Foundations Matter: Intelligent Design's first problem with Darwinism
By Homunculus Posted in User Blogs — Comments (132) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For many years public schools and great universities have been teaching a system of thinking that purports to answer the questions regarding the genesis and evolution of life on earth. Until recently, that teaching was accepted by the rank-and-file parents of students as "just what they teach these days", without much firm understanding of the underpinnings of the theories taught. In my earlier post I attempted to give layman-like definitions so that typical parents could understand what all the shouting was about regarding the relatively new public controversy between "Darwinism" and Intelligent Design theory.
Now what most parents know about Darwinism begins and ends with the notion that humans evolved from monkeys. A few are familiar with the idea that our even more distant relatives were pond scum. We also have a larger than expected cadre of young, black-clad, militant-looking students of evolution (often with prominant multiple piercings, scary jailhouse tats, and even scarier "Kucinich for President" bumper stickers) who drive their vehicles adorned with mockeries of Christian "sign of the fish" symbols with "evolved feet" attached and the name "DARWIN" emblazoned on the fish's eppanage. One wonders how many parents are pleased with this counter-culture outcome of their kids embrace of Darwinistic atheism resulting from their public science eduation. Personally knowing both the parents and kids of this calamity, I can attest to the decline in moral values of teenagers associated with the embrace of nihilistic atheism.
Twentieth century British atheist Bertrand Russell wrote extensively about how science had presented humanity with a world view that was "purposeless" and "void of meaning" in his book "Why I Am Not a Christian" (1957). Russell ominously states:
"That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspriation, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction...that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding espair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built".
Such is the zero-sum existence of life as postulated by neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Darwinism makes as a first priority atheistic principles of metaphysics rather than the pure empricism of pure science. As such, we find a theory of macro-evolution that is flawed from its foundations. At the same time, proponents of evolution dismiss Intelligent Design theory as not only "not science" (based on their own biased definition of terms) but as religion. One pundit dismissed ID as "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo". Yet it is ID, not Darwinism, that "follows where the evidence leads", without biased premises designed to yield the results the practitioners desire.
Nothwithstanding the long line of world-class biochemists, genius physicists and far-seeing mathematicians that haunt this blog, most folks know little in the way of facts about this debate. A majority of the editorial postings found on the internet and in MSM newspaper opinion carefully adhere to the academic zeitgeist of macro-evolution as settled science. The intention is to shout-down dissenting opinion as unstudied, ignorant and too ridiculous for comment. Unfortunately for the Darwinists, the cat is already out of the bag. To paraphrase Lincoln: "you can fool some of the school boards some of the time, but you can't fool them all all the time". Never underestimate the "duh" factor when trying to foist nonsense on the general public; someone will eventually call you on it.
My college experiences from early to late 70s included a focus in science. In recent years I have changed my mind from a general acquiescence to the neo-Darwinian teachings of my college science professors (many of whom were nonplussed regarding the veracity of neo-Darwinian theory). I have been convinced through my current study to believe that Intelligent Design theory has demonstrated a probable knock-out punch to the primary tenets of macro-evolutionary theory, as defined in my last diary.
Intelligent Design (ID) makes its first frontier the controversy regarding the problems with Darwinism. These are serious problems, many of which would be significant enough to bring down a less ideologically appealing (in certain quarters) scientific theory. (These serious problems are glossed over nonchalantly as mere "gaps" in the theory by Darwinists). Remember that we use this term (Darwinism) generically to refer to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories that emphasize macro-evolution by way of atheistic premises of "naturalism". Today's neo-Darwinists attempt to fix the definition of terms under their self-proclaimed axiom of "methodological materialism"(MM). But regardless of the terminology, it all rolls back to Darwin's first premise.
Darwin was first and foremost a naturalist. His premise involved a rejection of any kind of what he considered "supernatural intervention" of God or any intelligent agent and focusing on only "natural" systems. Prior to Einstein's discovery of the principles of General Relativity in 1916 most naturalists, including Einstein, believed the universe was static and eternal; naturalists believed the universe had always existed, without a beginning or end.
Einstein's theory of General Relativity was something of an enigma for Einstein and his fellow travelers in naturalism. General Relativity seemed to be saying that the universe may not be static, but expanding at great speed. Ten years or so later, Edwin Hubble noted the "Red Shift" of galaxies, indicating that not only was there more than one galaxy in the universe, but that the galaxies were moving away from one another as Einstein had predicted. Much later the telescope named after Hubble gave demonstration that the universe was not only expanding, but the expansion was accelerating and not going to slow down. This discovery doomed "oscillating" universe models that were considered accurate by Carl Sagan and other recent scholars and as more "atheism friendly". This Hubble telescope discovery came shortly after Sagans death.
Einstein's enigma was that this universal expansion, when run in reverse, indictated that the universe was apparently (to use a layman's term) "exploding" from an infinitesimal original bit of something called by scientists the "singularity". Prior to the singularity, there was absolute nothingness; no space, no time, no light, no dark, no energy, no matter, no vacuum fluctuations, no interaction amongst anything, no strings attached; nothing but mind defying absolute nothingness. It appeared to Einstein (and to all but the radical fringe of scientists today) that the universe had a distinct beginning (now estimated at about 13.7 billion years ago).
This concept of a non-eternal universe, one which seemed to start from "absolutely nothing", caused Einstein and many of his colleagues to become convinced of the necessity of a creating entity of some sort; a (for lack of a better term) designer had to do it. Einstein discribed his agnst regarding this finding in his authorized biography "Albert Einstein: Scientist / Philosopher" (1949). It resulted in a change of his view as an atheistic naturalist to a Deist; he became a person believing in a designing entity that was essentially axiomatic given the inevitability of a Big Bang causing the advent of the universe.
Today the Big Bang theory is accepted almost univerally among scientists. Biblical Creationists, who believe in a young earth and premise their theories via an inerrant reading of the book of Genesis, dispute the Big Bang theory. And there are naturalists too who are fighting tooth and nail to disporve Big Bang, given its theological implications. Intelliegent design theory makes no appeal to theism or atheism, but merely to "following where the evidence leads".
Stepehn Hawking, the great genius and atheist cosmologist, has worked tirelessly dispite his physical disability (ALS) on what he calls his "theory of everything", which he hopes will undo the Big Bang and its necessity for either a god or a magician. But every attempt by Hawking has yielded a singularity in every model, unless he uses "imaginary numbers". The bottom cosmological line to that attempt is, when the imaginary numbers are replaced with real numbers, the ubiquitous signularity rears its ugly head. For the layman, Hawking's efforts are the scientific counterpart to taking a tenderfoot on a snipe hunt using an imaginary bag and an imaginary pack of dogs.
Big Bang cosmology has proven to be the Big Problem for naturalism. Neo-Darwinian evolutionists consider science by definition to only include matter, energy and the way they interact (MM). To them that is what naturalism means. And yet the Big Bang theory, which is a much stronger and emperically demonstrable theory as contrasted with macro-evolution, demonstrates that "naturalism" may by default include other factors than simply interaction between matter and energy. In other words, the universe's existence and its nature require laws and rules that cannot be achieved by MM.
Which gets us to the bottom line regarding the atheistic foundations of neo-Darwinian theory. Darwinists make clearly atheistic claims, although some of the more clever (or confused) Darwinists today consider their theory to not exclude the possibility of an intelligent designer. Well, at least they say they believe in evolution and God, but then they say they don't believe in Intelligent Design, so go figure.
This is disingenuous hyperbole; outspoken British zoologist and atheistic evolution gospelizer Richard Dawkins said "...naturalistic scientific discoveries" "...made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".
But since the days of Darwin, and the prevalent belief in the eternal, static universe, atheism has permeated, impaired and defiled the claimed objectivity of evolutionary methodology. The result is a flawed, non-emperical scientific method based on the foundation of "Because I Said So" (BISS epistemology).
We find BISS epistemology lurking as the foundation of methological materialism. The Darwinists say that science may only consider matter, energy and their interaction (MM). Yet Big Bang cosmology (and there are many other examples) demonstrate that something besides those variables cannot emperically be ruled out. Darwinists are guilty of "begging the question", claiming MM as the absolute foundation, yet with no proof for this as legitimate besides "because I said so" (BISS).
In my previous diary I pointed out that Darwinism will allow any theory except intelligence as worthy of consideration in an attempt to vacate the necessity for design in life. This concept, Anything But Design (ABD), can be seen in the multitude of mistaken and downright fraudulent theories that Darwinism has embraced over the last 100 plus years.
So we actually can discern the actual operating premise of the flawed foundations of Darwinism. It goes something like this: "Methodological Materialism Yields Science (why?) Because I Said So; Therefore Methodological Materialism approves Anything But Design (why?) Because I Said So.
As a result of this founding premise we therefore see volumes of "peer reviewed" hypotheses involving hundreds of scientists that strongly support the premises of macro-evolution as "settled science", based on terms of engagement that are metephysical at best and a stacked deck at worst. This is similar to the relatively recent elimination of theories involving statsis of the world's continents in favor of the relatively new theory of "plate techtonics". Prior to the discovery of plate techtonics in the 1960s, scientists were writing volumes of peer reviewed articles on theories that became "flat earth" after the new theory was verified. This is what is evolving in the world of evolutionary biology with the advent of the hypotheses of irreducible complexity by Behe and complexity arguments by Dembski, to name just two. As evolutionist attack these new options, it should be remembered that whatever peer reviewed argument they may use it is potentially contaminated due to neo-Darwinism's flawed foundations.
This eventuality may not necessarily negate validity of some of the premises of evolutionary theory. But given the non-scientific (epistemological and metaphysical) premises upon which such theory is precariously perched, how does one discern the wheat from the chaff (without invoking "BISS")?
