National Review Online Against ID?

Derbyshire has criticized ID before, for which I praised him here.

Derbyshire's comments are not intelligently designed. I have posted on this here

David, your post focuses on cosmological claims, which interest me as little as the biological aspects interest you. Personally, as a deist, I have no problem with the notion that the universe was created, or was created with conditions that could allow the formation of life (WAP is fine by me, SAP seems a major stretch). But that has little to do with the ID and evolution, which focuses on biology and the biodiversity of life on earth, not with the universe as a whole.

Ed,

You are correct. It's a pet peeve of mine that ID is almost always viewed as an attack on evolution. I take all opportunities to point out that there is an even more fundamental cosmological ID question. If ID in cosmology cannot be satisfactorily refuted, then I view the evolution debate as "in the noise."

2) None of the ID people I have encountered (in person or books) is an open-minded inquirer trying to uncover facts about the world. Every one I know of is a Christian looking to justify his faith.

David-

Perhaps you should take that up with the Discovery Institute. 99% of their efforts focus exclusively on poking holes in evolution. It's almost always viewed as an attack on evolution because it almost always IS an attack on evolution.

Now I limit myself to ID as it applies to cosmology.

Derbyshire makes a theologically incorrect statement, at the very beginning of his post: It is possible to believe in God and not believe in ID; theologically incorrect statement, at the very beginning of his post: It is possible to believe in God and not believe in ID

Why is there a universe at all? Why is there something rather than nothing?

He has, of course, relegated me to the category of uninformed scientist.

Contrary to what Derbyshire implied, a great deal of research is conducted to answer the questions uncovered by ID research.

Derbyshire confirms my speculation in his latest post in which he writes: "None of the ID people I have encountered (in person or books) is an open-minded inquirer trying to uncover facts about the world. Every one I know of is a Christian looking to justify his faith."

Ed,

My point exactly. Perhaps I wasn't clear on one thing: I don't blame the biologists.

Ahh GWW, I missed you! You have such a way with words.

NR is rather confused on this as they named "Darwin's Black Box" one of the Top 100 Books of the 20th Century!

http://www.nationalreview.com/100best/100_books.html

With the priceless quote:
George Gilder: "Overthrows Darwin at the end of the 20th century in the same way that quantum theory overthrew Newton at the beginning."

NR is rather confused on this as they named "Darwin's Black Box" one of the Top 100 Books of the 20th Century! http://www.nationalreview.com/100best/100_books.html . . .

Ahh GWW, I missed you! You have such a way with words.

http://www.nationalreview.com/100best/100_books.html . . .

Herman: "Deeply hated by feminists because Watson dares to suggest that the male-female distinction originated in nature, in the DNA code itself."

Lind: "Darwin put humanity in its proper place in the animal kingdom. Wilson put human society there, too."

t's a pet peeve of mine that ID is almost always viewed as an attack on evolution. I take all opportunities to point out that there is an even more fundamental cosmological ID question. If ID in cosmology cannot be satisfactorily refuted, then I view the evolution debate as "in the noise."

— David Heddle

Surely, if the universe were not conducive to life, and yet here we are anyway, that would be an even better reason to infer design, no? On the flip side, if it turns out that the origin of life is a virtual certainty given the laws of the universe, then this fits right in with the cosmological fine-tuning arguments. Hey, the laws of the unvierse were "fine-tuned" to create life!

Steve and CC,

No, I do not agree that it is a heads I win tails you lose argument. In a nutshell, cosmological ID says: the chance of starting with nothing, and then there was a big-bang that ultimately produced a universe with even a single earth, is nil.

This is perfectly consistent with saying God created the universe for the purpose of placing life on earth, therefore the chance of an earth is unity.

Probability is always like that. A fair coin toss leading to a heads is, in one way of looking at it, 50-50. On the other hand, any coin toss is deterministic---given enough info I can calculate whether heads or tails will result. So in that sense the probability is unity.

Likewise for evolution. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, it is self-consistent to say that the probability that humans evolved from singled celled organisms is zero, unless God did it, in which case its one.

I don't see the problem.

On the other hand, any coin toss is deterministic---given enough info I can calculate whether heads or tails will result.

Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, it is self-consistent to say that the probability that humans evolved from singled celled organisms is zero, unless God did it, in which case its one.

"It is impossible to say how he managed to imagine these things, he was too great a mind to comprehend, but what you can see from the drawings is the process of his thought, filling every inch of paper with ideas," Barbieri said. "Even the bicycle, is ... exactly like our modern version."

GWW, on point one: given enough details about the coin, how the coin is flipped, as well as the ambient conditions, one can (in principle) calculate how the toss will result. There is nothing random about it. Still, it makes sesne to say it's 50-50.

On point two, it does not surprise me that you are incapable of enagaing in a discussion that is one level of abstraction away from whether ID is true or false. Let me try it in baby steps:

REGARDLESS of whether or not you agree with ID. If someone does agree with ID, then, from THEIR point of view, which may of course be FLAWED, then one can, given the aforementioned caveats, NEVERTHELESS understand how it is not unreasonable for them to say, although they be religious fanatics, that the probability of earth by random processes is zero, therefore God must have created the earth, while at the same time saying that since the sovereign omnipotent GOD decided to create the earth, it was in truth a "done deal."

"In a nutshell, cosmological ID says: the chance of starting with nothing, and then there was a big-bang that ultimately produced a universe with even a single earth, is nil."

I've never even really understood the sort of mind that could make an argument like this. Isn't it self-evident that probability is a meaningless concept without having knowledge of all possible options and their likihood (or, even better, a hold on exactly what process determines the outcome of each "toss"?)? We don't for the universe, and perhaps never will. Any calculation of probability is thus plain goofy. We don't even know WHAT can vary universe to universe. Perhaps there are principles, constants, regularities, and so on... of most universes that we have never seen. The cosmological ID argument basically emasculates itself.

of most universes that we have never seen

First time reading this blog and I can tell two things right off the bat.

1.) The focus on debunking the fundie creationist trojan horse of ID is an extremely important, but under-the-radar topic, is something that as a scientist I love to see. The fundamentalists pushing this stuff are the biggest danger to our country today. They are trying to extend their brainwashing and indoctrination out of the church and into the public arena. This is a dire threat to America and must be stopped.

2.) Little difference in other similar evolution/science-focused forums I've seen for years. There's always fundies dropping by pretending to be what they aren't.

Mr. Heddle is one and he doesn't even know enough to realize that GWW performed the rhetorical equivalent of ripping his head off and defecating into his thoracic cavity. Moreover, Mr Heddle screws his head back in place and merrily proceeds to make a bigger fool of himself.

"Same as it ever was."-- David Byrne, "Once in a Lifetime"

WyldPirate,

I can be wrong in many ways, but anyone who calls me a fundie is an idiot. My blog is noted for its anti-fundie viewpoint. Fundies HATE cosmological ID, because it only makes sense if the universe is old. Fundies only jump on the evolution-ID debate, because they believe they do so while retaining thier belief in a 6000 year old earth.

Pretending to be what they aren't? I have more than 40 papers in peer reviewed physics journals. (I'll provide you with a vita if you like) I'd wager my scientific bone fides can hold their own with most of the readers of this blog.

Why don't you enlighten me, in a impassioned cogent analysis, as to how GWW ripped me a new one?

given enough details about the coin, how the coin is flipped, as well as the ambient conditions, one can (in principle) calculate how the toss will result.

GWW,

I really don't understand you.

I toss a coin and it lands "heads".

If you do NOT believe that at some level the coin toss was deterministic, then what do you suppose caused to land "heads"? Was it supernatural?

Deterministic does not require I read you mind. If I know: the intertia tensor of the coin, the position and orientation when it leaves your hand, the humidy and temperature, etc, then i can use Newton's laws to calculate how it will land.

Fundies HATE cosmological ID, because it only makes sense if the universe is old.

Fundies only jump on the evolution-ID debate, because they believe they do so while retaining thier belief in a 6000 year old earth.

"First of all, galaxy formation requires a tight constraint on the expansion rate. Since the expansion rate, in no known theory, is a fundamental constant, it implies something about the probability of our universe."

No, because it is still determined by whatever fundamental character the universe had to begin with. Which again, is something no one can with a straight face or at least a decent understanding of math, claim to know the "probability" of. Again, if you think we can know this, then what are the various outcomes and what are the likihoods of each of them? Or, alternatively, how is the character of a universe determined.

"What do you mean "most universes we have never seen? Newsflash: we have only seen one and exactly one."

You are a very confused person. First you try to bring up an argument about probability, which makes _necessary_ a discussion about other _possible_ universes. I'm not saying that any universes other than our own exist, but if you are going to claim that there is any probability attached to our universe being the way it is, you MUST be able to discuss what the other possibilities are. If you concede that there is only one universe for which we have any experience, then you must also concede that we have no way to speak about what goes into determining the original character of the universe. We cannot use regularities and observations taken from within the context of the universe to conclude things about the cause of the universe, which if there is one, would be outside of that context!

"The other universes conveniently cannot communicate with ours. According to non IDers we have to accept that they (other universes) exist on faith. And that we happen to live in one of the rare, fertile universes. Most reasonable people would call such a view a "religion.""

Most people seem to call a person that drones on and on down a blind alley of a point no one even made... a fool.

