate to be 50 points. Atheists have an IQ of 20, and Protestants usually have IQs of around 40 points.

I challenge you to take the test. You can consult with Anna, do Google searches, and take as much time as you want. If you know someone I can trust not to help you, I’ll explain how I will grade your test ahead of time.

What do you say?

Email to Mary Ann Glendon on 8/1/12
Dear Prof. Glendon,

I’m writing to complain about David Mills in connection with the attached essay (“Evolution and the culture war”) and a peer-reviewed article (“Entropy and evolution”) published by the American Journal of Physics. My essay explains why the AJP article should be retracted. It contains, believe it or not, an erroneous equation purporting to show that evolution does not violate the law that entropy (disorder) always increases. A version of my essay was published in the Catholic Truth of Scotland newsletter at

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf

I think both of my versions explain, in a way anyone can understand, how absurd the AJP article is. In an email Mr. Mills told me, “Dr. [Steven] Barr is a physicist of distinction and a member of our Advisory Council and we aren’t inclined to question his judgment in these matters.” I doubt very much that Mills contacted Barr about my submission. He got the idea that Barr thinks the AJP article is okay because I told First Things about an absurd email, no doubt written in anger, I got from Barr.

Barr’s anger is understandable. He saw at once that the AJP article is consistent with his superficial understanding of evolutionary biology and misunderstanding of the theory of intelligent design (ID).

Barr’s criticism of ID is that is not science. A more rational criticism is that there is no evidence for ID. The scientific criticism raises the question of what evidence there is for natural selection? There is a lot of evidence, but natural selection only explains the adaptation of species to the environment. Biologists in peer-reviewed articles and scholarly works always refer to “adaptive evolution.” No biologist thinks natural selection explains the complexity of living organism, notwithstanding the propaganda of atheists and ID people.

The American Journal of Physics is using trickery to avoid publishing a rebuttal. They are getting away with this because First Things and Barr and his like are letting them.

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-2/

My YouTube video titled “The Truth About Evolution and Religion” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ) also sheds light on this issue.

I’v offered to meet with the editors of First Things to explain the situation and answer any questions they may have. My offer has been refused.

Email to Matthew Levering and Robert Kaita sent on 9/27/12
Dear Matthew,

I’m in the same kind of conflict about science and religion with Cardinal Dolan about the Shroud of Turin as I am with Dr. Barr about evolutionary biology. Whereas His Eminence, in my opinion, is unwittingly promoting atheism by saying my slideshow/lecture debunks the relic (http://www.holyshroud.info), Barr’s behavior is morally questionable. I’v attached my letter to Dolan because there is connection between the Big Bang and evolutionary biology. Both phenomena are part of our salvation history because there is no rational explanation for them.

The theory of intelligent design explains how bacteria evolved into mammals in only 3.5 billion years, but there is no evidence for ID. Barr is against ID because it is “not science.” This serves to promote the atheistic idea that the theory of natural selection explains evolution, not just the adaptation of species to the environment. Biologists always speak of “adaptive evolution.” Biologists understand that not enough is known about the innovations natural selection acts upon to understand the complexity of living organisms.

Our lack of understanding of evolution means that the second law of thermodynamics (a gas will fill up the entire container it is in) does not apply to evolution, just as it does not apply to the evolution of stars. The second law only applies to a system of noninteracting entities. Saying that evolution does not violate the second law is a minor error because there are those who say it does violate the second law.

The American Journal of Physics article (“Entropy and evolution”) uses a fake equation to prove evolution does not violate the second law. I explain this in an article published in the Catholic Truth of Scotland newsletter. A similar analysis is in a peer-reviewed journal, which I can send you along with some other articles in peer-reviewed journals about this issue. Granville Sewell, a mathematics professor, also explains this in an article published in Evolution News.

Barr’s response to the Catholic Truth of Scotland article was inane because he simply repeated the drivel in the AJP article, adding “I don’t think it helps the Church to make bad arguments.” If Barr had integrity, he would have sent his email to the editor of the Catholic Truth of Scotland. If he was honorable, he would spare his admirers and colleagues from having to answer for his misbehavior.