It is noteworthy that this is the same argument used by many religious people both past and present: "God made man in his own image because I said so" (or better yet, because "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it"). Now this is clearly an argument of faith, not of science, and is to be greatly admired in the faithful assuming terrorist activity, brainwashing or other fascist activity isn't instituted by the faithful. But this is clearly not science. Similarly, saying "methodological materialism is the only way to determine how Nature made man in its own image, Because I Said So" (or "Dawkins said it, I believe it, and that settles it"), is also clearly an argument from faith, and clearly not science. Most disturbing, the public schools are being used to indoctrinate the unsuspecting public school students, parents and teachers, and quashing public debate via bile and vitriol in the process.
In conclusion it is obvious that the foundational underpinnings of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory are at best wobbly. Rather than an evolutionary theory based on emperical evidence, the guardians of the theory demand a limited playing field to define science in a way that science has demonstrated to be not tenable. Injecting metaphysics into the mix, as do the neo-Darwinists, yields a theory dependant on a prior commitment to atheism, which is philosophically unprovable and scientically manipulative. To quote Intelligent Design theorist William Dembski: "To make methodological materialism a defining feature of science commits the premodern sin of forcing nature into a priori categories rather than allowing nature to speak for itself". Only when science rigorously "follows where the evidence leads", without putting limits on acceptable evidence, can truth be found.
Darwinism has a large corporate constituency; it considers itself "settled science" and does not like answering attacks and denies any controversy regarding the theory's viability. Yet rather than subject itself to unbiased peer review, it has formulated the rules of the game to exclude the peers that might review them in a negative way. And since it is an old theory with tenure and seniority, it can bully, bluster and enforce to maintian its standing. Scientists with doubts about neo-Darwinian dogma are blackballed by the old guard. These examples keep the rank-and-file in line, forcing the pledges to endure the hazing and tow the MM party line in order to stay in the fraternity.
There is a longer line of problems with Darwinism that I plan to discuss going forward. But this foundational problem alone of injecting metaphysics into the emperical world of science compromises neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory as a serious method for giving a description of the origin of the species. The educational system in the United States has enough problems without teaching students disputed theories, such as macro-evolution, as though they were settled science.
And as we will see going forward, Intelligent Design's criticism of neo-Darwinian theory doesn't stop at the philosophical roots. Inexplicable examples of fraudulent studies purporting to support macro-evolution have been injected, and continue to appear, in high school textbooks nationwide. We will look at some examples of those next time.
Haven't we had enough of this the last two weeks?
I think not. Articles along this line will continue to populate the Evolution/ID discussion.
Homunculus, you are quite obviously less qualified to discuss cosmology than a monkey.
None of what you said matters if the characteristics of our universe are inherent to the energy prior to our big bang.
In other words, the universe's existence and its nature require laws and rules that cannot be achieved by MM.
Ya wanna bet?
And I think most of the article is silly, but let's skip the name calling, ok?
I agree that this subject has become tiresome, I'll take that bet, my friend.
Maybe it's just my personal problem, but I typically take the motivated and intentional distortion of reality as the greatest form of insult to rational minds. Willful ignorance, predispositioning, the prejudicial interpretation of evidence, ideological bias... whatever, it's all dishonest, so it isn't science, and I find it to be both insulting and prevalent among proponents of both sides of the issue.
The bet is that I can reasonably demonstrate real physical plausibility via the most conservative mainstream approach, which in this case is Einstein's General Theory in an expanding universe that has a cosmological constant.
Fair enough?
Very simply:
Einstein's cosmological model is valid and isn't unstable in an expanding universe when matter creation causes expansion.
In Einstein's static model, G=0 when there is no matter. The cosmological constant came about because we do have matter, and in order to get rho>0 out of Einstein's matter-less model, you have to condense the matter density from the existing structure. In doing so, the pressure of the vacuum necessarily becomes less than zero, P<0.
Einstein didn't know about particle creation in the quantum vacuum, but he didn't have to in order to postulate that constant matter creation will resolve the instability issue, since the most obvious way to create new matter in Einstein's model, (the most readily compatible with the spirit of general relativity), also holds it flat and stable, while tension between ordinary matter and the vacuum increases, instead.
This effect will eventually cause the forces that hold the universe together to be compromised and we will have ANOTHER big bang, just like the last one and the one before that as the characteristics of our universe will be cast into the next when time restarts.
Causality is not violated because the second law of thermodynamics is not violated when the normal breakdown of ordinary matter in an expanding (entropic) universe is what causes the isolated release of the high-energy photons that are known to interact with the negative energy of the quantum vacuum to create real massive particles.
The effect is the cause of the effect.
But that is not the point of argument, is it, that the universe, indeed, cannot be calculated upon cosmological constant? After all, no one disputes the physical reality of the species of man, much less the existence of gravity, but He who created such. For I sumbit to you that the finger of God can be found in such as quantum physics or even entropy.
Prove to me, however, by way of scientific calculation, the natural, un-aided, spontaneous initiation of the universe as we know it, and I shall promply send you, say, a gift-wrapped bottle of single malt scotch. Ya know, the good stuff.
Prove to me, however, by way of scientific calculation, the natural, un-aided, spontaneous initiation of the universe
LOL!
Maybe the fact that I've studied it for 15 years won't suffice for you. The fact remains that your proof is impossible. Indeed, I have found the that the faith of those whose argument is that of scrictly scientific reasoning must necessarly require much more fortitude than I have as a Believer. One day, no doubt, Science will catch up. It is inevitable.
Further evidence why this discussion has become so tiresome to me.
Cheers-
What you missed is that the thermodynamic structuring is necessarily and perpetually inherent.
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT NOR IMPLICATION IN THE PHYSICS THAT I GAVE FOR AN "ORIGINAL" INITIATION OF ANYTHING.
There exists no evidence to the contrary either... there is no evidence that nothing can exist, quite to the contrary, every last shred of evidence that empiricism permits indicates exactly the opposite.
IOW: Game. Set. Match. now Buck The FU... I did mention the 10 million dollars right?
then we must agree to disagree as termodynamic structuring must necessarily be based upon perfect, static parameters. You cannot provide empirical evidence of your argument. My offer was, indeed, in response to your original affirmation of universal cause via scientific calculation.
The source of contention never was the scientific notation of empirical occurence. However, there is a certain paradox associated with your purely mathematical faith, no?
The 10 mil will come in handy, though I don't take checks.
The trouble with so-called Intelligent Design is not so much the notion, but rather the speakers who write so strongly in favor of it generally seem to lack general intelligence. For example, the writer of this article does not have a grasp on English enough to know that a comma always falls inside the quote, "as such," it being a very simple concept.
It is typical of a group of people who call something a theory (Intelligent design) when it is really just another grasp at quantified faith.
Are we to believe now that dinosaurs roamed 2 by 2 upon Noah's Ark? Fossil records and 100 years of research should all be discarded? I think not. I'll stick with Evolution Theories (my preferred being the Co-Evolution Theorum), and I will leave the mystery of HOW and WHY it occurs to my Spiritual Side to ponder at church.
Thank you all the same.
I hope you understand why.
A satisfactory theory of everything has been published, under a book by that name, by Ken Wilber.
It is a springboard to a discussion of the nature of reality, the shortcomings of science, the necessity of a cosmological hierarchy, the twisting of the truth by postmodern scientism, and in general, a very thought provoking and stimulating read.
I particularly enjoy the holonic indexing system - a way to categorize and classify everything. Simply everything. Which is the first thing a good Theory of Everything should do. Real understanding comes only when one acknowledges what is real. And to realize (make real) that science, in general, has defined itself as the only way to get at What is Real. Its claim on reality is bolstered by the wonderful innovations in our ability to measure the physical world, the physiosphere.
What is worthy of study however, is the question, what is reality? For any body of knowledge that claims to give us access to the ultimate reality, must tell us what reality is.
Most laymen believe the study of science yields us the truth, or the ultimate "what's real." How many layman have a working definition of that reality?
Many will say, that reality is the study of the "thing in itself." That which exists outside of our self, that which IS, despite all of our perceptions and interpretations. This shifts the argument to philosophical grounds, but since most people believe that there is an external reality, and that that reality is the realm of scientific inquiry, they have no trouble accepting that philosphical assertion as a given.
Interesting is it not? I do not dispute that the physiosphere exists, but it does not necessarily follow that science, based upon empirical evidences gathered from the physiosphere, and even the biosphere, is the ultimate and only access to the Real. Because those spheres are only the beginning.
is great. But it has no bearing on science. More precisely the scientific method is indifferent to philosophy. Scientists themselves certainly can embrace various philosophical beliefs but it should never change their methodology.
This diary, as with everything else this guy has written, adds nothing to the discussion. Like many ID advocates they believe that if they make ad hominem attacks towards people who support the theory of evolution that somehow furthers their position.
I do like this bit...
We also have a larger than expected cadre of young, black-clad, militant-looking students of evolution (often with prominant multiple piercings, scary jailhouse tats, and even scarier "Kucinich for President" bumper stickers) who drive their vehicles adorned with mockeries of Christian "sign of the fish" symbols with "evolved feet" attached and the name "DARWIN" emblazoned on the fish's eppanage. One wonders how many parents are pleased with this counter-culture outcome of their kids embrace of Darwinistic atheism resulting from their public science eduation. Personally knowing both the parents and kids of this calamity, I can attest to the decline in moral values of teenagers associated with the embrace of nihilistic atheism
The ID advocate seems to believe that the only way they can win this debate is by paiting the advocates as nothing more than philosophical adherents to a belief. Unfortunately for the IDers EVOLUTION is a matter science. Just because SOME people make it into a belief system does not in ANY way negate the validity of the science.