Again: YOU raised the concept of proability. If you think we are talking about something akin to a coin flip, then YOU must be talking about multiple possible universes. Otherwise you are just pulling our legs. So don't spin around and get all huffy about a subject YOU raised.

"Deterministic does not require I read you mind. If I know: the intertia tensor of the coin, the position and orientation when it leaves your hand, the humidy and temperature, etc, then i can use Newton's laws to calculate how it will land."

And you know anything even approaching any of this in the case of the universe... how?

GWW,

It is my term as far as I know. My point is, On my blog I have been attacked by fundamentalists for posting on the cosmological aspects of ID. Fundies are not amused that there is a fortuitous set of energy levels that allows the process of stellar evolution to produce heavy elements that then seed the surrounding space following a super nova. It actually hurts their view that God created the earth in situ 6000 years ago. For if he did so, why would he so fine-tune the nuclear chemistry? It makes no sense.

The physics/cosmology/astronomy ID arguments only make sense (if they make sense to you at all) if you believe in an old universe. That's why it's dumb to call me a fundie, unless you just use fundie to mean Christian.

Even on purely theological matters, I am decidedly non-fundamentalist.

If I know: the intertia tensor of the coin, the position and orientation when it leaves your hand, the humidy and temperature, etc, then i can use Newton's laws to calculate how it will land.

Mr. Heddle,

You're not worth my time. I've seen hundreds of your type before.

I say this because I had read several threads and gathered from them that GWW is a straight-up fellow that knows what he is talking about. Additionally, I perused your blog for a bit and see that you are obsessed with Xianity.

You may well not be a "fundie" in the standard understanding of the term, but you have taken Luther's urging to heart to "tell helpful lies" for the advancement of the imaginary Invisible Sky Daddy you so desperately wish to believe in despite the fact that you lack a shred of evidence for said Invisible Sky Daddy's existence. From these multiple threads of evidence, I've concluded that you are: a.) quite likely intellectually dishonest, b.) have the ever handy movable goalposts that many theists carry and hence c.) you are not worth wasting much thought on in refuting the drivel you would like reply with.

Thanks, but no thanks. I've toyed with your type for years. I'll just pull up my seat and a big bag of popcorn and watch you dissemble and others wipe the floor with you. This sort of thing is an interesting spectator sport. ;)

That's why it's dumb to call me a fundie, unless you just use fundie to mean Christian.

Even on purely theological matters, I am decidedly non-fundamentalist.

Likewise for evolution. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, it is self-consistent to say that the probability that humans evolved from singled celled organisms is zero, unless God did it, in which case its one. I don't see the problem.

— David Heddle

No, I do not agree that it is a heads I win tails you lose argument. In a nutshell, cosmological ID says: the chance of starting with nothing, and then there was a big-bang that ultimately produced a universe with even a single earth, is nil.

I'm not saying it's not a proper thing to believe, it's just that it's silly, IMO, to believe it on the basis of probability calculations that are meaningless unless you already believe.

David:

Unfortunately, plunge is right and your probability argument is meaningless. The fact that we know nothing about the conditions that brought our universe into being, be they natural or supernatural, means that we can't talk about probability. In other words, if you don't know what you're tossing up in the air, you can't talk about the probability of it coming up heads, since you don't know if it has a "heads" side.

As you may know, this "fine-tuning" problem (we live in a universe just the right density to have not collapsed or blown apart by now, etc, etc.) is a very active area of physics research. Alan Guth's inflationary theory and its variants seem to be a pretty good explanation. Some variants of this actually propose that there is a sort of "foam" of false vacuum, a very energetic and unstable vacuum, which is expanding relentlessly, and that there are regions collapsing into lower energy vacuums all the time, which would release tremendous amounts of energy. These would actually be universes, infinitely many "big-bangs." In this case, since there are infinitely many possible values of the physical constants, the probability of there being a universe just like ours is unity.

However, the problem remains that this is not testable experimentally at the moment, and may never be. In that case, you can argue whether it is science or philosophy. However, the fact is, we do not have anything approaching the amount of information necessary to do a probability calculation for the existence of a universe like ours.

On a side note, you do have a point about the coin flip being deterministic. If you were to somehow (divine inspiration?) be told the quantum wave functions of all of the particles in the room, you could calculate whether the coin would come up heads or tails. Pratically, of course, it is impossible, but in principle, you can calculate the outcome to a very high degree of probability using quantum mechanics. Which brings a last little note: if something is not deterministic, as quantum mechanics may very well not be as far as observable quantities like position go, what determines the outcome? If there is no way to test different possibilities (the atom decided to go there, or God put it there, or it is simply random), then science has nothing to say on the matter.

The other day I won a game of poker. So I calculated the odds of my getting that exact winning hand. They were ridiculously low! 1:2,598,960 against! Clearly, god stacked the deck in my favor!

Ugh.

If anyone wants to take a break from this discussion of nonsense cosmology, and check out some real cosmology, the NYT has a good article up today about the fresh detection of remnants of sound waves from the big bang.

http://nytimes.com/2005/01/12/science/space/12cosmos.html

1.) The focus on debunking the fundie creationist trojan horse of ID is an extremely important, but under-the-radar topic, is something that as a scientist I love to see. The fundamentalists pushing this stuff are the biggest danger to our country today. They are trying to extend their brainwashing and indoctrination out of the church and into the public arena. This is a dire threat to America and must be stopped.

Sorry guys, but your probability skills are in error. (but you biology types are never very strong in math, are you?)

If all possible universes are equally likely then it is true that, in a random draw, the probability of ours is the same as any other. So in that case we have no right to be surprised in our universe.

However, if only very few of those universes can support life, then we have to chose one of two alternatives (1) we see design or (2) of course we are lucky, or we wouldn't be here talking about it.

Your poker analogy is more like this: suppose of all poker hands represent universes, but only a royal flush of hearts represents a fertile universe. It is true that the royal flush is no less likely than any other hand, but I would expect cheating (i.e. design) if it was the only hand that meant life and it was the hand I drew.

The non-Iders in physics recognize this too (even if you bio types don't) which is why multiverse theories are popular. After all, they allow you to pick option number (2) above, for if all possiblle poker hands are dealt, somebody VERY LUCKY gets the royal flush, and they alone will be alive to ponder their good fortune, even though no design was involved.

Many, many really smart non-ID scientists believe in the paragraph above, or some variation thereof. That's fine, obviously, but it acknowledges that the probablibility of not just our but ANY life supporting universe is tiny.

See the point: that fact that our universe is "lucky" is model independent. It is not only for IDers. Maybe what you are trying to argue is that, for example, we just don't know the science deep enough, and that all possible big-bangs will, from fundamental principles, lead to just the right expansion rates tha we get galaxies. (and that is just one restrictive parameter) Maybe, but nobody I know of is even persuing such a theory.

In fact, the observation that the universe is "life friendly" CANNOT be evidence for design under any circumstances.

Given the observation that life exists in the universe and the assumption that the universe is completely naturalistic, then it is an absolute consequence that the natural laws of the universe must be "life friendly", that is, must be consistent with the existence of life.

A sufficiently powerful designer (deity) could easily sustain life in a universe that was not "life friendly". Thus, the observation that the universe is "life friendly" can not be evidence for a designer (deity) and is only neutral under strong restrictions on the intent of the designer (deity).

For more details see this page by Bill Jefferies and myself.

Michael,

I would agree with the statement that the observation of life and/or fine-tuning to any degree cannot be used to prove God. But your statement, variations on which I have heard many times, is no more than this: "Given that life exists, and given that nothing supernatural happened, then it must be that the natural laws produced a life-friendly universe."

You have built into your assumption that nothing supernatural occurred. To me, it renders your argument a rather meaningless tautology. The same as saying:

If you believe that something supernatural might have occurred, then of course ANYTHING that looks like fine tuning (e.g., ice floats) can, rightly or wrongly, be placed in evidence for design.

But, as I said, I agree you'll never prove it.

We also will never prove that parallel universes exist.

The other ramification of your argument, as I understand it, is the only evidence for a deity would be that, sort of as a vulgar display of power, he placed us in a universe that was not life friendly.

Mr Heddle: There is no such thing as a 'model independent' probability. Concluding that the existence of life is fortunate or not depends completely on the model you choose. Also without an explicit probability calculation you are simply talking nonsense. No one knows how to make such a calculation, so you are simply making up values and choosing the ones you like.

One further thing: using statistical probability only makes sense if your ideas are entirely based on naturalism. In a supernatural world there is no such thing as probability because the mapping between the natural order and the order in mathematics does not exist.

euan,

Geez Louise. I NEVER said there was a model independent probability -- did I write that no matter what your model is the probability of our universe is 4.56x10^-69?

No, I made a much weaker statement, which you are free to critcize, but please criticize what I said. Here it is is again:

The fact that our universe is fortunate is MODEL INDEPENDENT. No physicsist that I know denies that, to name just a few things, the expansion rate, the relative strengths of the fundamental forces, the number of expanding dimensions, and the energy levels of obscure isotopes ocurring inside stars are highly constrained in order for our universe to have galaxies, stars, and rocky planets. That is ABSOLUTELY model independent.

From here, you can invoke design, sheer random luck, or multiple universes to explain how we are here. But you cannot deny the underlying "luck."

As for the actual value of the probability, I would agree with all of you that it is not possible to calculate without huge error bars, not in the mantissa but in the exponent. However, whatever the number is, the constraints point to it being small.

