Creative energy

From Hmolpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
A “what ignites creative energy?” diagram, with matches added (Thims, 2021), from the article “Reader Question: What to do when you feel out of touch with creative energy?” (2017) by Scott Myers.[1] The issue here, is that when a "match" ignites, or a tree catches on fire by a bolt of lightened, we do not define this as "creative" energy, or the energy of a "creator". It is just energy, plane and simple. As Planck (1936) and Sherrington (1938) famously advised, we must "deanthropomorphize"[2] our language and thinking of "anthropisms"[3], if we are to come out of the dark ages.

In terms, creative energy, similar to "creative force", refers to an "energy" that is associated with a god, will of god, or divine work of god; a force moving a body through unit distance, by the will of a creator or as the result of creation; in some formulations, it is presented as a natural energy, e.g. as attempted to be defined by thermodynamics; in others, it is presented as metaphysical energy, such as in the "higher power"[4] or new age scheme of things.


The use of "creative" or "created" in colloquial speech, in many cases, may be simply a way of describing something, e.g. when someone declares "I'm feeling creative today!", with no underlying conscious theological or metaphysical meaning.

When, however, "creative" or "created" is employed in the same sentence as "energy", such as we have seen historically (in US courtrooms) with respect to "evolution", and in the context of a scientific argument or publication, more often than not, it will tend to be a type of coded creationism argument or subtle theistic thermodynamics play on words. The most famous example of this is the assertion that first law of thermodynamics states that: "energy can neither be created nor destroyed". This is an example of a famously uncitable quote.

When one looks into the exact language used by the formulators of the first law, specifically the "mechanical equivalent of heat" by Mayer and Joule, the conservation of force models of Helmholtz, and the unification of all this by Clausius in the first law, "exact" scientific language is used. The term "created", in respect to the "energy" and the "first law", was never used by any of the thermodynamics founders; the term "created" was a later theological brush stroke added, mostly by popular science writers, to appease culturally dominate god-believing mindsets.

Explicit | Creationism

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).[5] Hanlon, similarly, scrubs "creation" with the replacement term "arrival", in respect to the laws of thermodynamics

In 20th century, many “creative energy” based thermodynamics publications were overt and explicit about their view that god or a “creator” is behind the energy and or entropy of thermodynamics, and the laws defining these quantities; for example:

“The point of all of this is that our creator has fashioned laws [of energy and entropy] 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” [6]
“The second law [entropy] 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) [7]

Here, Rossini tells us openly his belief that the laws of energy and entropy were fashioned by a "creator". Likewise, Wylen explains that, in his view, the second law is man's description of past and present work of a "creator". Mirza Beg, similarly, in his 1987 New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior, declares openly his belief that Gibbs energy, the measure of the spontaneity of chemical reactions, social or otherwise, is the "will of god", the god in this case being Allah, the Islamic god. These are example of explicit creationism and "open" theological thermodynamics.

This can be compared to "closet" theological thermodynamics, as discussed below, a more difficult and covert variety to detect.

Implicit / Coded | Creationism

In recent decades, particularly following Edwards vs Aguillard (1987) and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), wherein the term "creation" and its adjectives, e.g. creative, creator, create, "intelligent designer", etc., were banned from the US education system, use of the term "creative energy", not to mention "creative force" (or "creative power") do not usually appear, in academic publications, as a "joint term". Instead, the previously joint terms have been split, and broken up into sentence formations, wherein the underlying "creative energy" closeted belief system being advanced is more difficult to detect.

Beg analysis

One way to detect so-called coded "creative energy" theory, is via applying Beg analysis to similar books, one standard (or secular) the other "coded creatively", presumably. If we compare, e.g., Robert Hanlon's 2021 Brick by Brick: the Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Thermodynamics (2021)[8] with Ingo Muller's A History of Thermodynamics: the Doctrine of Energy and Energy (2007)[9], we see a distinctly different pattern in respect to "creation" term usage. Consider, firstly, the manner in which Hanlon surrounds internal energy U with the word "created" and "creation" on both sides, employed three times on one sentence chunk, related to the derivation of the first law:

“Consider that when Clausius created U, he was able to reasonably grasp the physical meaning behind it since he based the creation on two comprising properties that he grasped quite well, the vis viva of the moving atoms and the work needed to separate them. In other words, he first learned the pieces than created the whole.”
Robert Hanlon (2020), Brick by Brick (pg. 457)

If we now key term search each book, using the Amazon search engine for each book, we find the following; numbers in brackets being the term per page ratio:

God Religion Creation Creative
Muller (2007) | 330-pgs 7 (0.021) 2+ (0.0061) 5 (0.015) 1 (0.0030)
Hanlon (2020) | 672-pgs 14 (0.021) 9+ (0.013) 42 (0.063) 28 (0.042)

Here, we see Hanlon the employment the word "creation" at a 420% term usage above-the-norm, and "creative" at a 1400% term usage above-the-norm; presuming Muller's term usage to be the normal or over-typical word usage rate, for a stand book on the history of thermodynamics (which are few and far between). Now, to clarify, Hanlon does not come out and say that the "energy of thermodynamics is the creative work of god", but rather what we see, him being affiliated with the chemical engineering department of MIT, is a closeted effort to sell "creative energy" theory, using an overly-suggestive vocabulary method or technique.