I also find it amusing that someone who uses the psuedodym homonculous is advocating weak scientific argument.
"The fact remains that your proof is impossible. Indeed, I have found the that the faith of those whose argument is that of scrictly scientific reasoning must necessarly require much more fortitude than I have as a Believer."
As a Believer, don't you contend that you don't require any proof at all?
Because you want barrel fish shooting? Because you want a break from hurricane coverage? Because you're bored?
A Freudian slip?
Truly dym seems more accurate.
I liked the same bit you quoted. Very nice stuff. Beware the Evolutionist Black-shirts!
Here I though the Darwin footed fish was a bit of sarcasm.
I am new to posting comments on a blog (assuming that is what I am doing; I saw some comments that indicated this site may not be a blog; I don't know and don't care; it's a place where I can practice writing my thoughts once in a while and get a human response of some sort, although the jury is out on the "human" part). I have a full life running my company, enjoying family and friends, public service, etc. I am not a closet-case sitting on-line 24-7 like many of the self-congratulating true intellectuals I read as they avoid my arguments deeming them unworthy of comment, demonstrating no answer in the process. Where I come from (FL), that's called losing the argument. Some guy accused me of stupidity due to my comma placement; what a powerful argument in favor of Primordial Soup!. The other searing indictment I've suffered from the "red-state" intelligentsia (nothing like the real red-staters I know) was my insufferable and ignorant misspelling of Archaeopteryx. They're right; I'll convert back to believing in my monkey ancestors immediately! Those were riviting refutations of my sophomoric efforts.
The purpose of my diary entries is to take the premises I have studied over the last eighteen or so months and consolidate the ideas into an understandable overview. I've enjoyed it greatly and learned alot. I find that I've got good company. Although I don't know (and never will) the details of General Relativity, I do know that real scientists (not kids who think they're geniuses) believe what I have posted. At least, I read their comments in respectable publications. I read Einstein's biography when I was a young man and don't anticipate revisionists making sustanitive headway in re-writing what he believed about God and universal origins. So far, if I have to pick between Einstein (or Antony Flew) and "dissention in the ranks", I'll have to go with the former option (although "dissention's" observations about Bill Dembski's self-serving motives were indicative of great insight!)
So far the meager critiques of the salient points I have made are less than worthless. I guess that means these genius Darwinists (including your son Thomas), weary and bored, really do not have an answer other than hand wringing , "LOL" and condescension.
IF my arguments are really that weak, they should be addressed point by point and refuted. Otherwise, lesser mortals (unannointed with great genius in contrast to so many on this site)
who don't know the truth might believe my "nonsense" and be pursuaded to the ID side of the fence. I've changed a number of prominent and intelligent minds in the real world. Of course, the real people I'm referring to have real jobs, vote, raise kids, take vacations (some of this red-state crowd needs one of those BAD) and live in places that have windows (and most even go out-of-doors REGULARLY). I know for sure that everyone is not as impressed with your side's irrefutable logic as much as you guys are.
Otherwise, I do enjoy being able to write on this "blog". It is fun and something I intend to keep doing in my limited spare time. I plan on reading some of the political commentary on this site; so far, if this thread is indicative of a red-state site, I may go back to Molly Ivins home page; her "trolls" are more conservative and clear thinking than some of the crowd I've seen over here.
Happy Labor Day
(it's a national holiday when most people take a day off)
"...first I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability". Nicholson
"...get a life, get a job, get a date, find a wife, have some kids, have some fun, become an adult and stop being such a nerd." S. Bolick
"...you're just jealous because I've been chatting with chicks online for the last four hours". Kip
Now what most parents know about Darwinism begins and ends with the notion that humans evolved from monkeys.
Then they don't know very much, do they? Oh well, I suppose that's enough to make an important decision on school curricula.
I figure if we let this guy talk himself out, he persuades people away from his position.
"...Please allow me to introduce myself; I'm a man of weatlth and taste." K. Richards
"...but what's puzzlin' you is just the Nature of my game..."
"...because I am your Father, Luke!" D. Vader
"...Any other person of basic good sense and goodwill, regardless of party, is welcome to participate and hopefully come around to the ideals of Republicanism." redstate.org comment posting rules
then we must agree to disagree as termodynamic structuring must necessarily be based upon perfect, static parameters.
Prove it, even if I don't have any idea what you're talking about, or why you would think what you seem to think.
You cannot provide empirical evidence of your argument.
Yes, I can, since the observed universe is evidence for my claim.
My offer was, indeed, in response to your original affirmation of universal cause via scientific calculation.
Which you got, but you apparently don't have the ability to recognize that, which is no sin, but it does indicate that you're in over your head, so it IS wrong to persist under these circumstances even if you can't afford the 10 Mil.
The source of contention never was the scientific notation of empirical occurence.
Whatever that means...
However, there is a certain paradox associated with your purely mathematical faith, no?
No.
The 10 mil will come in handy, though I don't take checks.
You lose.
Dembski, Behe, et. al., think that evidence for goal oriented design in nature proves that there is necessarily an intelligent agent behind the design.
They're wrong.
They could be right, but can't prove it.
Nah... you can't leap to assume that evidence for goal oriented design in nature defines anything more than some form of methodical structuring to nature, without making an unfounded leap of faith.
Natural cause is necessarily the default position without proof to the contrary, because we know that the cause for every other effect in nature is natural.
Thanks for you response, but is predicated upon a misunderstanding. How can you respond to what I said unless you understand it?
Let me take what I think you are saying and rephrase it.
<Philosophy has no bearing on science>
Well, maybe, maybe not. In what way do you mean it? Historically they have been quite inter-related. The nature of the universe, or more importantly, what one holds to be real, is quite dependent upon the philosophical underpinnings of the nature of reality.
<Like many ID advocates they believe that if they make ad hominem attacks towards people who support the theory of evolution that somehow furthers their position>
We all understand the moral bankruptcy of ad hominem approaches, but I find equally disturbing and equally intellectually dishonest, the many individuals who abhor religious absolutes, but put all of their eggs in an absolute scientific basket, and discourage further intellectual discovery by claiming, quite erroneously, to have the final word on the subject. The discussion is far from over. And people who have an open minded approach will not rule on the validity of an argument prior to hearing it.
>The ID advocate seems to believe that the only way they can win this debate is by paiting the advocates as nothing more than philosophical adherents to a belief<
True of both sides of this argument.
<Unfortunately for the IDers EVOLUTION is a matter science>
Evolution is a broad subject, and the definitions have shifted over the years. May I remind you that the missing link, is still missing? While the facts of micro-evolution are not in debate, it is the implications of evolution are in debate, and that greatly depends upon one's philosophy.
Many things are a matter of science, and that's my point. We must answer the question of any subject which purports to relay to us the ultimate real truth, what the nature of that truth is, in other words, what is the Real? That is very much a philosophical question. The scientific approach in the past has divided the cosmos, for purpose of analyzing it, into two broad divisions: the observer and the observed. The subject, and the object. Science teaches us, that to get at the truth, we must study the thing in-itself, the object, and this, because that is the only way to be 'objective'. Think over what I am saying. Think over the implications here: science, in order to measure the universe, attempts to separate the known, from the knower, into two separate categories. This is a philosophical stance known as dualism. Scientific dualism has yielded many fruits, undeniably. But it is only one way of perceiving reality, and to halt the investigation, just when it is getting good, because one believes (philosophically so) that one has exhausted all the options, is intellectual laziness.
and just stay away from these for now on. Except to say that I think I may be a little dumber for having read that.
Well, maybe, maybe not. In what way do you mean it? Historically they have been quite inter-related. The nature of the universe, or more importantly, what one holds to be real, is quite dependent upon the philosophical underpinnings of the nature of reality
The nature of the universe is a philosophical question. HOW the universe physically OPERATES is a scientific question.
We all understand the moral bankruptcy of ad hominem approaches, but I find equally disturbing and equally intellectually dishonest, the many individuals who abhor religious absolutes, but put all of their eggs in an absolute scientific basket, and discourage further intellectual discovery by claiming, quite erroneously, to have the final word on the subject. The discussion is far from over. And people who have an open minded approach will not rule on the validity of an argument prior to hearing it
Ok but I think you will find most people who support the science of evolution will freely admit that there is a lot more to discover. Furthermore I, along with most others, am MORE THAN willing to listen to theories in support of ID. But there really aren't a whole lot of those. Most ID theories center around criticism of evolution and the creation of buzzwords like neo-darwinism in an attempt to cast evolution in a negative light.
Evolution may turn out to be false in it's basic premise and ID may be spot on but there is very little material evidence to believe this to be the case.
Evolution is a broad subject, and the definitions have shifted over the years. May I remind you that the missing link, is still missing? While the facts of micro-evolution are not in debate, it is the implications of evolution are in debate, and that greatly depends upon one's philosophy
The missing link refers to a single aspect of the theory of evolution. The evidence in support of evolution is almost indifferent to the missing link.
Think over the implications here: science, in order to measure the universe, attempts to separate the known, from the knower, into two separate categories. This is a philosophical stance known as dualism. Scientific dualism has yielded many fruits, undeniably. But it is only one way of perceiving reality, and to halt the investigation, just when it is getting good, because one believes (philosophically so) that one has exhausted all the options, is intellectual laziness.
And that is why we have discussions about philosophical issues. But why should science change it's methodology to fit other people's philosphical views?
But that fundamentally misapprehends what they're saying, and presumes the absence of a prima causa.
I'm not a creationist as the term is usually meant, and I'm not an IDer as the term is usually meant, and I'm certainly inclined to buy the evolutionary theory argument, but you're missing their baseline argument.