Barr is not the only physicist that is refusing to admit the AJP article should be retracted. Randy Isaac, Executive Director of the American Scientific Affiliation, a self-proclaimed Christian organization, corresponded with me on the organization’s Open Forum. His statements were so ignorant and nonsensical that I appealed to Robert Kaita (Vice President of the ASA) to assign a moderator to our discussion. Kaita did not do so. I believe that most of the members of the ASA are liberal Christians and are just as emotionally wrapped up in the idea that natural selection explains evolution as Barr. The AJP is using trickery to avoid taking responsibility for the article.

The member of the Academy of Catholic Theology who should address this matter is Robert Louis Wilkens because he is also on the Institute Board of First Things. First Things should either publish the article I submitted (“Evolution and the culture war”), or get the AJP to retract its article. So long as the article exists, everyone who knows or should know that the article is absurd has a guilty conscience.

Email exchanges with Ephraim Radner dated September 29, 2012. Subject: First Things and Stephen Barr
Dear Mr. Roemer,

Thanks for writing. The debate is fascinating (even though I am not qualified to judge its details). I read your own piece with interest.

I am not sure, however, what you are asking of me, or of e.g. Prof. Novak. To get get Stephen Barr to engage you somehow? To get First Things to publish an article of yours? On the latter side of things, I have no role; that is an editorial issue and, as I said, I dont’ know anything about this topic, and am not therefore in any position to offer “advice” (I do that about other areas I know something about). On the first issue, I don’t know Dr. Barr either, and in fact have never met him (he was not at our last meeting). Certainly, it is not up to me to tell him whom he should talk to! I do know that, should Barr write an article for First Things, a letter from you about it is likely to be published, and that is probably the main way this publication can be a vehicle for such engagement, given that your concern is about something published somewhere else altogether.

Your idea that I should “resign” from the Advisory Board if I can’t “talk sense” into Dr. Barr, from your perspective, does seem a bit over the top! And it is hardly a good way to elicit my sympathies for your perspective.

Good luck.

Dear Mr. Radner,
What First Things should do is show the American Journal of Physics my article in the Catholic Truth of Scotland newsletter and a similar article in Evolution News by a professor of mathematics and ask why the “Entropy and evolution” article has not been retracted. If the AJP retracts the article, their gross lie about evolution not violating the laws of physics will stop deceiving people like Stephen Barr who propagates misinformation about evolutionary biology in the pages on First Things.

What you should do is examine your conscience. I see an analogy between the conduct of the AJP and the many other people I have advised about the erroneous equation in the article, and the murder of noncombatants by Germans in World War II. No one was ever forced to commit murder, however, there were severe penalties for telling about the killings.

You should read my email exchanges with Dr. Richardson of New York University, where I got a Ph.D. in physics. Dr. Richardson was recommended to me by a colleague of his that I am friends with. Richardson initially supported my view about the absurdity of the equation in the article. But when he realized what he was getting involved in he became hostile and insulting. I am being punished for not remaining silent.

Dear Mr. Roemer,
I hear your frustration at not being listened to at this time in an important debate.

However, neither I nor Mr. Mills have any knowledge about the e.g. mathematical equations involved in calculating entropic forces etc. from which to offer persuasive advice to the AJP! Nor would First Things as a journal in their view! You need to get physicists on your side, not ignorant theologians! I already believe in a Creator God, without this set of questions being resolved. (Which isn’t to say that the questions should not be be debated and resolved; only that that is not my purview of inquiry, and that it does not affect my fundamental views personally.)

As I said, when Dr. Barr publishes in First Things, it would be more than appropriate for you to write a letter to the Editor equitably challenging that which you believe needs challenging in this writing. And, because published in First Things, Barr’s writing would deserve such a letter of challenge and it would most likely be published.

You want to draw us into your debate with AJP, another journal in another discipline. Your moral analogy may or may not be accurate in this case. I happen not to think that it is. Waiting for the right venue to engage this particular argument is not a matter of allowing mortally criminal behavior to escape scrutiny and responsible adjudication. It is a matter of respecting the parameters in which persuasive argument can rightly be had. As I said, you are pushing the envelope on this score, and I don’t think it is helping the argument itself.