David Heddle wrote:

(begin quote)

But your statement, variations on which I have heard many times, is no more than this: "Given that life exists, and given that nothing supernatural happened, then it must be that the natural laws produced a life-friendly universe."

(end quote)

You have completely misinterpreted my statement. My statement is that "Given that nothing supernatural happened and that life exists then we MUST observe a life-friendly universe. However, given that something supernatural happened and that life exists we may or may not observe a life-friendly universe. Therefore the observation of a life-friendly universe can not be evidence for something supernatural."

Sorry guys, but your probability skills are in error. (but you biology types are never very strong in math, are you?)

— David Heddle

Your poker analogy is more like this: suppose of all poker hands represent universes, but only a royal flush of hearts represents a fertile universe. It is true that the royal flush is no less likely than any other hand, but I would expect cheating (i.e. design) if it was the only hand that meant life and it was the hand I drew.

— David Heddle

However, if only very few of those universes can support life, then we have to chose one of two alternatives (1) we see design or (2) of course we are lucky, or we wouldn't be here talking about it. Your poker analogy is more like this: suppose of all poker hands represent universes, but only a royal flush of hearts represents a fertile universe. It is true that the royal flush is no less likely than any other hand, but I would expect cheating (i.e. design) if it was the only hand that meant life and it was the hand I drew.

— David Heddle

The non-Iders in physics recognize this too (even if you bio types don't) which is why multiverse theories are popular.

See the point: that fact that our universe is "lucky" is model independent.

Maybe what you are trying to argue is that, for example, we just don't know the science deep enough, and that all possible big-bangs will, from fundamental principles, lead to just the right expansion rates tha we get galaxies. (and that is just one restrictive parameter) Maybe, but nobody I know of is even persuing such a theory.

I might as well chip in here that the arguments are being presented backwards. We aren't deducing God because our universe would be impossibly unlikely with Him, but rather we are assuming God, and searching for some reason, ANY reason, in support of this assumption. And so we presume our universe was very unlikely not because we have any conceivable basis for comparison or computation, but because by making this claim, we are rationalizing our conviction that God exists, and must have done something.

A couple of points:

1. A key goal of the Religious right is in making common cause on the basis of politics rather than doctrine, hence the endorsement of ID creationism by a certain wingnut group of Catholics (Santorum, Schlafly, etc.). They don't necessarily endorse creationism so much as want to get in the same tent with the fundies. The same tendency is seen in the Religious Right's endorsement of the Israeli settlers in the West Bank. They believe that Jesus will return when Israel is restored, so they want to "support Israel" (i.e., the most rabid expansionists). This is notwithstanding their prediction that unconverted Jews will go straight to hell at the Last Judgement. It's all tribalism, really.

2. As has been pointed out many times on this and other fora, the probabilistic arguments of the kind presented by David Heddle are fatuous at best and dishonest at worst. Evolution by natural selection is a cumulative probability, not an independent one. This likely applies to physical evolution (e.g., planetary accretion) as well as to biological evolution. Such silliness as "10(69) possible universes that can't support life" is as insupportable as other creationist arguments.

BTW, National Review Online's "The Corner" is a group blog, in which posters speak for themselves rather than for the magazine. Derbyshire is in the minority there on ID.

Evolution by natural selection is a cumulative probability, not an independent one. This likely applies to physical evolution . . .

Your point is valid. Remember that we are dealt ONLY one hand. If I sat down at a poker game, and on the first deal my opponent got a royal flush, then the assumption of a fix is a very good one.

— David Heddle

OK, I think I see your argument---either a hospitable universe or an inhospitable one would be used to support design, given that life exists -- am I getting close?

— David Heddle

Re: the Frontline debate between ID and science, with William F. Buckley on the ID team:

I watched it and found it very sad to see a man of Buckley's intellect paint himself into so many of the unreasoning corners of ID cultism.

During the course of the debate, Buckley accepted the extremely well filled-out sequence of radiation and descent among therapsids or "mammal-like reptiles" as legitimate evidence of naturalistic evolution. However, he immediately demanded that Team Evolution produce another sequence with an equal number of known specimens. Of course they didn't have one on-hand, but it doesn't matter; if they did have one, Buckley would have just asked for *another*, and so on, ad infinitum.

Buckley also justified teaching ID because it makes kids feel better about themselves--that it makes them out as akin to angels, not monkeys. The happy lie vs the sad truth.... I guess someone's a fan of "Miracle on 34th Street".....

I disagree. It seems to me that it would be incumbent upon you to show that there is reason to believe that the fix is in, other than the fact that the outcome of the hand was highly unlikely.

"If all possible universes are equally likely then it is true that, in a random draw, the probability of ours is the same as any other. So in that case we have no right to be surprised in our universe."

Here you again jump over the key issue. How can we know a) the number of possible universes or b) what the likihood of each of them is.

"However, if only very few of those universes can support life, then we have to chose one of two alternatives (1) we see design or (2) of course we are lucky, or we wouldn't be here talking about it."

Again, you've jumped ahead. There is no way we can know how many in the set of all possible universes could support life, because we don't know what the set of possible universes contains. Period. Without that, the idea of "lucky" is pure nonsense.

"As for the actual value of the probability, I would agree with all of you that it is not possible to calculate without huge error bars, not in the mantissa but in the exponent. However, whatever the number is, the constraints point to it being small."

It is not possible to write out AT ALL. You cannot do probability backwards from one example.

As an example, pretend I tell you that on one die roll, your roll came up with an H, an 0 and a 2. Now, that's three "constraints" on what you must roll, right? So, tell me the probability of your roll. Show me how you'll be doing the calculation.

Actually, don't, because to anyone that's actually DONE a real probability calculation, you'll know how laughable the request is. You can't do it _because you don't know what else is on the die_. For all you know, the same thing could be on every side. You also don't know how many sides there even are: it could be two, it could be a million, or it could be some sort of bizarre mobius die that only has one side. Likewise, the idea of "constraints" is nonsense because you don't actually know if they were indepedantly determined, or how. That's exactly the situation we face with the universe. Even contingent constraits are contingent on deterministic original "rolls." But since we don't know what the "roll" is like: what sort of die was used, so to speak, it's madness to speak of probability.

Re: Frontline debate. None other than the ethically challenged House Majority Whip Tom Delay proclaimed loudly on "This Week" (ABC) a few years back that the reason kids take guns to school and kill other kids is because we teach evolution and not creationism.

To get back to the discussion at hand, it doesn't matter where you start in the chain of events. Creationism is creationism. ID is ID.

No, as has been pointed out here, all hands are equally unlikely. It's that particular hand, which has the same a priori probablility as the one I am holding, that makes me suspicious, because it is the best possible hand.

To get back to the discussion at hand, it doesn't matter where you start in the chain of events. Creationism is creationism. ID is ID.

The number of possible universes, in multiverse theories, is assumed to be infinite.

You can make some estimates about probablility--we are not without some knowledge. For example, it is fairly easy to estimate the probability that the planet has the right kind of orbit, around the right kind of star, in the right kind of galaxy, without too much radiation, etc.

As for things like the expansion rate, I agree that you cannot assign a probability for us to get the correct expansion rate.However, consider the following two statements:

1) Any expansion rate within two orders of magnitude of the one we have would do

2) Any expansion rate not differing from ours by one part in 10⁸ would do

say quite different things about the "luck" we have received. (Note: these are just two examples pulled out of the air.) I think most would agree that if (2) is correct, even though we cannot assign the probability, that whatever it is it is lower than in case (1).

Unless of course some fundamental theory can predict the expansion rate from first principles.

"The number of possible universes, in multiverse theories, is assumed to be infinite."

First of all, that assumption isn't based on anything: it's simply the filter we use because we have no means by which to limit the possibilities.

You keep citing the fact that some speculate about multiverses as if it were evidence that the basic issues of HOW the characteristics of universes are determined, if at all, and even if there is a single set of fundamental characteristics, had been settled or even had some evidence to help us out. They haven't been settled, and there is no such evidence. The best few have is the hope that we may someday be able to test some of the pretty darn modest ideas about the possibility of multiple universes.

"You can make some estimates about probablility---we are not without some knowledge. For example, it is fairly easy to estimate the probability that the planet has the right kind of orbit, around the right kind of star, in the right kind of galaxy, without too much radiation, etc."

But only _within_ our universe, which is the whole point. And, more importantly, we simply do not know whether these different elements are truly indepedant, or whether they are all the way they are because of more fundamental character of the universe that determine them all. All the constants we know of could boil down to one in the end for all we know.

I'm reminded of a wonderful story by the late R. A. Lafferty, in which some scientists invented a 'time pendulum', in the form of a large ball that swung deep into the past, then far into the future. The (human) scientists could watch each transit through the present, and stop it at any such transit.

The story is told from the 'objective third person' perspective for excellent reason: Each time the ball passed through the present, the conditions were totally different. The scientists varied from lizards to colony intelligences to slime molds. Finally, they stopped the experiment, concluded that their time pendulum probably had never travelled into the past at all because nothing was any different, and they all slithered away.

Imaginative SF authors have entirely consistent life forms living inside stars, inside black holes, in conditions where liquid helium is common, where radiation is fierce, etc. There is no inherent reason why any of these life forms could not exist. Fred Hoyle himself wrote a novel called 'The Black Cloud' about a creature native to open space, and astounded that life could possibly arise on a planet. I recommend any books by Baxter, Clement, and a cast of many.