I am studying the reactions of those who have commented on your writing. They are falling all over themselves to denounce it, indicating to this observer, that they are unprepared to articulate the topic in an intelligent way.
Keep up the good work.
Let's see: we are still talking about evolution versus intelligent design, are we not? If so, then we need to be aware that Darwinian science, and not other forms of science, is a very small fragment of all the science that is.
Your response was that philosophy and science have no connection. OK, fine, (I disagree, but for the sake of argument, I will cede that point), then why do you not, as Homunculus pointed out, differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and state, why macro-evolution is a proven fact? For the sake of the discussion, articulate for us what makes macro-evolution the only viewpoint worthy of further consideration.
I would like to elevate the level of this debate. What I hear you say, is that ID theories center around criticism of evolution. I do not base any of my so-called "theories" on that, I base my evidence on observations of the real world, and it's irreducible complexity.
If you don't mind my saying so, some of your assertions are a bit vague, if we could see some specifics, for instance, when you say the evidence in support of evolution is almost indifferent to the missing link, I think that is glossing over a huge amount of information.
The operation of the universe, as you assert, may or may not be the sole province of science, but we are not talking here solely of the operation of the universe. We are talking about the debate between ID and evolution, and ultimately, we are discussing whether or not there is anything worthwhile in comparing the competing subjects.
We should at least be able to agree, that science is the study of what is, but that it is not the study of what should be or ought to be.
You seem to think that I have something against the scientific method, or that I am disparaging scientific inquiry. Quite the contrary, I believe rigorous scientific inquiry should be applied in all realms of knowledge, be they in science, religion, politics, psychology, philosophy, economics, or what have you.
I just happen to apply that same rigor to proponents of science who believe that science has the ultimate answers, the ultimate wisdom. It is unscientific to believe that science is not without its own limits, and I can tell you why. Science itself says so. See the Heisenberg Principle and Goedel's Theorem.
Back when I was working at a advertising house, we were very careful to always put unquoted punctuation outside of the quote in any memorada that might contain ad copy. This avoids lots of silly errors later.
For instance, a sentence in a memorandum might read:
Please replace the phrase "French surrender monkeys", which has been found to be offensive to the ID community, with "French surrender persons, who were not descended from monkeys aqnd who are pondscum only in a metaphorical sence and not through geneology,".
This is not to say that the original poster is not an idiot, but simply that there may be a reason that he does not put unquoted punctuation inside the quotation marks.
There is no reason to assume "prima causa" without evidence or need for it, is the point that you've missed, that I've demonstrated isn't necessary via particle creation in Einstein's static model... making it "quasi-static".
Study the timeline of cosmology and you'll find that the steady state cosmological model was preferred for this very reason back in the 50's and 60's when Homunculus went to school... ;) That's probably where he got his figure for the number of particles in the univierse, (from Dirac), which doesn't apply to an open unbound universe.
I like it tho, because the closed model defines the observed universe, which empiricim requires takes precedence in origins science, and had Einstein realized that constant matter generation would have saved his cosmology, then he never would have abandoned it, but more importantly... he would NOT have lost in Copenhagen, because this model is strictly deterministic.
http://www.jca.umbc.edu/~george/html/courses/glossary/cosmo_principle_perfe
ct.html
Whenever he indicates even a rudimentary understanding of the science he opposes, I'll be happy to show him why he is wrong.
Is this what they mean by ad hominem?
Or do you really intend to say, that homunculus does not even possess a rudimentary understanding of science?
If that is the case, perhaps we all could step up to the plate and show our cards. I dare say that few of us, myself included, really understand the subject. To that point, in my opinion, which is admittedly somewhat short of the mark, homunculus does display at least a rudimentary understanding of the subject. I may yet see the rudiments of which you speak amongst other writers as well.
but we need to set a few things straight here.
First, I'd like to make sure you understand what a theory is.
Second, we all recognize micro-evolution is a fact. Most of us recognize that macro-evolution is a theory with a tremendous amount of evidentiary support, and no contradictory evidence. So when we say theory of evolution let's just assume we mean macro-evolution and the origin of species.
Third, macro-evolution is not the only viewpoint worthy of discussion. It is the only viewpoint that explains all the observable evidence in a scienitfic matter. Again, nothing contradicts it. By that I mean nothing proves it to be wrong. You're or my inability to explain every step along the way or to comprehend the dumb luck involved does not contradict the theory. All of the evidence from systematics to molecular biology is consistent with macro-evolution being the mechanism for the origin of species.
Fourth, you say: "...I base my evidence on observations of the real world, and it's irreducible complexity"
Please state your case for irreducible complexity. (I asked Homunculus some time ago and he refused.) And please don't give me some garbage about Mount Rushmore or a watch or a Boeing 747. We are talking about biology here let's talk about a biological system.
I do really intend to say what I said,
"rudimentary understanding of the science he opposes"
that being, in this case the theory of evolution. Which he has displayed no understanding of as he continues to distort it and talk about theorie of cosmology rather than the theory of evolution.
Let's see: we are still talking about evolution versus intelligent design, are we not? If so, then we need to be aware that Darwinian science, and not other forms of science, is a very small fragment of all the science that is
OK. I certainly don't deny this.
Your response was that philosophy and science have no connection. OK, fine, (I disagree, but for the sake of argument, I will cede that point), then why do you not, as Homunculus pointed out, differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and state, why macro-evolution is a proven fact? For the sake of the discussion, articulate for us what makes macro-evolution the only viewpoint worthy of further consideration
- Separating micro-evolution and macro-evolution is nothing more than an attempt to qualify the debate in more favorable terms. Since micro-evolution is close to a certainty the ID advocate must come up with a way to take it out of the discussion. However I fail to see why it is necessary to do this.
- Where has ANYONE suggested that macro-evolution is proven fact? I sure haven't.
- Any and all viewpoints are worthy of consideration. However not all viewpoints are scientifically supportable. ID is one of those viewpoints that is scientifically supportable.
If you don't mind my saying so, some of your assertions are a bit vague, if we could see some specifics, for instance, when you say the evidence in support of evolution is almost indifferent to the missing link, I think that is glossing over a huge amount of information
Because the basic premise of evolution is that ALL LIFE started from the same starting point. Looking for the missing link deals with ONLY the evolution of homo sapiens. Creationists have ALWAYS focused on this portion of evolution but those who support Darwinian theory realize that this is only one aspect of a very long history of life.
The operation of the universe, as you assert, may or may not be the sole province of science, but we are not talking here solely of the operation of the universe. We are talking about the debate between ID and evolution, and ultimately, we are discussing whether or not there is anything worthwhile in comparing the competing subjects
Evolution is a study about the operation of the universe. It is about how we got from 4 billion years ago to today.
ID is a debate about why we got to where we were. It is a philosophical debate that SHOULDN'T conflict with evolution but there are those who have their own agenda.
because I have seen no evidence that you know any more than the person you discredit, and the level of debate has to be more than a simplistic assertion that your debate opponent is unknowledgeable.
That falls flat. If you had offered some articulate rebuttal, you would do more than impress, you would teach. Yet you offer nothing more than a weak ad hominem - perhaps that satisfies you.
Let's see, someone was saying that it takes more than a critique of one's opponent to establish the validity of a viewpoint - so here goes.
The universe, says science itself, cannot be explained by randomity. It is an entity of incredible complexity which could not have 'fallen together.' So here we are in a Kosmos too incredible to be just an accident, and it came to pass in just an instant. One instant, there was nothing, no time, no space, no light, no heat, and the next - BIG BANG and thus spake Zarathustra - everything came into being.
Some call it God, some call it luck, some call it creativity, and some say, the theory of evolution explains all of that.
If that be the case, let's hear how that is so.
It's possible he knows a lot about science. But so far he has shown very little understanding about evolution.
His apparent argument that because the universe had a beginning that proves that evolution is false not only requires a lack of understanding of evolution but of basic logic.
For my response, rather than plagiarize an excellent answer from Ken Wilber, I suggest you do the following: Get a copy of A Brief History of Everything, read pages 22-23, 26-27.
Some call it God, some call it luck, some call it creativity, and some say, the theory of evolution explains all of that.
If that be the case, let's hear how that is so
No it doesn't. The theory of evolution simply tries to explain how we got from a lifeless planet 4 billion years ago to where we are today. It doesn't explain why life started. And it's possible that an invisible hand is guiding the evolution. But there is no evidence to support that belief. The MOST LIKELY example is natural selection but even most ardent evolution supporters will admit that it natural selection is an observed theory and not a fact and OTHER facts could be altering our evolution.
<<<Evolution is a study about the operation of the universe. It is about how we got from 4 billion years ago to today.<p>
ID is a debate about why we got to where we were. It is a philosophical debate that SHOULDN'T conflict with evolution but there are those who have their own agenda. >>>
Then we should define our terms. To me, evolution is a partial theory which explains micro-evolution, but doesn't acknowledge the evidence for intelligent, purposeful, deliberate design which is visible before our own eyes, and our scientists are capable of delineating in the remarkable information-carrying properties of our DNA. To my mind, it is disingenuous to believe that the amount of information encoded in DNA does not point to a remarkably intelligent, purposeful and deliberate 'presence' in the Kosmos, far more advanced than the random mutations purported to be the cause of this.
that a slug has more genes than a human being?
Do you know that MOST of our genetic code serves no purpose?
To my mind, it is disingenuous to believe that the amount of information encoded in DNA does not point to a remarkably intelligent, purposeful and deliberate 'presence' in the Kosmos, far more advanced than the random mutations purported to be the cause of this.
And it possible that an invisible hand is guiding it. That is a metaphysical question.
It is just as possible that this higher being, being omniscient and omnipotent, created the universe in such a way as to ensure that mankind would come about.