This, I’m afraid, is the best response I can offer.

Dear Mr. Radner,
In physics, the parameters of a debate about peer-reviewed articles are well established. I told the editor of the AJP about the erroneous equation. The editor should have forwarded my comment to the author (Daniel Styer) for rebuttal. If Styer said I was wrong, my recourse would have been to write to his college and say he shouldn’t be teaching thermodynamics. Instead the editor used trickery to avoid taking responsibility for the mistake, and Stephen Barr and David Mills are helping them with their deception. Your unwillingness to get involved by telling First Things to take your name off its masthead makes you a collaborator.

Email sent to Institute Board and Advisory Council of First Things on October 2, 2012. Subject: First Things Masthead
I finished sending emails to all or most of the advisors and board members of First Things criticizing the journal and especially Stephen Barr for collaborating with the refusal of the American Journal of Physics to retract an absurd article titled “Entropy and evolution.”

I explained in a way that anybody can understand that the concept of entropy does not apply to evolutionary biology (and the evolution of stars), and that the equation in the article purporting to prove that evolution does not violate the laws of physics is absurd.

I use the word collaborate because I see an analogy between a gross error in a peer-reviewed physics article and the murder of noncombatants by Germans in World War II. No one was ever forced to kill noncombatants, however, there were severe penalties for telling about the killings. Collaboration took the form of being silent.

As long as you allow your name to remain on the Masthead of First Things you are guilty of collaborating with wrongdoing. For the sake of your conscience, you should read and digest the information at http://newevangelist.me/2012/08/02/first-things.

Email to Peter J. Leithart sent on Oct. 2.
I am very much obliged. I’v attached three more articles that support what I am saying.

One is by Andy McIntosh and was published in a peer-reviewed journal (Design and Nature Ecodynamics). The other is by Granville Sewell, but Applied Mathematics Letters decided not to publish it. The next has two parts and was published by Physics Today. This article  appears to contradict what me, McIntosh, and Sewell are saying because of the title, “Thermodynamics of Evolution.” However, the fourth paragraph says:
Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
What this means is that for the sake of understanding evolutionary biology, all you need to know about the second law of thermodynamics is that it applies to a system of non-interacting particles. The fact that the equations of thermodynamics can be expanded to include chemical reactions is not relevant.

Email sent to Fr. Austriaco, Fr. Fields, and Dr. Barr on 12/3/12
Dear Fr. Austriaco,
I don’t understand why you don’t feel qualified to determine whether the AJP article is absurd. I think the following eight steps make it very clear. What part don’t you understand? Maybe Stephen Barr, who has a Ph.D. in physics, will help you out. You will certainly be able to help out Dr. Barr because I don’t think he understands # 1. My guess is that Dr. Barr learned about evolutionary biology by reading magazine articles by Protestants and atheists. Fr. Fields is also a member of the Academy of Catholic Theology.