What David Heddle is doing is dealing himself a poker hand, noting the extremely bad odds of getting that exact hand, *declaring* that it's the most valuable hand possible (regardless of what's in it), and thus rationalizing his preconceptions.

All the constants we know of could boil down to one in the end for all we know.

What David Heddle is doing is dealing himself a poker hand, noting the extremely bad odds of getting that exact hand, *declaring* that it's the most valuable hand possible (regardless of what's in it), and thus rationalizing his preconceptions.

Flint,

I used to run into Lafferty and chat with him at Science Fiction conventions. He always seemed to be on the edge of passing out drunk. I remember him at a WorldCon one year hanging on to a lamppost and signing program books in a sweeping scrawl. Definitely one of a kind.

I used to run into Lafferty and chat with him at Science Fiction conventions.

David Heddle:

OK, I agree, most days I'm glad to be alive myself. I regard the odds for or against this as imponderable and irrelevant, but life is mostly good while it lasts.

Probability is always like that. A fair coin toss leading to a heads is, in one way of looking at it, 50-50. On the other hand, any coin toss is deterministic---given enough info I can calculate whether heads or tails will result. So in that sense the probability is unity.

but you biology types are never very strong in math, are you?

— David Heddle

We also will never prove that parallel universes exist.

— David Heddle

Your comments are meaningless. It is a fact of science and not an invention of ID that if the expansion rate were slightly different there would be no galaxies. Non-IDers agree. And I have never said anything about 1069 possible universes. Nor did I assign a probability to our universe. I only pointed out the uncontested and incontrovertible fact that many fortunate things have happened to give us a universe capable of supporting life. So . . . Is that WRONG?

— David Heddle

And please, please explain how, as you said, Evolution by natural selection is a cumulative probability, not an independent one. This likely applies to physical evolution . . .

— David Heddle

No, as has been pointed out here, all hands are equally unlikely. It's that particular hand, which has the same a priori probablility as the one I am holding, that makes me suspicious, because it is the best possible hand.

— David Heddle

Your poker analogy is more like this: suppose of all poker hands represent universes, but only a royal flush of hearts represents a fertile universe. It is true that the royal flush is no less likely than any other hand, but I would expect cheating (i.e. design) if it was the only hand that meant life and it was the hand I drew.

— David Heddle

GWW,

No, although I did spend a year and a half in Lake Geneva, sculpting D&D figures for TSR. The furthest west I ever got for a con was Chicago and St.Louis I think (I'm in Atlanta.)

Anyone else feel they wasted their time? The guy just does not get what we are saying. It would be one thing if he disagreed, but basic concepts... they just dont' seem to register. Did I explain it badly? Is it really that hard to understand that you cannot judge probability based on a single observation?

but you biology types are never very strong in math, are you?

This shows how much you are out of touch. You think biologists don't know math? Biology has strong requirement of mathematics, chemistry physic, statistics, geology and many other areas. Please tell us your background in mathematics?! I may have missed it but what exactly are your qualifications?

This type of statement amazes me. Why would you say such a thing? Just because we don't have the understanding and technology now why would you think we would never have the understanding and technology?

For your information there is already experiments going with the goals of being able to look back at what happened before the "big bang" kind of like we just peer out into space to look at what happened back in normal space/time.

What if the player got a full house? Would you say they stacked the deck there? I'd equate our Universe more to a full house then a Royal straight flush. Are you saying our universe is the best it could be for life? Sheeesh if you are then you've got low standards.

There is nothing saying life could exist out at Jupiter. Just because WE can't live there natively doesn't mean all life would be domed out there.

The problem with this argument, as I see it, David, is that we didn't draw the hand; it drew us. Life developed in the universe as it is, and it is only natural that the life that has developed therefore 'fits' in our univeerse. It is quite possible that in a hypothetical different universe, silicon-based life forms would be arguing the same kinds of issues, and declaring that their universe was the 'lucky' one.

Anyone else feel they wasted their time? The guy just does not get what we are saying. It would be one thing if he disagreed, but basic concepts . . . they just dont' seem to register. Did I explain it badly? Is it really that hard to understand that you cannot judge probability based on a single observation?

If there's an infinite number of universes then ID has to be right in a subset of them. Not only that, it has to be right while a vast majority of scientists are convinced that it is not right.

Such is the nature of infinities.

Move over water, infinity is the universal solvent.

Above in this post, DaveScot accused me of being a "drama queen".

Sorry, Mr. Scot, but my point--which I didn't take the time to expand upon--is that the religious whackjobs in this country discard facts and evidence that contradict their "just so" stories. They have grown bolder in recent years and, as Martin Luther once urged, "tell lies for God" to extend their cultural brainwashing into society in general instead of keeping in their stinking churches.

Its working as well. Look at what is going on. Most americans believe "goddit" when it comes to the debate between evolution and creationism. Kids in America's schools don't compare well with other industrialized countries when it comes to math and science in part because most Americans lend as much (or more) creedence to hocus-pocus pseudoscience as they do actual science The Bush administration defies reality on a daily basis in their "faith-based" administration by suppressing scientific data and ignoring facts and evidence that refute their pre-conceived notions.

Religion is dangerous. It makes people stupid and afraid. Once people are stupid and afraid, it is much easier to manipulate them. Consciously choosing to inject religion into science makes students become confused and stupid. Then you end up with a scientifically illiterate soceity.

Marx was right. Religion is the opiate of the masses.

If there's an infinite number of universes then ID has to be right in a subset of them. Not only that, it has to be right while a vast majority of scientists are convinced that it is not right. Such is the nature of infinities. Move over water, infinity is the universal solvent.

— DaveScot

Anyone else feel they wasted their time? The guy just does not get what we are saying. It would be one thing if he disagreed, but basic concepts . . . they just dont' seem to register. Did I explain it badly? Is it really that hard to understand that you cannot judge probability based on a single observation?

— plunge

If we find things that, had they been slightly different would have left us with no universe, then we begin to appreciate our fortune.

Then we ask, what is the source of that fortune?

Is it "ignorant luck", meaning that its not luck at all, but appears so because we lack a fundamental theory? Maybe. Is it blind luck, meaning there is only one universe and somehow everything came out right? Nobody likes that answer.

Is it because there are an infinite number of universes and if we weren't in one of the lucky ones we wouldn't be here talking about it? A lot of folks like that answer.

Or is it by design? I like that answer.

But in all cases, only one of which is ID, there is al least tacit acknowledgement that many things had to be "just right" for our universe to exist.

Rilkes Grand Daughter,

No the word "fortunate" has real meaning. This is easy for physicists to accept, but darn near impossible for biologists, because they fear it open's a Pandora's box.

One more try:

Virtually ALL physicists, even FLAMING atheists, agree that our universe is "fortunate". They then emply various methods to explain the "fortune", generally one of the four I described above, only one of which invokes God.

But, and I know I've said it a thousand times, "we just are" is not acceptable to ALL STRIPES, because the conditions for our universe are too delicate.

The "fortunate" part per se is not controversial in physics, but crediting God for the fortune is. Crediting multiverses is orthodox.

Do you see my point? You don't like the word "fortunate", but physicists have no trouble with it, in fact they find it exciting and fascinating (the point Derbyshire really blew).

As I said, biologists seem to fear that if our universe appears priviliged/fortunate in any way, manaatory Christianity is aroud the corner.

This is why the ID debate in physics is so much more enjoyable than in biology. You guys have a mean streak!

I have been careful to acknowledge that some super theory could render our "luck" inevitable. However, no such theory is on the horizon so believing in it is no different than believing in God.

— David Heddle

As I said, biologists seem to fear that if our universe appears priviliged/fortunate in any way, manaatory Christianity is aroud the corner.

Sorry, your argument is the outdated one. Chemistry can't be ignored. Water is the universal solvent. Without it, complex chemistry is impossible. I think biologists of all stripes more or less agree that without water life would not be possible. I also think, as evolutionists, you had better hope that's the case, otherwise if life is free to develop anywhere, regardless of the conditions, then you'll be left explaining why there's none on Jupiter.

— David Heddle

I also think, as evolutionists, you had better hope that's the case, otherwise if life is free to develop anywhere, regardless of the conditions, then you'll be left explaining why there's none on Jupiter.

— David Heddle

If it were only a technological question, I would agree. (Actually not without limits. If a theory could be proved but required an accelerator the size of the known universe I would still classify it as unfalsifiable---but that is subject to debate.) But to observe parallel universes would require an overthrow of General Relativity. Maybe that will happen, but until it does the multiverse theories remain, even in principle, unfalsifiable

— David Heddle

Please reference said experiments.

— David Heddle

(Actually, I think you should say another planet might support silicon based life, and they might consider their planet lucky. Another universe would have a different chemistry altogether.)

— David Heddle

If there's an infinite number of universes then ID has to be right in a subset of them. Not only that, it has to be right while a vast majority of scientists are convinced that it is not right.

— DaveScot

No I wouldn't jump to the conclusion of design if a player got a full-house. Am I saying that the universe is the best that it can be for life? Interesting question---theologically of course the answer is no, because of the fall.

— David Heddle

Wayne,

I would think that primitive life on Jupiter would be an even more severe blow to evolution. After all, you guys have the crutch of being able to say abiogenesis is rare. But once life starts, then it should evolve in complexity.

Liquid water is rare in the universe.