But these are just philosophical theories.
What we DO KNOW is that ALL LIFE has very similar genetic code, at least all life that has been analyzed. And as we go further along the taxonomy of life to the more advanced lifeforms they become more and more similar. While an insect and a human may only share 50% of the same genetic code a mouse and a human share 99%.
How does ID explain that?
Not a physicist. Whenever either of you want to discuss biology, like say... the theory of evolution, I'm open to such a discussion. As long as you think cosmology or philosophy disprove biology. Well... then you evince the reason your theories don't belong in biology class.
it's a place where I can practice writing my thoughts
who is less in need of practice writing his or her thoughts, it's hard to imagine who.
The trouble with so-called Intelligent Design is not so much the notion, but rather the speakers who write so strongly in favor of it generally seem to lack general intelligence. For example, the writer of this article does not have a grasp on English enough to know that a comma always falls inside the quote, "as such," it being a very simple concept.
I would guess that ID proponents are probably more likely to be aware of basic grammatical rules, and to follow them (forgive me) religously. Indeed, the seemingly random nature of grammar, when subject to the appopriate analysis, can be made to show that the English language originated not as a form of intra-species communciation as is commonly believed by spikey haired "languagists" but rather as a form of interpersonal grooming during the 17th century which was not, as you may falsely have been led to believe, a time of intellectual enlightment but rather halftime at the first playing of the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.
There is a (rather small) school of thought that believes, roughly speaking, that history is bunk.
to get into the debate as such, there are certainly interesting policy implications. I have a nasty feeling that ID will win a pyrrhic victory in the culture wars: it'll be very popular with the man on the street, and it will convince actual researchers that people espousing Christian morality are, by and large, babbling ignoramuses. Why get your moral guidance from those guys, when you could be consulting smart, sophisticated people like Peter Singer? But it will be a glorious victory.
selective reading dyslexia. By the way ian, thanks for the support. This blog is overrun with evolutionists from the anti-creationsist blog. I was just trying stir a little friendly give and take between fellow Republicans. If this crowd is red-state, then they're all from Vermont.
To our biologist friend (DIR) and Flyerhawk: you apparently can read English but have a problem holding the train of thought long enough to gain insight into what was said. Let's try this again.
- Big Bang cosmology strongly infers at a minimum a designer. I realize there are some fringe guys out there proclaiming the Theory of Everything has been discovered; still awaiting the Nobel. Of course, Francis Crick may get another one postumously for Panspermia; or maybe Sagan for oscillating universe? Converts due to Big Bang include Einstein, Hubble and recently Flew (Flew also for biology reasons).
- MM, the last word in evolutionary science, says only matter, energy and their interaction can be considered.
- Given number 1 above, we have biology making an apparently self-serving axiom to limit what can be considered "science".
- Therefore, I have no interest in going into pages diatribe arguing science that is founded on bad foundational axioms, especially ones that appear to be so obviously contrived to limit dissention in the ranks ;-)
It's kinda like Hawking's problem of the singularity. If he applies imaginary numbers to his equations, he can make it say what he wants. Put in real numbers and the singularity is back. This is okay if we're singing an eternal round of "Row, row, row your boat". But in the real world...
Now if you're saying that postmodern psychobabel is good science, we can just ease over to the psychotics anonymous website for some major psychotropic cocktails and maybe a jolt of good old fashioned ECT. But otherwise, if we're founding our "pure science" on unnecessary constraints (MM), why would anyone want to argue against what is essentially a scientific delusion? Delusions need medication, not an answer.
"...and furthermore, Billy Carter is not a boob, buffoon or whacko". Billy Carter
Thanks for almost not being condescending and omnipotent. For starters, I am the man on the street; I'm not really Joe Sixpack, but he's my brother-in-law. But lets face it, being man on the street is greatly preferable to being the homunculus in the closet.
I am not a computer geek and don't know how you guys use fancy fonts and hotlinks on this post comments box. But Thomas, see my last post to clear up the matter you referenced above (my last title was something about ad hominem guys).
Tell me why we should buy evolution theory if the game is rigged (MM), especially when it's adding a rule that is not essential and constrains empericism.
And the mutant is right twice; he's a mutant and it really is going to be a route in the school boards and the culture wars. That is the point I'm working toward.
You are utterly clueless if you think that I don't understand exactly what both sides of the issue are, and what is valid science, vs. what is not.
That you are a willfully ignorant fanatic, and I have a LOT of experience with that on both sides of this debate.
Proponents of evolutionary theory that also adhere strictly to the mindset of the "left" are "stereotypically" bound by "free-thinking" chaos worship, and they AUTOMATICALLY react to perceived fanaticism by taking the devils advocate approach to any and all points that creationists bring up. They will automatically deny that purposeful design in nature can even exist, and they will approach every point from this posture. This requires that they reach to the most outrageous lengths, in terms of cutting-edge theoretical physics, and it destroys their ability to perceive their connection with the greater whole of nature, because this mindset removes humans from any natural process that might have philosophical implications.
On the other side of the fence, you've got a bunch of crap that has no real bearing on any real science, the only valid point that ID has going for it is that there that there is an observationally supported scientific argument for a structured form of purposeful method to nature's madness that is indicated by distinct nodes of inhomogeneity that are observed to exist in the large scale structure of our universe. The weak anthropic principle notes that the constants put restrictions on the evolutionary process of the universe where life habitable environments will necessarily arise at a specific point in the history of our universe. In other words, the "tuning" causes higher ordered structures to form that are specifically necessary to life, which occur in apparent direct conflict with the Copernican Cosmological Principle.
Subtle background structure in deep astronomy photos; CSL-1 gravitational lens in Capodimonte Deep Field:
http://photos12.flickr.com/18135101_1ef7723b85_b.jpg
http://photos13.flickr.com/18135102_07a58fd89d_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmforall/sets/435988/
I would highly reccommend this article to anyone that isn't a willfully ignorant fanatic... if there is such a thing in a political forum on the internet.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
Thomas failure to understand science:
But that fundamentally misapprehends what they're saying, and presumes the absence of a prima causa.
What you just said isn't science.
I'm not the one making assumptions.
There is no evidence for "prima causa."
"Prima causa" is the assumption that comes from an idealization for a singlarity that's projected by relativity.
Prima causa does not appear anywhere in nature.
YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.
GET IT???
Not to advocate the "NOT theory of ID" but...
The weak anthropic principle notes that the values of the forces of the universes are restricted in a manner to produce sites where carbon-based life can evolve, and this includes the energy that we can expend in the direction of survival.
In other words... evolution is guided by a semi-conducive environment which constrains the direction of evolution via the energy that's availible for use.
The energy that we can expend in the direction of survival must be readily expendable within the practical limits of our limited human abilities, or we die.
Sew that into your biology class.
Oh, I know... you suddenly believe in multiverses... right?
More fluff with no content.
Whether the Big Bang Theory suggests that there is a creator or not is irrelevant to THIS DISCUSSION.
Why you keep bringing up I have no idea.
Biology isn't trying to limit what science is. SCIENCE is limiting what science is. Appeals to philosophical ideals is NOT SCIENCE.
And do you know that even if I cede your first two points that it is a significant fact that the DNA molecule passes genetic information in such a way that it cannot possibly be explained by random mutation?
And evolutionists who claim to be rigorous scientists suddenly collapse into inarticulate name calling when challenged to explain it?
Now, please don't bring up your favorite bogeyman, the 'invisible hand' you mention may or may not be a possible explanation. Even though it is one of many possibilities, there is no reason for an abnormal fear that evolution theorists may have to lose face when confronted with a new paradigm.
Let's take that argument off the table, if it is unsettling to you. I am merely pointing out, that there exists, we can see, that the complexity and information passing characteristics of DNA are SO remarkable that the implications are far more fantastic than can be described by the tenets of conventional science. The random chance theory has more than a few problems to overcome.
It may or may not be God who created DNA, but do you agree that in our known physics, every effect has a cause?
What we are discussing is not dismissable as 'just philosophy', or 'merely metaphysical'. Was Aristotle a scientist or a philosopher? Plato? Francis Bacon?
Taken a good Philosophy of Science course lately? Here's one:
http://kosmoi.com/Science/Philosophy/
or just google science philosophy
And have fun with that. Nothing in your comments showed me that you actually understand what the other side is saying -- or more accurately, the basis for what they're saying, and at least as importantly, why.
But like I said, cheers. I want no part of this.
OMG ROFLMAO!
OK. We exist where we do because the conditions are such that we may exist. How does that explain anything?
You have convinced me it is fruitless to expect anything but nonsensical, hysterical, or outright dishonest statements from anyone who supports ID.
Therefor I ask this next question against my better judgement. How exactly do you come to the conclusion that the weak anthropic principle poses a challenge for macroevolution?
You don't understand why they're saying what they're saying.
You don't understand their motivations, and that means, though you're right about the science, you lose. There will be some sort of teaching like this in schools, because its opponents don't understand their opponents.
You think that my saying, You're missing their motivations, is actually, You're wrong about the science, and you don't understand their argument itself.
Last, and most brilliantly, you take my statement that you don't understand their argument as a statement that you're wrong about the underlying science. You're not, and I wouldn't say you are. What you are, is a political fool.
You are arguing with them from your point of view, and reinforcing the reasons why they shy away from your point of view.
As I seem to keep having to say, I have no dog in this fight. I'm Catholic. I'm comfortable with evolutionary theory, ID, or Young Earth, although the last smacks of Biblical literalism, and so I have a congenital aversion to it.
I happen to think that current evolutionary theory is the best explanation for How We Got Here, but I'm an open-minded fellow who doesn't care.