  1. Natural selection explains why giraffes have long necks, but now how bacteria evolved into giraffes in only 3.5 billion years. Evolutionary biologists always speak of adaptive evolution. The old model for evolution was a tornado hitting a junkyard and producing a Boeing 747 in flight. The new model is a computer generating a Shakespearean sonnet by the random selection of letters.
  2. Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics are connected branches of physics. The key variable in thermodynamics is temperature, which is the sensation of hot and cold. It is measured with a thermometer in units called degrees. The second law of thermodynamics states that a gas will fill up the entire container it is in. The second law does not apply to the evolution of stars or biological evolution.
  3. Statistical mechanics is related to thermodynamics. For example, the average kinetic energy of a gas molecule is directly proportional to the temperature of the gas. The constant of proportionality is the Boltzmann constant and is a decimal with 23 zeros.
  4. There is a very loose connection between evolutionary biology and statistical mechanics. In statistical mechanics, physicists calculate the number of ways of arranging N objects: N X (N-1) X (N-2)…. Biologists calculate the number of proteins that can be formed with N amino acids: 20 to the Nth power.
  5. Because of #4, some non-physicists mistakenly say that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
  6. Many scholarly works erroneously try to refute # 5 by giving an expanded explanation of the second law. They incorrectly describe the second law as stating that nature goes from order to disorder, thus supporting the idea the evolution violates the second law. But they point out that this principle only applies to closed systems. Since the biosphere was bathed in sunlight, the biosphere is not a closed system.
  7. The idea that evolution does not violate the second law because of the sun is absurd because the photons from the sun tend to cause disorder not order.
  8. The AJP article is even more absurd than this. It is based a fake equation connecting the statistical concept of the “thermodynamic probability” of the biosphere with the thermodynamic concept of entropy using the Boltzmann constant. It thus produces an equation showing that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Letter sent to Russell Reno on December 10, 2012
Dear Mr. Reno,
I am writing to ask for an interview with you to explain why you should publish my essay, “Evolution and the culture war.” I have already had considerable correspondence about this matter with your office and individuals associated with First Things and the Academy of Catholic Theology.

My essay explains why an article (“Entropy and evolution”) published by the American Journal of Physics should be retracted. By not publishing my essay, you are collaborating with the American Journal of Physics and the American Association of Physics Teachers in covering up the mistake of publishing this absurd article.

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Email sent to Russell Reno, Robert Kaita, and Beth Cunningham on December 19, 2012

Dear Mr. Reno,

I got your letter saying you wouldn’t meet with me. The purpose of such a meeting would be for me to explain to you why Stephen Barr is lying about evolution. I’m not referring to his atheistic/positivist idea that the theory of intelligent design is not science. I’m referring to his email to me saying the absurd equation the attached article is based upon is correct.

You are in the same position as Robert Kaita is with respect to Randy Isaac, who are in positions of leadership in the American Scientific Affiliation. On the Open Forum of the ASA, Randy Isaac answered my explanation of why the AJP article should be retracted with nonsense. I asked Kaita to assign a moderator for our discussion. Kaita is refusing to do this, I assume, because he knows Isaac is lying through his teeth.

What I suggest you do is schedule a meeting with me and tell Stephen Barr about it. He may apologize for the email he sent me in what was obviously a fit of anger. If Barr was a rational and honest person about evolution and a good Catholic, he would have written to the Catholic Truth of Scotland about my published letter. If Stephen Barr admits that the AJP article should be retracted, then I no longer have any grounds for denigrating the character of the people affiliated with First Thingsand the Academy of Catholic Theology. I can direct my efforts towards the members of the ASA and the American Association of Physics Teachers.

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Email from Robert Louis Wilkin to Russell Reno on December 20, 2012
Dear Rusty,

I hope that you are ignoring this fellow.

Spoke with STanley this morning and he had high praise for FT under your editorship. He particularly liked the Leithart article (which came out of the PC conference I organized last year at which Stanley was to speak but could not be bothered) and David Hart’s piece.

Robert

Email from Peter Leithart on February 16, 2013

I’ve read through some of the material you send me. Can you clarify the following statement?

“My metaphysics teacher at Fordham was Norris Clarke, S. J., and he said the success of the scientific method is evidence of God’s existence because it supports the hope that the universe is intelligible. I consider the Big Bang, etc., evidence that the universe is not intelligible and that God does not exist. The Big Bang, etc., however, is evidence that God has communicated Himself to mankind because the Bible says God created the universe from nothing and that God cares about our welfare.”

The last two sentences contradict each other.

Thanks,
Peter Leithart

Dear Peter,
Good to hear from you. At the end of my answer, I’v pasted an open letter I’v been broadcasting. I’v also attached an essay that supports some of the things I say in my answer.