Too much radiation does preclude life--for it is not something life can build an immunity against--it breaks down matter. Much of the universe is bathed in radiation higher the "high radiation" environments on earth in which some organisms survive. There is a limit.

Bottom line: there are no such experiments.

I like superstring theory, though I'm no expert, not being a particle physicist. To the level I understand it, I find it beautiful. However your question is posed like a test of orthodoxy. String theory has it detractors among non ID scientists.That is, its not hard to find competent non_ID scientists who thing SST is "crap" as you put it.

In lieu of a theory that predicts that every universe will have the same relative strengths among the strong, weak, and E&M force, and the same masses of elementary particles, I would go on record as saying that it then follows that every universe would have its own chemistry.

I believe in an old-earth and a historic Adam and Eve. Whether that fits with your definition of an OEC and a literal reading of Genesis visa vis Adam and Eve, I couldn't say.

Ok, I'll give this a shot, for no particular reason:

David:
"As to my qualifications, I have a Ph.D. in physics---nuclear theory. Math is our language."

I find this hard to believe. Even as a non-scientist (I'm an engineer), I find it hard to understand how a PhD in physics could totally misunderstand what science is, but there ya go; I'm not going to call you a liar, I just think it is difficult to believe...much like you having trouble accepting that our universe could bring forth life without divine intervention. Of course, I'm not suggesting my belief should be taught in school, as ID proponents are...

Allow me to explain. You are making the mistake that what you find in science books is reality. It isn't. It is a contrived model that humans have come up with to describe observed behaviors in the universe. For example, Newton described gravity as a force between masses, proportional to the masses and the distance between them. Newton was right, but then Einstein comes along and describes gravity as the warping of space-time. So what gives? It's simple. They are just models. Newton wasn't wrong; his model is just more human-scale. Two different models describing observations about the universe.

What we call "science" is just a bunch of models and observations which either support or contradict the models (the latter would cause the model to be refined.) Something as fundamental as "gravity" doesn't really exist. It's merely a label for a behavior of the universe. "Mass" doesn't really exist either; it is simply a label we've constructed to describe "stuff" that we can observe directly/indirectly, and we have observed that things with "mass" have a certain behavior (they have a gravitational force.) Water doesn't freeze at 0 C...we defined 0 C to be the freezing point of water.

Ok, several times, you mentioned that if we changed the constants (the fundamental force constants, for example) or the somesuch, then galaxies could not form or what-not...do you not see that you have imposed an artificial constraint? You are assuming that the mathematical equations that describe the behavior of the galaxy would remain the same. But there is no reason for this constraint.

The universe doesn't behave perfectly; the universe only has to "make sense" (as in it cannot contradict itself...though this is a philosophical point) and we observe it and try to come up with a model for it.

You mention that if we changed constants, galaxies and stars would not form. That's true, but only if you keep the rest of the universe's behavior the same as our current model (and I don't need to tell you that if the universe followed a model that _didn't_ support human existence, there would be no human-derived model for the universe's behavior.)

For example, we refer to "electrons" as these "negatively charged particles"...only they aren't really "negatively charged." It's simply an arbitrary convention we made up. And there's no special reason why electrons have to exist. They have to exist to make the laws of our universe work out...but only because we made up the laws, which in part are based on the existence of electrons...

Now, even if there were some way to conclude that it is highly unlikely for our universe to exist in its present state (which there isn't and you still haven't shown how you come to that conclusion...should be a trivial matter for a nuclear physicist to compute, don't you think?), there is still another problem with what you are proposing: Even if we accept that it is highly unlikely that our universe would exist, how do you go from that to "it was designed"? What logic bridges the first conclusion with the second? I mean, it's highly highly unlikely for a human to be struck by lightning, but it has happened. Why not assume that it was god's will? Why not assume everything is god's will?

And how do you conclude that the universe was designed for us? Why not cockroaches? Why not simply for quarks? SOS pads? Girls named "Cindi"?

David,
Just wanted to add:
IIRC, above you mentioned that speculating about infinitely many universes was little different than talking about god creating the universe.

And that's true.

And that's the point.

All the following ideas (and many, many more) are equally supported by the data, equally likely, and equally testable (not at all):
(1) There is only 1 universe (this one) and it has always existed
(2) There is only 1 universe (this one) and it spontaneously came into existence at some point.
(3) There is only 1 universe (this one) and it was created by some intelligent agent.
(4) There are infinitely many universes
(5) There is no reality; what I call reality is simply a dream from my own consciousness and none of you are real, either...
(6) There are exactly 3 universes, 2 of which are composed entirely of Spam and Cheese Wiz.

In other words, there is no particular reason to believe anything about the origin of the universe. If you wish to believe the universe was created by some intelligent agent (presumably for our benefit), then go ahead, we won't stop you. But don't try to argue that you belief is anything more than that.

I don't necessarily believe that there are infinitely many universes, but I think that that is equally likely given the information we have. Thus, I do not believe it; I simply recognize that we have NO idea.

Wayne, I would think that primitive life on Jupiter would be an even more severe blow to evolution. After all, you guys have the crutch of being able to say abiogenesis is rare. But once life starts, then it should evolve in complexity.

— David Heddle

Liquid water is rare in the universe.

— David Heddle

Too much radiation does preclude life---for it is not something life can build an immunity against---it breaks down matter. Much of the universe is bathed in radiation higher the "high radiation" environments on earth in which some organisms survive. There is a limit. And much of the universe is not bathed in "Too much radiation" Bottom line: there are no such experiments.

— David Heddle

In lieu of a theory that predicts that every universe will have the same relative strengths among the strong, weak, and E&M force, and the same masses of elementary particles, I would go on record as saying that it then follows that every universe would have its own chemistry.

— David Heddle

I believe in an old-earth and a historic Adam and Eve. Whether that fits with your definition of an OEC and a literal reading of Genesis visa vis Adam and Eve, I couldn't say.

— David Heddle

"In a way I get your point, that we only get to observe one universe, so how can we judge its probability to exist? Is that a fair assessment? The way we can judge it, at least qualitatively, is to study it. If we find things that, had they been slightly different would have left us with no universe, then we begin to appreciate our fortune."

Then you've again completely missed the point. The universe is a card in the deck (well, maybe, if a deck cna potentially contain one card). But nothing we observe about the universe within the context of the universe can tell us what the rest of the deck contains: how many cards, what they all have on them, how any suits there are, how these suits can be combined, etc.

In other words, not only can we not know IF things could have been different, but we don't know how they could have been different. You'd see this immediately if you had actually tried to start putting together a standard probability equation to describe what you are saying. That you haven't makes me suspect that you've either never actually done one, not in the proper way anyway. It becomes immediately apparent that you are missing all the key elements necessary to put it together.

"In a way I get your point, that we only get to observe one universe, so how can we judge its probability to exist? Is that a fair assessment? The way we can judge it, at least qualitatively, is to study it. If we find things that, had they been slightly different would have left us with no universe, then we begin to appreciate our fortune."

Then you've again completely missed the point. The universe is a card in the deck (well, maybe, if a deck cna potentially contain one card). But nothing we observe about the universe within the context of the universe can tell us what the rest of the deck contains: how many cards, what they all have on them, how any suits there are, how these suits can be combined, etc.

In other words, not only can we not know IF things could have been different, but we don't know how they could have been different. You'd see this immediately if you had actually tried to start putting together a standard probability equation to describe what you are saying. That you haven't makes me suspect that you've either never actually done one, not in the proper way anyway. It becomes immediately apparent that you are missing all the key elements necessary to put it together.

"In a way I get your point, that we only get to observe one universe, so how can we judge its probability to exist? Is that a fair assessment? The way we can judge it, at least qualitatively, is to study it. If we find things that, had they been slightly different would have left us with no universe, then we begin to appreciate our fortune."

Then you've again completely missed the point. The universe is a card in the deck (well, maybe, if a deck cna potentially contain one card). But nothing we observe about the universe within the context of the universe can tell us what the rest of the deck contains: how many cards, what they all have on them, how any suits there are, how these suits can be combined, etc.

In other words, not only can we not know IF things could have been different, but we don't know how they could have been different. You'd see this immediately if you had actually tried to start putting together a standard probability equation to describe what you are saying. That you haven't makes me suspect that you've either never actually done one, not in the proper way anyway. It becomes immediately apparent that you are missing all the key elements necessary to put it together.

Allow me to explain. You are making the mistake that what you find in science books is reality. It isn't. It is a contrived model that humans have come up with to describe observed behaviors in the universe. For example, Newton described gravity as a force between masses, proportional to the masses and the distance between them. Newton was right, but then Einstein comes along and describes gravity as the warping of space-time. So what gives? It's simple. They are just models. Newton wasn't wrong; his model is just more human-scale. Two different models describing observations about the universe.

Now, even if there were some way to conclude that it is highly unlikely for our universe to exist in its present state (which there isn't and you still haven't shown how you come to that conclusion . . . should be a trivial matter for a nuclear physicist to compute, don't you think?

All the following ideas (and many, many more) are equally supported by the data, equally likely, and equally testable (not at all): (1) There is only 1 universe (this one) and it has always existed (2) There is only 1 universe (this one) and it spontaneously came into existence at some point. (3) There is only 1 universe (this one) and it was created by some intelligent agent. (4) There are infinitely many universes (5) There is no reality; what I call reality is simply a dream from my own consciousness and none of you are real, either . . . (6) There are exactly 3 universes, 2 of which are composed entirely of Spam and Cheese Wiz.

