From Hmolpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Synopsis of the change in “term” usage, in US creationism science literature, in the wake of the Edwards vs Aguillard (1987) ruling, which declared that “creation science” cannot be a required-by-law education subject, along side of evolution, in the Louisiana school system, after which all usages of the term creation were re-coded, via the word intelligent design; a term which was itself was banned in the US education system, following the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) ruling, when it was found that that the latter term was a deliberate textbook scrubbing replacement synonym of the former (as evidenced, in court, by cut-copy-paste errors in copies of Panda’s Thumb).[1] A recent example is Robert Hanlon (2020), where, in his article on the history of the first law of thermodynamics, scrubs "creation" with the replacement term "arrival", when switching from personal blog version to peer review version.

In terms, creation (TR:263) (LH:13) (TL:276) refers to the making of things by a god or gods as told in a creation myth.



In 312BC, Nes-Amsu scribe, in his Book of the Evolutions of Ra, an afterlife papyrus made for Nes-Amsu, a high-ranking priest of Panopolis (modern: Akhmim), which was chanted at the temple of Amen-Ra, the king of the gods at Thebes, described the origin of things, aka Genesis 1.1, in modern terms, as follows:

“I, Amen-Ra, in Khepri form, lifted heaven (pet) and earth (ta), from a state of inactivity, out of Nun.”
— Nes-Amsu scribe (312BC), Book of the Evolutions of Ra (Genesis 1.1)[2]

Here, Ra or Amen-Ra, in the form of Khepri, aka Ra in the beetle form of the morning sun[3], "raises up" heaven (pet) and earth (ta), out of the god Nun (Nu) or primeval watery abyss:[2]

Genesis 1.1 (Nes-Amsu Scribe).png

The heaven (or pet) symbol seen here, to note, derives, in early form, e.g. Unas Pyramid Texts (2315BC), from the heaven goddess Nut, hieroglyph: Nut H1f.png, i.e. a female standing on all fours with her body arched, which later came to mean "sky".[4] The earth (or ta) likewise, derives from the older Geb or earth god model.

In 1382, John Wycliffe, in the first English translation of the Bible, described Genesis 1.1, according to which "god" (prescript: Amen-Ra) "makes" heaven and earth out of nothing, or "god made of nought heaven and earth", in the original text, as follows:

“In the beginning, god made heaven and earth out of nothing.”
John Wycliffe (1382), Bible (Genesis 1.1) [5]

In 1600, King James, in the wake of the invention of the printing press (Gutenberg, 1450), made his now-famous King James Bible, wherein Genesis 1.1 was redacted to state that god "created" heaven and earth:

“In the beginning, god created heaven and earth.”
— King James (1600), Bible (Genesis 1.1)

In the centuries to follow, "create", "created", "creator", and "creationism", etc., became stable coded key terms used in theology, as linguistic cyphers for god or the work of god.[6]

Creation Trojanism

The term "create" is a literary Trojan horse, employed to infused an argument with a god is behind everything argument. The following are the main create-based Trojan terms:

Creation science
Intelligent design

Many of these terms, when employed in education system, particularly in the US education system, wherein "separation of church and state"[9] are enforced by law, and or in scientific publications, e.g. evolution theory, physics, chemistry, or thermodynamics, tend to result in ejection or in some cases, if parents object enough, in legal action.

Edwards vs Aguillard (1987) | Creation → Intelligence Design

This term switch, brings to mind the famous “Edwards vs Aguillard” (1987) evolution vs creation science court case, illustrated adjacent, following which, it was found, via systematic examination of the “term” usage in US creation biology textbooks, that all usages of the term “creation” and “creationist” were scrubbed out and replaced with “intelligent design” and “design proponent”, respectively, as as a linguistic ploy to sneak religious-based science into the education system.

Hanlon (2020) | Creation → Arrival

In 2020, Robert Hanlon, amid the development of his Block by Block book on the history of thermodynamics, gives a telling “creationism-themed” term usage switch, found when we compare Hanlon's “personal” WordPress blog version of his article “170th Anniversary of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics”, shown below:

“Upon publishing my book, Block by Block: the Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Thermodynamics, Oxford University Press kindly invited me to write a post related to my book for their academic blog. I gladly accepted and chose as my topic the ‘creation of’ the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by Rudolf Clausius’ work of 1850.”
— Robert Hanlon (2020), “170th Anniversary of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics”,, WordPress, Jun 3 [10]

with the peer-vetted Oxford University Press version of the same article:

“This year marks the 170th anniversary of the ‘arrival of’ the 1st Law of Thermodynamics to science, for it was in 1850 that Rudolf Clausius used the findings of James Joule to correct Sadi Carnot’s “flawed masterpiece,” as historian Robert Fox put it, and in so doing arrived at the equation .”
— Robert Hanlon (2020), “170th Anniversary of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics”,, Oxford University Press, Apr 24 [11]

Here, we see Hanlon, in the vetted (by Oxford University Press) version, use the neutral term “arrival of” the first law, whereas in his personal blog, he reverts to the theistically-loaded “creation of”.