This whole debate, however, is really about what we teach our children, how, and why. I'll homeschool, so I don't have to worry about this. I enjoyed biology and biochem, and my family in every direction has science degrees all over the place. My kids won't lack for a good science education.
But the failure to fundamentally apprehend the motivations of, the size of, and the electoral influence of, your opponents, is why in the end, they'll win at the pre-college level.
Have fun with that.
innacuracies and gibberish.
Please don't make me try to explain to you what an imaginary number is. You obviously don't have a clue and think that saying "imaginary numbers" enough times will make other people as ignorant as yourself think that it detracts from any work involving them. (and yet agains how it relates to evolution has not been established because there is no relationship.)
As for your newest error:
"...still awaiting the Nobel. Of course, Francis Crick may get another one postumously for Panspermia..."
The Nobel prize can never be awarded posthumously. That is why Rosalind Franklin didn't get one for her role in elucidating the structure of DNA.
Perhaps, afterall, I can enlighten you just a tiny bit. I despair of accomplishing anything further in that regard.
Farewell Homunculus. Watch out for those nose-pierced black shirted atheistic evolutionists wielding their imaginary numbers, if they touch you your head will explode!
You don't understand why they're saying what they're saying.
No, that's false... wanna try to explain why you think that?
Nothing in your comments showed me that you actually understand what the other side is saying
Which, when translated, means that you don't have a clue what they're saying or why.
upon which this so-called argument has fallen. Now we have ended up with petty name calling, all in the name of intellectualism. Astounding. Further evidence of why I, myself, should have heeded Thomas' advice waaaaay up the thread and ignored this discussion altogether.
Perhaps I am simply naive to be so astounded that a scientific discussion so readily reveals ideological agenda. Is it so difficult to ponder such things as irreducible complexity, design detection or absence of intermediate fossil forms without calling the ponderer a half-wit or religious zealot? Granted, we are not all biologists here, but does one necessarily need be to realize the implications of tiny flagellum?
Bacon wrote: if a man...be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainty. I think it wise advice for both sides of this issue to consider.
PS: By the bye, island, regarding your suggestion that I stay within the realm of my Faith, I guess you are suggesting there is no place for a religious in any scientific discussion. I'll set aside comment on the rank ignorance of such a statement and simply tell you that that will never happen. Ever. If, however, I am being presumptuous of you, then I repent in sackloth and ashes.
- Big Bang requires "creator"
- Darwinism creates contrived hypotesis limiting axiom, "methodological materialism" (MM) (loaded dice, and a "Philosophical Ideal" that you say isn't science).
- MM ignores realities acknowledged in science (1. above); therefore MM is rejected as "not science" (by your own terms, a philosophical ideal).
- Therefore, due to 3. above, there is no reason to argue with evolutionists whose arguments are founded on loaded dice; you get the same fixed answer every time.
You guys are such literalists that you don't get irony and hyperbole; settle down and breathe into a paper bag for a while.
"...I'm a little bit mean, but I make up for it by being REAL healthy." Ernest T. Bass
OK. We exist where we do because the conditions are such that we may exist. How does that explain anything?
Life only appears balanced between the relevant spectrum of potential.
Do you want me to make the valid and testable predictions that fall out of this for you?... or can you actually find the value in that for yourself?
And... you need to go back and read what's written, because I specifically pointed out that I don't support ID. It's really amazing that you could read that and still say the opposite, so I'm afraid that you probably haven't comprehended much of anything... BY CHOICE.
Can you spell... knee-jerk reactionary?
1) Big Bang requires "creator"
Nope, and I've already demonstrated why the big bang does not require a creator, so why do you insist on persisting with this lie?
You're still wrong about WAP though. It is at best a truism. It explains nothing. Of course carbon based life could not exist in conditions under which carbon based life forms could not survive. The fact that conditions under which carbon based life forms may exist occur on earth, tells us nothing about how those life forms arose. And it tells us nothing about how the conditions themselves arose.
Don't bother explaining to me why you're right about WAP. I couldn't care less. I'm only concerned about biology class. IF you or they or whoever have evidence of God, a Creator, an Intelligent Designer Hallowed be Thy Name, creating the universe the earth or whatever go ahead and get that added to the physics curriculum. I could care less.
I was just trying stir a little friendly give and take between fellow Republicans.
Then you should go to Dembski's blog instead, because he loves to pat his little pets on the head while deleting any post that undermines his lies.
Do you know how many times I've let him in on the little secret that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with atheism?
And he still repeats it ad nauseum.
Because I'm out of this. I cared enough, once. Not any more.
Have fun. Both sides.
Why did you ignore the significance in the information that I gave you?
I said that life only appears balanced between the relevant spectrum of potential. This is much more specific and relevant than just saying that life can't exist unless the conditions are right.
Let me be a little more specific:
Life only exists balanced between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies, and any change would send the conditions for life so far away from your wildest dreams for life, carbon based, or otherwise, that it would make your head swim... the flaness of the universe, being perhaps the most significant of the afor mentioned ecobalances.
The anthropic principle was also derived from only one of these necessary balances, and so each and every additional discovery of a new cosmic coincidence compounds the significance exponentially.
Your problem is that you learned about the physics principle from a bunch of highly motivated people that are either abusing it to push a theory about god, or from equally motivated reactionaries, that perceive it in the exact manner that creationists want you to. Rather than to jump on it for its value to evobiology, you believe that the anthropic principle represents proof of god if we're here by any other reason than pure accident.
And I'm sorry, but there ain't but one term for the kind reactionism that causes people to automatically attempt to downplay the significance of something that any normally curious scientist would otherwise be facinated by. Very much like walking through a completely barren desert and tripping over a space-ship, then just blowing it off like it not relevant to anything. Very much like that.
I'm a natural atheist, dude...
Look at my website and see in the first paragraph how important the anthropic principle really is:
Can you point me to your explanation for why this discussion isn't making connections?
I'm willing to give it a second look.
I got the name of the book you suggested on your site. If I decide to read some physics, I'll add it to the list.
Dorion Sagan, co-authored the book with Eric Schneider, who co-authored this paper with James Kay, (unfortunately deceased):
Schneider, Eric D. and James J. Kay. "Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics." Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19(6-8): 25-48. http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/lifeas.pdf
And yes... Dorion is also Carl's son too... ;)
... that politics will force the issue regardless of the efforts of motivated scientists, because the mainstream is too stupid, rather, is smart enough to recognize goal oriented design in nature when they see it... and he's right!
As long as scientist posture themselves against science, ID is necessary.
You're demonstration, if it were real sceince, would already have warranted a Nobel prize for the scientists responsible. It may do Hawking in if he can't get credit for it in some way.
Heck, I haven't even seen it on the cover of Time magazine. I can see that cover now; "the Universe is god; God never was; all hail the Universe!" Well, at least its not on the cover of this weeks issue.
Lie? Moi? Not me, pally. I don't suffer over fine distinctions about Darwinist theory that is largely debunked, and I sometimes rely on memory which may yield a close approximation rather than the exact. But I never lie; lying is intentional. We're having a debate here, not writing a text book (although Darwin-leaning textbooks are full of lies). It is in fact the Darwinists that lie to protect their turf, tenure and $.
I think you must have got that "theory" from the same website that Kip got his time machine.
"...this thing is a piece of c***!" N. Dynamite
"...furthermore, Billy Carter is not a boob, buffoon or whacko." Billy Carter
Thomas knows exactly what it's all about, but can't tell anyone because the last time that he did nobody believed him.
He also thinks that falsification of a need for a first cause isn't relevant to the issue... so, we can see right there why he's too smrt to get into it... even though he can't stay out of it to save his lame half-life... ;)
I just love when people post throwing insults.
Really, I love it. I wouldn't lie to you.
OK, maybe I would.
Yeah, I definitely would.
But personal insults are violations of the posting rules, so if you do it again, we'll have to do without your cootness.
Like I said in my first comment to this thread... willful ignorance is the greatest insult that can be delivered. Beware the bitchslap back, jack.
Beware the bitchslap, jack? LOL!
Seriously, were you flexing when you hit "post" there? Inquiring minds want to know.
Can read the "Profanity is not tolerated" banner in 32 point type there? No?
Goodbye.
Big Bang requires "creator"
Please show the scientific evidence that REQUIRES that a creator is necessary for the Big Bang theory to be true? I would love to hear as would Stephen Hawking and every other physicist on the planet. They don't even know if the Big Bang is the beginning or simply the end of a contraction. But apparently you know that a creator is required so let's hear the sceintific evidence.
Darwinism creates contrived hypotesis limiting axiom, "methodological materialism" (MM) (loaded dice, and a "Philosophical Ideal" that you say isn't science).
If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS, eh? Until you actually explain what your buzzwords actually mean I'm going to put them in the BS category.
MM ignores realities acknowledged in science (1. above); therefore MM is rejected as "not science" (by your own terms, a philosophical ideal).
This here is the fundamental problem. You are creating your own logical construct here. You assume facts that are not facts(Big Bang requires a creator) and then you use your false premise to discount a theory unrelated to your premise by saying that because it doesn't recognize your false premise the theory is obviously flawed. This is classic circular logic.
herefore, due to 3. above, there is no reason to argue with evolutionists whose arguments are founded on loaded dice; you get the same fixed answer every time.
Ahh loaded dice. That's what it is. So insightful. Amazing you don't get more converts with THAT argument.
about Rosalind Franklin and her relationship with Watson and Frick. Not exactly the ideal scientific relationship those 3 had. Frick essentially stole her X-ray crystalographic images and gave them to Watson, IIRC. There was someone else involved but I can't remember his name.
Franklin ostensibly worked for him, although she directed her own research and refused to share results with him.