Who says it [abiogenesis] is rare? Who says it can only occur once?

I'm sure that U. Danielsson et al will be interested to note that their experiments that say "it was found that in these cases, the theory does . . . do not, in you great opinion, qualify as science

I'm wondering why your belief of an old earth does not conflict with Genesis but evolution does. You obviously are not literally interpreting the bible with your belief of an old Earth. Can I presume that with your background you would point of the inaccuracies of creationist claims that radiometric dating and the like being unreliable?

Is evolution "not reality, just a model?" PLEASE answer that question.

I won't bother to correct your mangled description of Newtonian Gravitation. I don't have too much difficulty with your point. However, the models do not have equal standing, one being an approximation of the other. Does your quote apply to evolution? Is evolution "not reality, just a model?" PLEASE answer that question.

—

I won't bother to correct your mangled description of Newtonian Gravitation. I don't have too much difficulty with your point. However, the models do not have equal standing, one being an approximation of the other. Does your quote apply to evolution? Is evolution "not reality, just a model?" PLEASE answer that question.

—

Many have said that I do not take the bible literally. I think there is wiggle room where the Hebrew word yom is used (for day.)

If another model comes along that makes better predictions and more accurate computations of the natural world, then that model is the one that becomes accepted, but there is no need for scientists to change their world-view to accept the rightness of one model over another.

The theory of evolution is a model of how that occured.

You corrected Ruthless's statement on Newtonian gravitation---no point beating a dead horse.

A model that makes "better predictions and more accurate computations" (that's the same thing, I suppose) is, in mind, superior. That doesn't detract from the achievement of the superseded model, for the replacement surely depended on the experience garnered with the older model.

However, the models do not have equal standing, one being an approximation of the other. Does your quote apply to evolution? Is evolution "not reality, just a model?" PLEASE answer that question.

But I'm a dummy, so why don't you ask the Node-ID anti-theist cosmologists, who should be on your side of the debate, why they also conclude that our universe is unlikely? With me it is clearly a matter of religious fanaticism and stupidity. But what about Hawking? Jastrow? etc, etc, etc? As a reminder, here are some quotes I posted the last time I was follish enough to venture in here. Now don't deflect things by saying that I claim they believe in ID. Actually, they don't, and that's the point. They see improbability in the universe---so are they all stupid too?

The value of most of this statement speaks for itself.

However, only (2), (3), and (4) really fit the data, for the idea of a steady-state universe is almost dead---almost everyone agrees in the big bang or something like it.

Why, I've been told that on this blog! By your side of the aisle! As a possible reason why life isn't abundant in the universe. That statement is on your side of the debate. The argument goes something like this: evolution is a powerful mechanism for creating complexity/functionality/species etc. If life isn't everywhere, it's not evolution's fault, it's probably because abiogenesis is rare. Abiogenesis is evolution's scapegoat.

We have no idea if it is rare. We only know that life exists on our planet now and did in the past. We think that at some point it did not.

A model that makes "better predictions and more accurate computations" (that's the same thing, I suppose) is, in mind, superior. That doesn't detract from the achievement of the superseded model, for the replacement surely depended on the experience garnered with the older model.

—

"better predictions and more accurate computations" (that's the same thing, I suppose)

However, the point remains, that, for example, your idea about the universe being "lucky" requires that the universe be constrained by its current behavior and there is no reason to assume so. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Again, you missed the point. You can believe the universe was designed all you want. But it isn't a scientific belief. It is a philosophical one. And one with no evidence behind it.

I'll ask again: Why is the occurrence of an unlikely event reason to believe it was the work of an intelligence? Do you believe that a person being struck by lightning is god's work?

Meaning you aren't going to refute it?

As has been said repeatedly: Please present us with a calculation of the probability of the universe forming under its current behavior. Otherwise, the argument about probability is meaningless.

Now, just so you can't dodge the question again: What data do you have to eliminate any of the possibilities I presented? What data do you have to suggest 1 is more likely than the others?

We have no idea if it is rare.

This is because, in science, there is no right or wrong when it comes to models, it is just a question of how useful the model is for describing the situation you are examining.

Are you prepared to tell them that their statements are meaningless unless that can calculate the probability of the universe?

If there was only one lightening bolt in history, and it struck Osama Bin Laden, then we might reasonably infer design

I don't care about whether you call it science or philosophy.

GWW's post reminds me of the weird logic that first brought me to this blog:

(1) IDers are not real scientists, because they do not publish in refereed journals

(2) Their papers should be rejected because they are not real scientists

(3) If (2) is violated, it is because either

(i) The journal, upon review, is not reputable, or
(ii) The editor was not properly vetted and has latent ID sympathies

(4) There is no bias.

Actually, I can except (2) -- it's the fact that there was a claim of a "level playing field" that is laughable. You guys should toss the level playing field sham and just be honest and say ID papers not welcome.

ID papers are welcome. I don't see why those papers shouldn't be up for criticism though. Just like everyone else's papers.

I still can't seriously believe you wrote that. What do you think peer review is? GLad handing and back slapping? It;s critical review to find errors. Why is it mainstreams science's fault that ID papers (if there have been any outside of that Myers fiasco) are full of problems? Both logically, and scientifically.

You guys should toss the level playing field sham and just be honest and say ID papers not welcome.

Mike, I don't criticize you (the discipline) for not publishing ID papers. I criticize the self-congratulatory sham that there is a level playing field.

The position is, if ID does science we'll publish it, but that's not possible, because ID is not science.

There is a bias--an understandable one from your perspective--but a silly pretense that it does not exist.

I think GWW sums it up pretty well.

Then I don't understand your argument at all David. If ID wants to be treated as science, it needs to play by science's level (not a sham) playing field. It is a level playing field. no one is barred from submitting papers. If it doesn't want to be treated as science, there's no argument from me. It doesn't need to be brought up in scientific discussions. You're wildly ranging from science into philosophy though.

Mike,

First of all, no editor/reviewer is without bias, which is why journals usually allow you to request a change.

You see I tend to agree that ID is not science, and so should not publish in scientific journals.

The playing field may be level, but only if you pass the orthodoxy test, which ID never will. My guess is that even within the discipline there are some non-ID areas that are fringe for one reason or another--perhaps non-ID anti-evolutionists (I seem to recall there are some of those, am I wrong?) Anyway, there is always someone on the fringe who would also dispute the level playing field.

So to say that ID faces a level playing field in biological journals is like saying "rugby articles" face a level playing field. It only means that you'll accept them and then summarily reject them, which may be what they deserve.

Alright, maybe it's because my brain hasn't fully evolved yet, but I can't get my head around what we're talking about.

You've been using words like improbable to argue for a designer...well, that word tends to bring those who understand high school probability out of the wood work to point out that you're mistaken. We'd like you to quantify your beliefs if you want to convince anyone of what you're saying. You can certainly believe whatever you want, but when you start talking about how certain things "prove" other things, you need to back that up. That's where peer review comes in. It doesn't matter what biases you think exist, if a paper has merit, it can and will get published by some journal.

If you seriously think that the first ID paper that shows any merit wouldn't get published in Nature, you're nuts. If you think that ID can't get into a journal because it's not science (as you've said) then don't expect any scientists to take it seriously. Without proof, there is no proof.

Obviously, I'm confused though. This post made my head hurt.

So to say that ID faces a level playing field in biological journals is like saying "rugby articles" face a level playing field. It only means that you'll accept them and then summarily reject them, which may be what they deserve.

—

There is a bias---an understandable one from your perspective---but a silly pretense that it does not exist.

So to say that ID faces a level playing field in biological journals is like saying "rugby articles" face a level playing field

You've been using words like improbable to argue for a designer . . . well, that word tends to bring those who understand high school probability out of the wood work to point out that you're mistaken. We'd like you to quantify your beliefs if you want to convince anyone of what you're saying.

I couldn't say, because I don't know what you mean.

I don't care about whether you call it science or philosophy.

And what do you mean by no evidence? Why there are tons of evidence that the universe is designed.

Why else would the great scientist and god hater Hoyle, who hated the idea of the big bang because it pointed to a displeasing "start" of the universe, write: "A superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as the chemistry and biology." Is it not obvious that he is acknowledging evidence for design, even though he did not accept the conclusion of design?

Of course there is evidence.

Actually, yes I do, at least in a certain sense, but that is another question. From probability it is clear that we would expect a certain number of people to be struck by lightening. If there was only one lightening bolt in history,

and it struck Osama Bin Laden, then we might reasonably infer design

as Hoyle does above. And Penzias. And Hawking. And Jastrow. And . . .

Correct. I'm not going to refute "There is no reality; what I call reality is simply a dream from my own consciousness and none of you are real, either . . .

Sigh. For the hundredth time I have never made a statement about the numerical probability of the universe, nor did I say I could calculate it. I said the universe is finely tuned

from which you can infer design

(and low probability.)

Joining me in expressing surprise at the improbability of our universe are Hoyle, Penzias, Hawking, Jastrow, . . . Are you prepared to tell them that their statements are meaningless unless that can calculate the probability of the universe?

Huh? (1) was the steady state universe---the measured expansion pretty much killed that, and the recent data that shows the acceleration is expanding kills the oscillating universe as well. If it's not clear, then the fact that the universe is expanding means, if you run tape backwards, the universe had a beginning. That is what scared the pants off Einstein (who introduced his cosmological constant in an ill-advised attempt to restore steady state)and Hoyle.