Hanlon vs Muller

To elaborate on creation Trojanism , via the Beg analysis, we can compare the "key term" usage, based on Amazon key term search results, of Ingo Muller’s History of Thermodynamics (2007)[12] with Robert Hanlon’s Brick by Brick (2020), the numbers in brackets being the word/page usage ratio, both being compared to the Google key term search for the second edition of Rudolf Clausius' The Mechanical Theory of Heat (1875)[13], which is the foundational book of thermodynamics:

Creation God Religion Work Energy Heat Entropy
Clausius (1875) 0 0 0 83+ 39+ 82+ 31+
Muller (2008) | 330-pgs 5 (0.015) 7 (0.021) 2+ (0.0061) 110 (0.33) 173 (0.52) 150 (0.45) 121 (0.37)
Hanlon (2020) | 672-pgs 42 (0.063) 14 (0.021) 9+ (0.013) 483 (0.72) 402 (0.60) 348 (0.52) 159 (0.24)

Firstly, in respect to Clausius vs Muller and Hanlon, we see what originated as a pure subject, applicable universally, being infiltrated with creation terminology?

Secondly, we see Hanlon the employment the word "creation" at a 420% usage above the norm; presuming Muller's term usage to be the normal or typical word usage rate, for a stand book on the history of thermodynamics (which are few and far between). Moreover, given dominance of the terms "work", on the science side (S-Term), and "creation", on the religious side (R-Term), it would seem to be the case that Hanlon's "history of thermodynamics" is, in his mind, code for the history of the "work of creation"? Hanlon's term usage, can be compared to the term usage ranking in all Hmolpedia articles, where we see "entropy" aligned in the top usage rankings, and "creation" near the bottom.


The following are related quotes:

“The entropy of the universe must for ever increase to its final maximum value. It has not yet reached this: we should not be thinking about it if it had. It is still increasing rapidly, and so must have had a beginning; there must have been what we may describe as a ‘creation’ at a time not infinitely remote.”
— James Jeans (1930), The Mysterious Universe (pg. 182); cited by Helge Kragh (2008) in Entropic Creation (pg. 204) [14]
“The point of all of this is that our creator has fashioned laws that are deep seated and broadly applicable, that science is heavily intertwined in our everyday life, frequently without our realization, that we need to break down the compartmentalization of knowledge, that we need to work for a unification of learning, and that we need to understand better the meaning and purpose of life.”
Friedrich Rossini (1971), “Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World” [15]
“The second law of thermodynamics is man’s description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to the future destiny of man and the universe.”
— Gordon Wylen (1985), Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics (pg. 233) [16]
God did not create the universe.”
Stephen Hawking (2010), "Article", London Times, Sep 2

End matter

See also


  1. Science vs religion legal cases – Hmolpedia 2020.
  2. 2.0 2.1 (a) Budge, Wallis. (1890). “On the Hieratic Papyrus of Nesi-Amsu, a scribe in the Temple of Amen-Rā at Thebes, about B.C. 305” (abs), Archaeologia, 52(2):393-608.
    (b) Budge, Wallis. (1904). The Gods of the Egyptians, Volume One (Nes-Amsu Papyrus discussion, pgs. 293-307; Creation Version A, pgs. 308-13; Creation Version B, pgs. 313-21). Dover, 1969.
    (c) How the Bible was written? (subdomain) – Hmolpedia 2020.
  3. Morning sun – Hmolpedia 2020.
  4. Sky (hieroglyph) – Wikipedia.
  5. Wycliffe, John. (1382). Bible (Genesis 1.1). Publisher.
  6. Creation –
  7. Creationism scientists ranked by idiocy – Hmolpedia 2020.
  8. About –
  9. Separation of church and state in the US – Wikipedia.
  10. Hanlon, Robert. (2020). “170th Anniversary of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics” (Ѻ),, WordPress, Jun 3.
  11. Hanlon, Robert. (2020). “170th Anniversary of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics” (Ѻ),, Oxford University Press, Apr 24.
  12. Muller, Ingo. (2007). A History of Thermodynamics (§: Other Extrapolations. Information, pgs. 123-25). Springer.
  13. Clausius, Rudolf. (1875). The Mechanical Theory of Heat (translator: Walter Browne). Macmillan, 1879.
  14. Kragh, Helge S. (2008). Entropic Creation: Religious Contexts of Thermodynamics and Cosmology (pg. 208). Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
  15. Rossini, Frederick D. (1971). “Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World” (abs) (pdf), Priestley Medal Address, delivered Mar 29 at the national American Chemical Society meeting, Los Angeles, California; in: Chemical Engineering News, April 5, 49 (14): 50-53.
  16. (a) Wylen, Gordon and Sonntag, Richard. (1973). Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics (2nd ed) (section: 7.16: Some General Comments Regarding Entropy, pgs. 247-48; creator, pg. 248). Wiley.
    (b) Wylen, Gordon and Sonntag, Richard. (1985). Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics (3rd ed) (creator, pg. 233). Wiley.

External links

Theta Delta ics T2.jpg