It was Watson who, for lack of a better term, "borrowed" some of Franklin's results that enabled them to figure out what the structure of DNA was.
Watson wrote a book "The Double Helix", in which he chronicled the race to find the structure of DNA. It is very readable and surprisingly exciting.
the Watson book was pretty racy given the topic. Watson is not exactly reserved in his criticism of the others involved. Supposedly he had to clean up the book before they would release it because he was so harsh on the other players.
I might have to pick the book up sometime though.
of incorrect statements. We've already discussed mantras.
Big Bang is settled science with everyone that matters believing it has profound theological implications, ergo all the effort trying to undo Big Bang. That includes island's time travel web site. Of course, all these geniuses proving General Relativity wrong aren't ready for prime time, but they are sincere in their atheism, unlike their mentor and former role model, Antony Flew.
If this same shoe (neo-Darwinism) was on the foot of any other scientific theory, it would never make it past the delete button of the faculty advisor or the metal detector at the peer review club. But again, Darwinism isn't really science; it's a story explaining how a few people want very much for things to be. It produces nothing and no great efforts of humanity hang in the balance once it is officially dead, except for the efforts of atheism.
"...I think the most impressive arguments for God's existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries...I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it." Antony Flew, 2005
"...I would invoke Kempasky if there was evidence he knew redstate politics from red politics". Homunculus
but I fail to see why Einstein's or anybody's cosmology even enters into the discussion. If that's part of the Discovery Institute's rationalization, I say it's as irrelevant as the rest of their "science." ID proponents engage in circular reasoning, which by itself undermines their arguments.
I have difficulty placing an interface between Evolution Theory and Cosmology. They deal with two completely different topics, at least as far as I know.
Why do you bring it up?
I'm not on your side, either. I've seen this little war enacted far too many times, with neither side listening to the other, often enough to want no part of it.
To say this is simply a matter of he said/she said.
I know you are far too intelligent to say that the discussions, at least the discussions here, are on equal footing.
You certainly need not agree with either side but the debate, as formed here, is not one in which both sides are being truly honest.
FTR, I couldn't care less if the students in Kansas are taught Intelligent Design. I have no plans to live there. And the school system that my children went to were to decide to teach ID the only thing I would do is make sure that my child look at with the same critical eye that any other matter of study should be looked at.
I am not hear to discuss biology per se, but the Big Picture.
If you hold the view that philosophy is out of bounds, fine with me. I don't hold that view, because as Chesterton said, it all boils down to philosophy. Or maybe it wasn't Chesterton, but it sounded good.
This is a real intense, dead serious topic isn't it? I wonder why so many people are so identified with a cause in this. That is almost more interesting than the subject itself.
But don't think that I believe that philosophy disproves biology. What an absurd conclusion, and if you think I would draw it, I am disappointed that you hold such a dim and unfounded view of me, personally.
Philosophy is a means of thinking about our thinking; it is meta-thinking, and it also deals with fundamentally scientific issues, such as what is reality?
Science deals with some of the same fundamental questions, so...now, I am not saying, that science is only philosophy, and therefore you can change science fact with philosophical gimmicks. That's not it at all. Philosophy is mushy and squishy, and science is much more solid and reliable. But to my way of thinking, they address some of the same fundamental building blocks, and only in that limited sense are they related.
Science has limits too, and so I wonder if its adherents exhibit the same sort of fundamentalism about it as is found in elements of religious cults.
I don't think this is "he said/she said."
Both sides are being honest. Both sides are being earnest. Both sides are ready to burn the other at the stake for heresy. Both sides are intent on proving their superiority. Neither side listens to the other's real concerns.
The ID folks either (a) are tired of seeing an arbitrary and irrational separation of faith and reason, (b) are tired of seeing God tossed out of the classroom, (c) feel that they're being lectured, not corrected, when they point to perceived flaws in evolutionary theory, (d) actually don't have a beef with most of evolutionary theory, just think there's more than we're seeing, or (e) yes, sometimes, are just lurking creationists.
The straight-evolution folks either (a) feel like they're arguing basic biology with folks from a different dimension, (b) are worried about schools inculcating religion, (c) don't understand why their attempts to correct bad science are being ignored or shouted down, (d) are perfectly willing to concede God in every step or the first step or most steps of the process, but want proof before it's called scientia as opposed to credo, or, yes, (e) sometimes are simply militant atheists who have a theistic axe to grind.
No one really listens to anyone else in this debate. It's worse than an abortion debate, because each side hears only an echo of the other. And I'm gonna tell you precisely how this turns out:
ID proponents get it in the schools somewhere.
ACLU sues on behalf of the three aggrieved parents in the jurisdiction (one of whom is in a divorce with his spouse over this very issue).
A Federal District Court, once again misunderstanding the Establishment Clause, rules that this violates Amendment Number One.
Appeals ensue.
The Supreme Court, Kennedy, J., writing for the plurality, asserts that our right to a sweet mystery of life is violated if even one of us has to hear "Intelligent Designer" in a high school class except as an object of ridicule.
The relevant activists gear up.
In a country 70-80% Christian, with a lot of fuzzy-faithers in there, and a 37%+ evangelical contingent, this becomes the new war at the political level.
Eventually, the majority wins, and it ain't the evolution guys. They do this either by legislative fiat or by getting a Supreme Court that actually understands "Establishment" in place. They then persuade many local legislatures to change the curriculum.
Lefties rant about how this proves that Republicans hate science, not understanding that this is precisely the wrong field to engage that argument.
The curricula get dug in.
Fifty years later the whole thing is revisited.
At no point does either side listen to the other's concerns.
One more crack of the Big Ditch widens.
Easy to see coming. Depressing, too.
I'm on neither side. I have my own take, and I don't care about theirs, for more or less the same reason you set out.
a correct understanding of the Establishment Clause?
Does it only say that Congress cannot establish a state religion? Or is there more to it?
The word "establish" had a specific, well understood meaning. We've gone and let it get read clear out of proportion.
Congress cannot say "This will be the state religion of the United States." But anything short of that is okey dokey?
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but why is that insufficient? The language is clear.
I really have no beef with ID. Seems like a reasonable argument. I don't really disagree with it necessarily.
My beef is with people such as humunculous who are trying to argue that ID is superior science because evolution stinks.
As to your points about the grievances of ID people.
A) Faith and reason can go hand in hand. We've had this discussion before. But they are different things. And science, which is separate from reason as well, is very different from faith. Good science needs no faith in anything other than consistency in the rules of the universe, which we may not always realize is a consistency but is consistent nonetheless.
B) That is a grip that ID people should take up with the legislators.
C) They are lectured because they tend to argue with people that know a lot more about the stuff they are talking about than they do. It is one of the few times these day where laymen tend to think they know as much, if not more, than the trained and educated professional(note:Not that I am one but I do read a bit about the stuff and tend to defer to biologists when they make their points).
D) I wish these guys would simply be honest with us.
I agree with your point about the straight-evolution types. And I'm sure that there are Type D people. But they aren't usually the types of people that write on regulated blogs such as this. ;)
philosophy is philosophy, botany is botany, economics is economics,....
The more of these things a student can gain a good grasp of the foundations of the better. And they will have overlap in some cases. But when trying to teach one or the other of these topics a committed group of ideologues,no matter how good their intentions or sincere their Beliefs, should not disrupt the teaching of one subject by bringing in material from another subject and claiming that the second subject supercedes the first.
Yes botany is useful to a lot of people, and frankly more practical than much of what you learn in economics. But if we want students to have a decent understanding of economics save the dirt shovels and seeds for botany class.
We've been going round and round about this for a week or two, you got in on it a little late. You might start here:
http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/8/27/0529/72595/219#219
and here:
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/8/31/234056/414
to understand why some impressions expressed here seem to originate from things other than what is written in the post that is being responded to.
"Philosophy is a means of thinking about our thinking; it is meta-thinking, and it also deals with fundamentally scientific issues, such as what is reality?"
Yes in many ways it's more like mathematics, logic, etc. They have separate classes for those even though math comes in handy in chemistry, physics, economics,.....
High school biology class is not the place for metaphysical explanations of the origins of life. If you read some of the links above you will see that the statements that are being made are things like ID is based on evidence, evolution has been disproven,.... this has not been a primarily philosophical discussion about the merits of various forms of enquiry. Thus the treatment of ID and its proponents as a failure in answering scientific questions.
"I wonder why so many people are so identified with a cause in this."
For me personally, I am a biologist. The theory of evolution unifies the different disciplines in my field by satisfactorally explaining the origns and diversity of life on this planet, as well as the similarity in DNA sequence between related organisms,..... And it makes predictions that have been borne out as new discoveries are made. That I would take offense to someone wanting to supplant that theory with a basically philosophical argument of dubious merit through the mechanism of forcing it into school curricula rather than facing scrutiny in the marketplace of ideas should be no more surprising than that economist would be offended if you told them prices were not set by the forces of supply and demand but were instead decided by a giant watermelon in the sky.
the ID side; it is democratic, not totalitarian like Darwinism. Socrates "followed where the evidence leads"; what could be more Republican and enlightened than that?
Meanwhile, back at the macro-evolution gulag, Darwin Brigade dropouts work in the health and beauty aids department at Sam's Club instead of chairing the biochem department at a Big 10 school.
To paraphrase A. Bunker, these Darwinists sound kinda Commie to me. I wonder if Darwin ever drove a swift boat?
The jig is up. You're a moby aren't you?
I thought you might be, given your handle and bizarre arguments.
But this puts it over the top.
in which coercion short of mandating a state religion will produce a similar effect. I don't care to go much further with this, I find Constitutional interpretation arguments about as useful as you find evolution vs.... (A sentiment I'm being persuaded to by the way.)