Humans decide whether a theory or insight is true or just probable by marshaling the evidence for and against and exercising their judgment. We know that God exists from the cosmological argument, which is the crowning achievement of the method of inquiry called metaphysics. The reason that it is an argument, and not a proof, is that God’s existence gives rise to the question of whether or not God has communicated Himself to mankind through the Western prophets and Eastern mystics. This question requires marshaling the evidence for and against the fundamental assumptions of metaphysics and deciding whether these assumptions are true. One of the basic assumptions is that the universe is intelligible. Evidence for this intelligibility is the success of the scientific method and the fact that things don’t pop into or out of existence for no reason at all. Evidence against intelligibility is the Big Bang, the origin of life, and the evolution of bacteria into mammals in only 3.5 billion years. I believe in revelation, nevertheless, because there is much more evidence in favor of revelation than against it. One bit of evidence is John 1:1 because this verse says God created the universe from nothing even though John did not know anything about the Big Bang.

There is a conflict between creationists and advocates of intelligent design (ID) on one side and their opponents. Conflict causes anxiety, and inhibition is a defense mechanism against anxiety. On the subject of evolution, both sides are inhibited from thinking intelligently and rationally and behaving honestly. Both sides agree that the Big Bang, etc., is evidence of God’s existence and not of God’s nonexistence. Of course, they have different judgments about the weight that should be given to the Big Bang. They resolve this disagreement to their own neurotic satisfaction by accusing one another of bad judgment.

This neuroticism reached a pinnacle in July, 2008, when the American Journal of Physics published “Entropy and evolution” and a further pinnacle in refusing to retract the article when I confronted them with its errors in February, 2012, not that I was the first to see the errors and write about it. The top of this mountain was reached in four stages.

Stage 1: It is widely believed that natural selection acting upon innovations explains how mammals evolved from bacteria in only 3.5 billion years. In fact, evolutionary biologists always speak of “adaptive evolution” because natural selection only explains the adaptation of species to its environment. Since there is no evidence for the theory of intelligent design, this theory is irrational.

Stage 2: Creationists have stated that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, the second law does not apply to the evolution of stars or biological evolution.

Stage 3: Many anti-creationists and anti-ID people say that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics and give reasons that are unintelligible.

Stage 4: This is a logical consequence of Stage 3. If evolution does not violate the second law, it should be possible to do a calculation that proves it. This is just what the AJP article did. The article uses the Boltzmann equation for entropy, which is a state variable in thermodynamics. It is as stupid as attempting to measure the temperature of a Boeing 747 in flight. A Boeing 747 and a mammal does not have a temperature.


American Institute of Physics

Email sent on May 4, 2012
Dear Dr. H. Frederick Dylla,
I’v been corresponding with the American Association of Physics Teachers with the hope of persuading that organization and the American Journal of Physics to retract the article attached to this email. The article presents an absurd thermodynamic equation for the biosphere using the Boltzmann constant to prove that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The article may have been written in good faith, but since its publication two articles have been published explaining why the AJP article is nonsense. These are the links to the two articles:

http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf (see p. 15)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/more_philosophical_than_scient052441.html

The absurdity of the article means that everyone who defends the article by action or inaction is guilty of disseminating untruth.

Most of my correspondence with the AJP and AAPT is on my blog at

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

I’ll be very happy to meet with you in person to explain why a retraction should be published.

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Email sent on May 9, 2012
Dear Dr. Dylla,
I’v attached two articles about evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. One is by a professor of mathematics the other is by a professor of thermodynamics. They both say more than about thermodynamics than you need to know in order to see how absurd the AJP article is.

On May 1, I sent an email to Beth Cunningham suggesting that she terminate David Jackson from his position as editor of the AJP. He should have forwarded my criticisms of the article to the author for rebuttal. The author has a reputation to protect and a conscience to follow. Instead, he told me to submit my own article. I did so, and an anonymous reviewer said that I didn’t know what I was talking about. Jackson then used this review to justify not publishing a retraction of the article. This strikes me as being shockingly dishonest.

Cunningham may be in on the hoax because she warned me in an email that I had no right to publish the review of the anonymous reviewer. Her worrying about the contract I signed with the American Journal of Physics indicates to me that the conflict is causing her stress.

