The editor refused to publish this part of a letter that I submitted in a reply to an article by Mark Friesel (Physics Today, Feb. 2001, p.82). When I asked why, the editor said that it was "out of consideration for our readers"
Physics Today refused to publish the attached letter. I also attach a copy of a letter that I sent, in protest, to members of the Physics Today Advisory Committee, apparently without result.
Part of letter submitted on February 4, 2001:
He* also thinks that the truth of religious belief "cannot be meaningfully evaluated by scientific methods". Is he aware that the experimental method originated in a religious context? To the best of my knowledge, the credit should be given to the prophet Elijah who, in the 9th century BC, proposed an experimental test2 as a means of discovering information about God.
2. 1 Kings 18:20-40.
* i.e., Mark Friesel
Mark Friesel's article: http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-2/p82a.html
My censored letter: http://www.physicstoday.com/pt/vol-54/iss-8/p72b.html
Sent to the Physics Today Advisory Committee on May 6, 2002
c/o American Center for Physics
One Physics Ellipse
College Park MD 20740-3842
Washington DC 20375
The May issue of Physics Today contained an article entitled Creationists Have Designs on Ohio. In fact, however, neither Michael Behe nor William Dembski, the two Ohio debate critics of Darwinism, mentioned "Creationism". The Physics Today headline is a testimony to the creative imagination of the editor. On May 6, I sent the editor a letter (reproduced below) strongly criticizing this article. The editor has now decided not to publish my letter.
The June issue of Physics Today (pp. 48-51) contained two long articles on the same topic, both, however, written by people on the Darwinist side of the controversy. Neither the May nor the June issue contained any contribution from people on the other side. On the (admittedly limited) information available to me, it appears that, where Darwinism is concerned, Physics Today is in danger of becoming a one-sided propaganda publication that excludes and misrepresents critics. It is also behind the times (c.f., e.g,, the letter by Roland Lindh in the Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2002).
It is not Physics Today's policy to disclose reasons for editorial decisions and so it is, of course, possible that it has been decided to publish other letters that make my points more effectively than I do. If, however, this is not the case, I would be grateful if you would consider asking the letters editor (email@example.com) to reconsider her decision not to publish my letter.
Arthur S. Lodge
The Letters Editor
The article Creationists Have Designs on Ohio by Jim Dawson (May, 2002) is one-sided and misleading. Two of the recent Ohio debaters contended that the critics of Darwinism have no case. Your correspondent appears to have been taken in by this hoary old debating ploy, for he allots space to Darwinists' quotations but not to their critics'. The Ohio School Board did better: they gave equal time to both sides. The whole tenor of your article and its heading is to use scare tactics (Religion through the back door! Horrors!) in an attempt to deflect attention away from the very real need for impartial, rational, realistic discussions of evolution.
In fact, as far as macroevolution is concerned, it is the Darwinists who have no case. No-one has ever published any evidence or any sufficiently detailed analysis that establishes even the feasibility of the theory that random, spontaneous mutations coupled with natural selection are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary changes. To argue, as many do, from the theory's established applicability to a few microevolutionary changes (e.g., those involved in the development of virus-resistant bacteria), involves an extrapolation so huge that it boggles (or should boggle) the imagination. It is also claimed (unjustifiably, in my opinion) that, under conditions where large numbers of small changes occur over long periods of time, the improbable could become probable, and that the theory could be valid, after all. These conditions might conceivably be necessary; they have never been shown to be sufficient.
Arthur S. Lodge
When Liquids Stay Dry
To the Letters Editor, Physics Today; 1/9/98
I suggest that your January, 1998, cover story about liquids that sometimes refrain from, or delay, mixing with
themselves ought to have referred also to the remarkable effect found by Kaye 35 years ago. A flask containing a
solution of polyisobutylene in decalin was clamped so that the liquid poured out and fell under gravity in a thin
stream, about 7 inches in height, on to a shallow dish full of the same liquid at the same temperature. Normally,
the falling stream would generate a small conical heap on the liquid in the dish. However, every few seconds,
the stream would apparently bounce on the dish liquid and shoot upwards and outwards in a jet that reached a
height of 2 or 3 inches before rapidly collapsing. I know of no published discussion or explanation for this
Arthur S. Lodge
A. Kaye (1963) Nature (London) , vol.197, p.1001.
A. S. Lodge Elastic Liquids, Fig. 10.12 (photographs) (Academic Press, London and New York, 1964)
The Kaye effect is shown in the following picture:
Physics Today refused to publish this letter or this picture.