The following shows the science term usage for each book, where is the ratio of energy to entropy term usage in each book:

Heat Work Energy Entropy
Muller (2007) | 330-pgs 150 (0.45) 110 (0.33) 173 (0.52) 121 (0.37) 1.5
Hanlon (2020) | 672-pgs 348 (0.52) 483 (0.72) 402 (0.60) 159 (0.24) 2.5

Hanlon, as we see, discusses "energy" at a rate of 2.5 times that of "entropy" in his book, whereas Muller discusses energy and entropy on nearly equal footing, at a rate of 1.5 that of energy to that of entropy. This can be accounted for, by the fact that entropy has always been a sort of anathema to the theist, which is evidenced by ubiquity which which theists tend towards the invention of "entropy antonyms".[10]


The following are quotes:

“There is no ‘creative energy’ whatever in the vegetable or animal organism.”
John Tyndall (1863), “Vitality” (pg. 94)[11]
“The true chemical philosopher sees good in all the diversified forms of the external world. Whilst he investigates the operations of infinite power guided by infinite wisdom, all low prejudices, all mean superstitions disappear from his mind. He sees man an atom amidst atoms fixed upon a point in space ; and yet modifying the laws that are around him by understanding them; and gaining, as it were, a kind of dominion over time, and an empire in material space, and exerting on a scale infinitely small a power seeming a sort of shadow or reflection of a creative energy, and which entitles him to the distinction of being made in the image of god and animated by a spark of the divine mind. Whilst chemical pursuits exalt the understanding, they do not depress the imagination or weaken genuine feelings; whilst they give the mind habits of accuracy, by obliging it to attend to facts, they likewise extend its analogies; and, though conversant with the minute forms of things, they have for their ultimate end the great and magnificent objects of nature.”
Humphrey Davy (1813), Publication [12]
“The claim that ‘reason’ must be classed as an energy of the highest intensity is itself unreasonable. On the contrary, reason is the last in time, and therefore the lowest in tension. According to our western standards, the most intense phase of human Energy occurred in the form of religious and artistic emotion, – perhaps in the Crusades and Gothic Churches; but since then, though vastly increased in apparent mass, human energy has lost intensity and continues to lose it with accelerated rapidity, as the Church proves. Organized in society, as a volume, it becomes a multiplied number of enfeebled units, on which, like the eye in insects, reason acts as an enormously multiplied lens, converging nature's lines of will, and taking direction from them, but adding nothing of its own. Man has, indeed, - or had, — in a few of his stems, some faculty for artistic expression, not nearly so strong as that of some plants, or some butterflies, or some birds, but more varied. This instinct he probably inherited from an earlier, more gifted, animal; but as a creative energy he inherited next to nothing. The coral polyp is a giant beside him. As an energy he has but one dominant function: that of accelerating the operation of the second law of thermodynamics. So far as his reason acts as an energy at all, it is a miraculous invention for this purpose, which inspires wonder and almost worship, but in strictness and reason does not work, — it is only a mechanism; — nature's energy, which we have agreed to call ‘will’, that lies behind reason, does the work, — and degrades the energy in doing it!”
Henry Adams (1919), The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma (pgs. 229-30) [13]

End matter

See also


  1. Myers, Scott. (2017). “Reader Question: What to do when you feel out of touch with creative energy?” (Ѻ), Go to the Story, Sep 30.
  2. Deanthropomorphize – Hmolpedia 2020.
  3. Anthropism – Hmolpedia 2020.
  4. Higher power – Hmolpedia 2020.
  5. Science vs religion legal cases – Hmolpedia 2020.
  6. 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.
  7. (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.
  8. Hanlon, Robert. (2020). Block by Block: the Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Thermodynamics (Illustrators: Robert Hanlon and Carly Sanker) (Bib). Oxford University Press.
  9. Muller, Ingo. (2007). A History of Thermodynamics (§: Other Extrapolations. Information, pgs. 123-25). Springer.
  10. Entropy antonyms – Hmolpedia 2020.
  11. (a) Tyndall, John. (1863). “Vitality”, Publisher.
    (b) Tyndall, John. (1893). Lectures and Essays by John Tyndall (pgs. 94-96). Watts, 1903.
  12. Davy, Humphry. (1840). “Dialogue Five: the Chemical Philosopher”, in: The Collected Works of Humphry Davy (pg. 361). Smith, Elder, and Co.
  13. Adams, Henry. (1919). The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma (pgs. 229-30). Publisher.
Theta Delta ics T2.jpg