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Dear Mr. Roemer:

As you probably know, I serve as the Executive Director of the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Our organization is responsible for publishing 15 of AIP’s titles and 8 titles from five of AIP’s Members Societies.  This collection of journals produced over 20,000 articles last year. In all cases, the editorial management and acceptance policies are maintained by independent editors. Editorial decisions involving acceptances, rejections and disputes of submitted articles are necessarily fire-walled from the publishing operations and services provided by AIP. My oversight of the publishing operations is primarily concerned with providing financially sustainable services for the production, dissemination and archiving of these journals. I also oversee the periodic review  of editorial policies that are maintained by each of the AIP journal’s editorial operations. Over the five years that I have had the honor as serving as AIP’s Executive Director, I have not had any reason to intervene in any editorial decisions. In your case, I would not have the legal right to intervene for  a  journal owned by the American Association of Physics Teachers. However, it has been my experience that AAPT operates and maintains the editorial operations of its journal, the American Journal of Physics, according to well established editorial policies for peer-reviewed scientific journals, and I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

Sincerely,

H. Frederick Dylla, Executive Director and CEO

Email sent on May 10, 2012
Dear Dr. Lanzerotti,
The attached article uses the equation connecting entropy with thermodynamic probability for the biosphere to prove that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics ( S = Boltzmann constant x log W). It is as absurd to calculate the entropy of a biological entity as it is to calculate the temperature of a Boeing 747.

The article may have been written and published in good faith, but I have since pointed out the errors in the article to the editor and publisher of the AJP and H. Frederick Dylla. I find the behavior of all concerned morally reprehensible.

I’ll be glad to meet with you to explain why the AJP should publish a retraction of this shocking article.

My correspondence with the AJP and the AIP is on my blog at
http://newevangelist.me/2012/05/06/american-institute-of-physics/
http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/23/american-association-of-physics-teachers/
Very truly yours,
David Roemer

Dear Dr. Roemer:
Regarding your message of today, copied below, I serve as the Chair of the Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics.  As the Chair, I have no role in the editorial policies of the physical science societies for which the Institute serves as the publisher.   It would be highly irregular, quite wrong, and indeed unethical for me as the Chair of the publishing organization to to be involved with, or interfere with, the editorial policies of these societies.
Sincerely,
Louis J. Lanzerotti
Chair, AIP Governing Board

Email sent on May 16, 2012
Subject: Pseudoscience in the AJP
Dear Lisa Nocks,
As an historian, you should be more than superficially interested in the question of whether a PhD from NYU (1971) doesn’t understand the second law of thermodynamics or the American Journal of Physics is deliberately perpetrating misinformation about physics and evolution. I suggest you discuss the matter with the colleague of yours to whom I explained the absurdity of the article. This is the answer I got: (see above)

Very truly yours, David Roemer

Posted on Science Writers of New York LinkedIn Group on May 17, 2012

I’v contacted everyone on the Executive Board of the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) explaining why the article should be retracted. This makes each of them guilty of disseminating misinformation about evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. The AAPT justifies its misconduct with a scam that prevents anyone from taking responsibility for the absurd article.

On May 10, I sent an email to the chairman of the American Institute of Physic Governing Board and a physics professor at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), Louis Lanzerotti. Professor Lanzerotti’s response to the email was disingenuous.

On May 10, Lisa Nocks, also a professor NJIT, said she “liked” a response made by Andrew Skolnick three months ago explaining why I didn’t understand the second law of thermodynamics.

I sent Lisa my correspondence with the American Institute of Physics, and suggested that she ask Lanzerotti about the AJP article. Lanzerotti is a physicist with a responsible position.

If her colleague says I am wrong about the article, Lisa can let her derogation of me stand with a clear conscience. But if Lanzerotti avoids the matter, as he did in his email to me, then I think Lisa owes me an apology.

I sent emails to John Haynes and Robert Byer of the American Institute of Physics on 5/17/21012

I sent emails to Alan Leshner and Adrian Cho of the AAAS on 5/21

Letter sent to CEO of AIP Publishing on April 5, 2013

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
Faxed to 516-349-7669
Mailed with a certificate of mailing.