Well some of your colleagues have told me its probably rare. So flame them, not me.

Of your six options, only (4) and (5) make any sense to me, although you'll still find supporters of (3) and a few scattered holdouts of some variant of (1).

Flint,

I did not say either science or biology was a sham. I said pretending that ID could ever get published, if only it "met our standards" is a sham, because built into the standards is the dogma that ID is not science.

You can be surprised all you want Dave, but it means nothing. It proves nothing, tests nothing, predicts nothing, and brings nothing to the table. Welcome to the ID movement.

So to say that ID faces a level playing field in biological journals is like saying "rugby articles" face a level playing field. It only means that you'll accept them and then summarily reject them, which may be what they deserve.

freddy, what evidence would you acceptfor ID? Really? Whatever they claim as evidence, apart from a video of special creation, would be refuted.

—

Ruthless, gotta run but some of the evidence is

(1) The tight constraint on the expansion rate
(2) ice floats!
(3) the consntraints of the decay rate of the proton
(4) the relative strengths of the fundamental forces
(5) the initial excess of matter over anti matter
(6) the delicacy of stellar evolution
(7) the right number of expanding dimensions
(8) our moon (which is highly fortuitous in many ways)
(9) Jupiter and Saturn (for a number of reasons)
(10) C₁₂ O₁₆ energy level ratios
(11) mass and energy densities of the universe

sorry have to run, the list goes on and on...

But the real evidence is the cumulative effect of all these things.

...you really haven't read anything in the post have you?

freddy, what evidence would you acceptfor ID? Really? Whatever they claim as evidence, apart from a video of special creation, would be refuted.

(1) The tight constraint on the expansion rate (2) ice floats! (3) the consntraints of the decay rate of the proton (4) the relative strengths of the fundamental forces (5) the initial excess of matter over anti matter (6) the delicacy of stellar evolution ...

Ruthless, gotta run but some of the evidence is (1) The tight constraint on the expansion rate

(2) ice floats!

(3) the consntraints of the decay rate of the proton (4) the relative strengths of the fundamental forces (5) the initial excess of matter over anti matter (6) the delicacy of stellar evolution (7) the right number of expanding dimensions (8) our moon (which is highly fortuitous in many ways) (9) Jupiter and Saturn (for a number of reasons) (10) C12 O16 energy level ratios (11) mass and energy densities of the universe sorry have to run, the list goes on and on . . . But the real evidence is the cumulative effect of all these things.

I would be willing to bet a goodly sum that most reputable journals would quite desperately LOVE to publish any scientific paper documenting valid ID research, if only any IDist would ever come up with a testable hypothesis suggesting any research to document.

I did not say either science or biology was a sham. I said pretending that ID could ever get published, if only it "met our standards" is a sham, because built into the standards is the dogma that ID is not science.

In other words, there is no way for us to exist AND for you not to conclude that the universe is fine-tuned.

Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating.

So you should be appreciative that water has this peculiar property.

Oh, so wrong. If for example, someone came up with a super theory that showed all the things on the list are necessary consquences, then the evidence for design would vanish.

Ice floating is very important. I thought everyone knew that.

First of all, that fact that it floats is very surprising: only water and bismouth have the property that their solid state has lower density than their liquid.

If starting today ice sank, then here in New Hampshire all the lakes would freeze from the bottom up. The fish would all die. They would stay frozen longer, and would reflect more sunlight, causing the planet to cool---so the next time lakes would freeze farther south---the planet's climate would radically change, all marine life would die, a runaway ice age would ensue, and the planet's water would be locked up in ice. So you should be appreciative that water has this peculiar property.

Let's say, for example, the "strong nuclear force". Scientists note that protons repel each other and thus create a model that they all have the same charge and thus repel each other with some force. They test this and say, yep, those protons sure repel each other. Then they realize that atoms don't all fly apart, so there must be some reason for that. So they come up with the "strong nuclear force" to explain how atoms stay together. Now, the fact that we have atoms, and they stay together simply is the way things are. It'd be a sorry state for us if the building blocks of us were atoms AND atoms did not stick together, but of course, then we wouldn't exist to wonder about it (but then there's no reason to suppose that we'd have to be built of atoms.) However, the fact that the "strong force" balances the proton force precisely is simply part of the model: Atoms exist, thus if there is a tendency for protons to repel each other then there must be something that keeps that from happening. Thus, WE balanced the equation, not nature. In other words, there is no way for us to exist AND for you not to conclude that the universe is fine-tuned. If atoms _didn't_ hold together, but we were made of, say, "Ruthless" particles (named after their discoverer, of course), you'd still conclude that some being had to have created the universe. You might even conclude, "Wow, glad we aren't made out of atoms, we'd fly right apart."

David:

Just wanted to add:
Even in our universe, you seem to be making a wild guess about the effects of ice sinking on our planet's temperature.

Not to mention that life can exist at extreme temperatures.

But all this is way besides the point anyway.

So you should be appreciative that water has this peculiar property.

On ice sinking. It's pretty clear that, were this the case, life on Earth would have followed a very different course. Yet there would at least be the possibility of liquid water around volcanic vents and other geothermal features. Who knows what course evolution might have taken under such circumstances, even without postulating the kinds of radically different universes that Ruthless points to. I can envision the inhabitants of such a world being glad that they didn't live in a severly inhospitable environment that included temperatures of, oh say 37C. Hmmm....might be the basis for a science fiction story. Icesinko World Rises Again

But guys! All of this together has to be design! It just has to be! I can't understand how it could have possibly happened naturally!

It's not a wild guess about the effect of ice sinking on the environment-- its a fairly straightforward application of radiative cooling.

I gave evidence for design -- i knew you wouldn't accept it, but I'd rather be in the company of Penzias et. al. who at least recognize it as the appearance of design.

You keep saying how I would always conclude fine tuning or design and I gave you a very simple example of how design would be refuted. I'm not going to do that again. Plus, please stop saying the strong force holds atoms together. Its the electromagnetic force that does that. The strong force holds nuclei together.

It's not a wild guess about the effect of ice sinking on the environment--- its a fairly straightforward application of radiative cooling. I gave evidence for design --- i knew you wouldn't accept it, but I'd rather be in the company of Penzias et. al. who at least recognize it as the appearance of design.

It's not a wild guess about the effect of ice sinking on the environment--- its a fairly straightforward application of radiative cooling. I gave evidence for design --- i knew you wouldn't accept it, but I'd rather be in the company of Penzias et. al. who at least recognize it as the appearance of design.

I gave evidence for design --- i knew you wouldn't accept it, but I'd rather be in the company of Penzias et. al. who at least recognize it as the appearance of design.

You keep saying how I would always conclude fine tuning or design and I gave you a very simple example of how design would be refuted.

Plus, please stop saying the strong force holds atoms together. Its the electromagnetic force that does that. The strong force holds nuclei together.

Let's say, for example, the "strong nuclear force". Scientists note that protons repel each other and thus create a model that they all have the same charge and thus repel each other with some force. They test this and say, yep, those protons sure repel each other. Then they realize that atoms don't all fly apart, so there must be some reason for that. So they come up with the "strong nuclear force" to explain how atoms stay together. Now, the fact that we have atoms, and they stay together simply is the way things are. It'd be a sorry state for us if the building blocks of us were atoms AND atoms did not stick together, but of course, then we wouldn't exist to wonder about it (but then there's no reason to suppose that we'd have to be built of atoms.) However, the fact that the "strong force" balances the proton force precisely is simply part of the model: Atoms exist, thus if there is a tendency for protons to repel each other then there must be something that keeps that from happening. Thus, WE balanced the equation, not nature. In other words, there is no way for us to exist AND for you not to conclude that the universe is fine-tuned. If atoms _didn't_ hold together, but we were made of, say, "Ruthless" particles (named after their discoverer, of course), you'd still conclude that some being had to have created the universe. You might even conclude, "Wow, glad we aren't made out of atoms, we'd fly right apart."

To show that the universe is "fine-tuned", you must demonstrate that the behavior of our universe is absolutely required for intelligent life to exist. To do this, you must explain how this behavior---AND ONLY THIS BEHAVIOR---could bring about life. To do that, you must consider infinitely many possible behaviors (on a finite-sized forum, no less.)

If our universe existed precisely as it is now, except that life never came to be, would you still conclude that the universe was designed? I mean, it would still be finely-tuned as you say, but there's no reason why life EVER had to form, AFAIK.

You are using a description of a theory as if it is an experiment.

— David Heddle

However, only (2), (3), and (4) really fit the data, for the idea of a steady-state universe is almost dead---almost everyone agrees in the big bang or something like it.

— David Heddle

Why else would the great scientist and god hater Hoyle, who hated the idea of the big bang because it pointed to a displeasing "start" of the universe, write: "A superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as the chemistry and biology." Is it not obvious that he is acknowledging evidence for design, even though he did not accept the conclusion of design?

— David Heddle

Ice floating is very important. I thought everyone knew that. First of all, that fact that it floats is very surprising: only water and bismouth have the property that their solid state has lower density than their liquid

— David Heddle

You are using a description of a theory as if it is an experiment.

— David Heddle

However, only (2), (3), and (4) really fit the data, for the idea of a steady-state universe is almost dead---almost everyone agrees in the big bang or something like it.