By the way can you point me to your explanation of why the two sides aren't connecting? (I do think we have a special case here however.)
Science does not have to allow for ID if ID is not science. Since ID's basis is that a being outside of nature was responsible for our "design," it does not belong in the realm of science.
From the National Center For Science Education (equally applicable for creationism and ID):
- Science is not democratic. We do not decide what to teach based on the desires of pressure groups. We teach what has stood the test of time and been accepted by the scientific community: evolution, not creationism.
- There is precious little time in the curriculum for science already. Why waste it by teaching ideas, like creationism, that have no scientific validity?
- Not teaching students about evolution leaves them unprepared for college. Evolution is presented matter-of-factly at every decent college and university in the United States, including religious institutions such as Brigham Young, Baylor, and Notre Dame.
Of course, we've been over all of this already.
Oddly enough, we just broached the subject of Communism on the Panda's Thumb a couple of days ago. :rollseyes:
I have nothing against the man on the street, even when he can't remember whether the Earth goes around the Sun or vice versa, or when he thinks that electrons are hard little balls that go zipping around atoms. After all, it's not as if I'm expected to explain how, say, my carburator functions on a regular basis. Like Thomas, I'm not very worked up about the evolution vs. ID scuffle; people looking to up and defend the scientific orthodoxy would do more good going after the guys who claim that niacin expels disease from your body, or whatever.
That said, I have some qualms about your plan of action. Your writings suggest that you feel countering Darwinism is essential to check atheism and the amorality associated therewith. What, then, would you make of this essay, which points out (compellingly, I think), that an Intelligent Designer would best be characterized as a Gnostic demiurge? And do you really think that overthrowing evolution will check the "melancholy, long, withdrawing roar"? I don't think this will be quite such a big win, after all.
There are also the consequences to consider. While I agree that you will make significant headway in getting ID included as an alternative in school curricula. I do not think you will make any substantial headway in the scientific community, however; and that means that the hand of the atheist party among scientists will be strengthened. They will be increasingly successful in getting Christianity written off as the province of cranks and demagogues, and when they hash out the ethics of stem-cell-based treatments, cloning, and other such delicacies, Peter Singer will be the one who gets the call. I am not looking forward to this.
Oh, and actually, it's my brother who's the mutant; he's aspiring to work in computing, while the rest of us are molecular biologists. I couldn't resist playing on that term of art, though.
Maybe a few more N. Dynamite routines will get a smile around here!
"...I worked for three hours getting the shading right on your upper lip"
Is you datin'? You really liked your linked article???
I don't think he's correct on the Jefferson / Flew god winning the day with the rank and file. As I mentioned yesterday, once atheism has lost it's lone perceived reality check (Darwinism), the only home for the displaced refugees is home with evangelicals.
And one last time, I do not believe ID postulates a designer. The theoretical business end of ID is working on a way to emperically demonstrate design in some sort of quantitative / qualitative theory. I know Dembski is headed that way (with some of his "specious" math; roger that, dir?)
God has nothing to do with it. But its kinda like if Neil Armstrong had strolled around a corner at Tranquility Base in '69 and found a Mt. Rushmore replica carved into a lunar cliff with the addition of one head: Ronald Reagan. Would it demonstrate Intelligent Design? You reckon? It would also demonstrate omniscience; the Gipper was at the time the Ronald Rayguns of Woodstock notoriety.
So who's the Designer? ID doesn't care, but Joe and Betty Sixpack are going down to the local non-Denominational Church; they are going to hear the Word and come down (Lord willing) just where the writer of your linked article resides in his closing paragraph.
I've got to find something else to do; my wife is gonna kill me if I don't put down this laptop. She's beginning to think I'm chattin' up the chicks online.
And I'm not arguing on their behalf. For the love of Pete, I honestly don't care. Seriously. Out of some misguided sense of altruism, and because I can see the argument from both sides, given my upbringing, religious beliefs, and political formation, I stupidly tried to bridge the gap.
Never, ever, ever again.
Wishing that "ID doesn't care" who the designer is doesn't make it so. "Each tree is known by its own fruit," and looking at the "irreducibly complex" systems presented as evidence of ID, it's difficult to believe that their designer had our best interests in mind. No, Joe and Betty don't want to hear it, but if the science leads that way, Dembski has a bit of a problem on his hands, doesn't he?
Extinguishing atheism with a coup de theatre is a bit too optimistic a forecast for me. The real bursting of the dam was during the Enlightenment, one hundred years before Darwin cooked up his theory, when atheism was recast as a philosophy, rather than a blasphemy and was no longer stigmatized. You're not going to undo that by putting stickers in bio books.
For a lampoon to work, it has to have some element of reality to hang its hat on.
To make a link do this:
type [and with no space type the name you want the link to have then type a space and paste in the web address you want people to be able to get to like this one http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/9/4/182535/5829/61#61 then with no space between the web address type the other bracket key]
(You can get the web address of a site by going to that site in another browser window, then put the cursor in the address bar at the top of the page left click and highlight the entire address, click and click copy, then go to the window you are writing in and paste the web address by right clicking and click paste.)
If you follow that you will get a link like this:
You can look at the link in preview to make sure it functions properly.
I for one would appreciate it if you provide links for some of your sources of information. Much of what you say is inconsistent with what I have read elsewhere.
Also, somewhere else you expressed difficulty finding new comments and responses. I agree but the best way I have found to at least keep up with new responses to my own comments is to look at the "your comments" link on the left hand side of the screen. Clicking on yours for instance will take you here.
Looking forward to your next diary. I hope that we will finally get to the meat and potatoes of Intelligent Design there. IThis has been a long preamble but I'm sure it will be worth the wait!
highlight the entire address, right click and click copy,
Einstein's theory of General Relativity was something of an enigma for Einstein and his fellow travelers in naturalism. General Relativity seemed to be saying that the universe may not be static, but expanding at great speed.
This seems to be a widely held myth. In actuality, Einstein's derivation of the theory of General Relativity yielded an integration constant whose value could not be determined theoretically--it required observational data, which was unfortunately limited at the time. Depending upon what number was plugged in, the universe was either expanding, static, or contracting. Einstein had two choices: 1) he could arbitrarily assume that the constant was zero, even though he had no real basis for doing so other than that it yielded a simpler formula, or 2) he could use what was "known" about the universe. He chose option (2), assigning this "cosmological constant" a value that yielded a static universe, as was then believed to be the case.
In later years, he regretted this, and wished that he had simply assumed it to be zero, which would have allowed him to predict an expanding universe ahead of Hubble. However, there is no reason why the constant has to be zero, and even though the universe is expanding, there is some evidence to suggest that Einstein's constant is not actually zero (in which case, Einstein's decision to rely upon observational data was the correct one; the problem was that the data wasn't good enough).
Thanks for the tutorial. My laptop has devolped a problem of some kind so I'm at my desktop. Firgured it was some malicious virus from ???, but housecall.com and Dell says I'm clean. McAfee, however has some problem and I'm out of business; kids use this station for homework, which is starting now.
Next diary will be in the next day or so.
Thanks again
Thanks for the thoughtful questions. I'll do my best. I'm not a scientist, I'm a parent (with a science background) so you'll get the English language version.
<Please show the scientific evidence that REQUIRES that a creator is necessary for the Big Bang theory to be true? I would love to hear as would Stephen Hawking and every other physicist on the planet. They don't even know if the Big Bang is the beginning or simply the end of a contraction. But apparently you know that a creator is required so let's hear the sceintific evidence.>
For starters, multiple universe theories are simply conjecture based on anti-supernatural bias of the theories. Science is founded upon philosophical principles. Methodological materialism is one of them. It says true science can only consider matter, energy and their interaction. What is the science (not the scientist) that demonstrates this is a correct limitation to impose on an observational exercise? There is no science to prove this, there is merely a philosophical construct that says "this is what we're going to consider as science" (I'll get off my lampooning acronyms for now, though the point they make is powerful when done in public; you guys are a tough crowd).
When we're dealing with cosmology, we're not exactly flipping burgers. Here's what Robert Jastrow says:
"There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause... This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the universe had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized." (Jastrow: God and the Astronomers, pg 105)
Hawking agrees: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator." OF course, he goes on to try to describe an alternative, using his equation greasing imaginary numbers in his "cone" scheme (the signularity is still there defying physics, its just hidden by the imaginary time). He even admits this in his book with Penrose "Nature of Space and Time"(1996). HIs gig is a math model devised to eliminate the singularity because he doesn't like the theological necessity.
Oscillating models don't add-up either. Hawking acknowledges that as long as the universe is governed by General Relativity, the singularity is unavoidable, and that it is impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. Good-bye vacuum fluctuations.
I've already cited Einstein and Hubble who became theists in the face of Red Shift. We've now got Jastrow and Hawking. There are others. Why are they so convinced? Because whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Otherwise, its worse than magic, its nonsense (unlike MM, that builds a closed premise in the face of a big open end; here we're at the end with no alternatives). Given General Relativity is still commanding the troops, the singularity is unavoidable except via voodoo pseudo-science and wishful thinking, then indeed the universe had a beginning (the Big Bang). The unavoidable conclusion is the Universe had a cause. That cause must be something outside the system. But Gen Rel leaves nowhere to go, and the singularity scrambles physics. So theism, by Hawkings own admission, is the only foundational option.
This is more compelling that MM by light years, which has other options, demanded by this very same cosmology; the alternate to MM is empericism. The other options in cosmology are (once again) unproven and unprovable voodoo.
Gotta go for now. Thanks for asking.
It's popular with journalists and back-benchers, but real cosmologist know that dawg don't hunt; Greenspan dun whipped inflation anyway!
Nothing to see here. :)