— David Heddle

Why else would the great scientist and god hater Hoyle, who hated the idea of the big bang because it pointed to a displeasing "start" of the universe, write: "A superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as the chemistry and biology." Is it not obvious that he is acknowledging evidence for design, even though he did not accept the conclusion of design?

— David Heddle

Ice floating is very important. I thought everyone knew that. First of all, that fact that it floats is very surprising: only water and bismouth have the property that their solid state has lower density than their liquid

— David Heddle

You and some others on here like to state definitive tests and say unless I "calculate this or that" everything is meaningless---well there is no basis for the "unless" other than you've constructed a sentence with it. It would be like me saying "unless you show me species X evolving into species Y then evolution is meaningless."

But I'll try: unless the expansion rate was what it is there would be no life because (a) a little bit smaller and the universe would have recollapsed into a big clump or (b) a little bigger and the universe would have expanded to fast to produce galaxies.

Granddaughter,

The fact that ice floats is one piece of the evidence for design is the combination of two things: (a) it is highly surprising and

(b) it is highly advantageous for life. You example of fungi is neither, as far as I know. Large bodies of liquid water are so important in so many ways --- from the mere fact that any complex chemistry required for life will need liquid water (probably) to the fact that they are vital in regulating the weather patterns.

Ruthless, I really don't understand your question about the strong force. It seems to be this, let me paraphrase and tell me if I am wrong: (1) nuclei should fly apart because protons, from the coulomb force repel one another (2) we create the nuclear force and, in effect, "adjust it" so that nuclei stay together (3) idiots like David Heddle and Hoyle express amazement that the strong force "Is so fine tuned as to EXACTLY balance the Coulomb repusion!!!" Is that it?

If so, it is hard to believe you could make such a claim. If the strong force was just a potential that did nothing but model how nuclei are bound you might have a point. But the strong force is understood on a microscopic level (quarks exchanging gluons) and makes many confirmed predictions at the microscopic level that have nothing to do with "just inventing something that balances the Coulomb force".

Another anology might be termodynamics and statistical mechanics. It seems to me you have likened the strong force to thermo---in the sense that it is sort of an emprical model that fits the phenomena. But actually it is like stat mech; stat mech is a microscopic theory that (a) in certain limits yields thermo (effectively deriving it) (b)unlike thermo is understood at the microscopic level as interactions among particles and (c) makes many more predictions than thermo

You have in effect said the strong force is a potential that was invented to balance the coulomb force, so there is no surprise at is fine tuning, but

(a) The strong force (QCD) explains your potential in certain limits (b) is understood at the microscopic (quarks and gluons) level (c) makes so many more predictions about nature than the parameterized potential model you seem to think it is.

Do you think physics is just turning knobs in parameterized models to get things right?

Yes, because my version of ID stops at the point: it is amazing that the universe can support life. It's the IDers you usually argue with on here who pick it up here and argue their version of ID vs evolution.

If the universe is improbable, then its creator would be similarly improbable. Positing a creator, therefore, at least doubles the improbability without explaining a damn thing. You can't patch up the scandal of one miracle by fabricating others.

As far as I'm concerned, ID's ability to fit the data is completely irrelevant.

If anything, ID will always fit the data better, if "better" is equivalent to "more precisely." As long as ID posits a sufficiently omnipotent designer, it can explain any observation perfectly, simply by arguing "that's how the designer planned it."

The only way ID can ever be treated scientifically, is if it makes testable and falsifiable predictions.

Otherwise, it's not scientifically useful. It may be explanatory, it may even be true, but it's not a scientific theory.

Elliott Sober has called ID a "theory of shirts," as in "You have a green shirt on, you have a blue one, you have a white one,"... on and on through all the people in the room.

Completely accurate. Totally useless.

I think Ruthless has done a pretty good job of explaining things, for me at least. Hey, there's a lot about science I didn't know... You mean ice doesn't have to float for there to be life...

Anyway, I want to be the dead horse of scientific models are not reality one more time. Something that seems to be mentioned a lot is the evidence (or lack thereof) for ID. This seems to be a vast misunderstanding of science, in my mind. Let's say there are two major things that science deals with - facts and models. This is an oversimplification I'm sure, but let's go with it. Some facts are fairly self-evident - heavy things tend to fall down, ice floats in water, grass is green. Some facts need evidence to prove them - the age of a fossil, that the Earth goes around the Sun, that like charges always repel. Models, on the other hand, give the evidence for themselves. And this is because, I'll say it once again, scientific models are not reality. There is no evidence out there that gravity really exists. It is just that the gravitational model explains/predicts data exceptionally well. The reason a model exists, or that a model is scientific, is not any evidence for it, it's just how well the model explains what's going on. So, it seems to me that if ID is a model, then asking us to consider all of the evidence for it is a nonsensical question. If ID is a good model, that will be self-evident, because it will do a good job of explaining what it is trying to explain. If ID is a fact, then it is not in competition with evolution (or cosmological theories), at least evolution as a model (As Gould once said, evolution is both a theory and a fact). Evolution would have to incorporate ID, if ID is a fact, or at least it would have to be accepted that evolution is incomplete, if it can't incorporate ID... But it seems to me that ID proponents are trying to make the nonsensical case that ID is a good scientific model and that scientists refuse to accept all of the evidence for ID. This argument is an oxymoron.

If anything, ID will always fit the data better, if "better" is equivalent to "more precisely." As long as ID posits a sufficiently omnipotent designer, it can explain any observation perfectly, simply by arguing "that's how the designer planned it."

Elliott Sober has called ID a "theory of shirts," as in "You have a green shirt on, you have a blue one, you have a white one," . . . on and on through all the people in the room. Completely accurate. Totally useless.

If the universe is improbable, then its creator would be similarly improbable

Granddaughter,

The fact that ice floats is one piece of the evidence for design is the combination of two things: (a) it is highly surprising and (b) it is highly advantageous for life.

You example of fungi is neither, as far as I know.

Large bodies of liquid water are so important in so many ways --- from the mere fact that any complex chemistry required for life will need liquid water (probably) to the fact that they are vital in regulating the weather patterns.

Still, if it were the only surprise I agree that it would be little more than a curiosity. However, as I said, there is a long list such things, and it is the accumulation of many happy coincidences that constitute the evidence, not a this or that one in isolation.

Granddaughter,

The fact that ice floats is one piece of the evidence for design is the combination of two things: (a) it is highly surprising and (b) it is highly advantageous for life.

You example of fungi is neither, as far as I know.

Large bodies of liquid water are so important in so many ways --- from the mere fact that any complex chemistry required for life will need liquid water (probably) to the fact that they are vital in regulating the weather patterns.

Still, if it were the only surprise I agree that it would be little more than a curiosity. However, as I said, there is a long list such things, and it is the accumulation of many happy coincidences that constitute the evidence, not a this or that one in isolation.

If anything, ID will always fit the data better, if "better" is equivalent to "more precisely." As long as ID posits a sufficiently omnipotent designer, it can explain any observation perfectly, simply by arguing "that's how the designer planned it."

Elliott Sober has called ID a "theory of shirts," as in "You have a green shirt on, you have a blue one, you have a white one," . . . on and on through all the people in the room. Completely accurate. Totally useless.

If the universe is improbable, then its creator would be similarly improbable

The only way ID can ever be treated scientifically, is if it makes testable and falsifiable predictions.

— Frank Schmidt

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's

— Mathew 22:22

One last try.

If the universe is surprising beause of its fitness for life, which some folks hereabouts seem to think, it is obviously just as surprising that its postulated creator is fit to create it. If the order of the world depends upon the order of the ideas in God's mind, what explains that order? And if the order of ideas in God's mind doesn't require an explanation, why does the order of the world need one eithert?

If existence is a miracle, you might as well leave it at that.

Religious explanations have the peculiarity that they don't explain anything. When the boy at Passover asks, "Why is this night different from all others?," the answer he receives is just another part of the ritual. Since we have no non theological knowledge of Gods or their possible mode of action, claiming that a creative god is a explanation of the universe is just an article of faith, part of the folklore of the tribe. Which is perfectly OK by me, but its odd to think of this sort of thing as philosophy, let alone astrophysics.

Grandaughter:

The property that ice floats is both surprising and beneficial. That's the key. There has been some assertion on here that its not so rare, so I did some quick research and stand by my statement that only water and bismuth have this property. (There was also some inanity about "so why does bismuth have that property?" I don't know why-maybe it's a curiosity. Maybe ice floating is just a curiosity. The ID argument does not depend on one but many findings.) And "large bodies of water" is not changing the subject, how could you even assert that? If ice doesn't float there would be no large bodies of water on earth, so it is very much the same subject.

Do you really see "temperature is beneficial for fungi" as a rational counter argument? Temperature is not a surprise. Food is not a surprise, so "food is beneficial and we have food" is not put forth as an ID plank. "We need large bodies of water and we have them because ice floats and it is surprising that ice floats" is not an equivalent statement of type.

So far none of you has answered my question:

Why do non-ID physicists acknowledge the appearance of design?

You either latched on the ice-floats, as if it were the issue upon which the who debate was hinged, or have gone back to "ID isn't science" which is really sad , because I never claimed it was.

My hypothesis is that you cannot offer a cogent, impassioned, reasoned response to the question concerning non-ID physicists because you think it opens the door to ID. It violates your world-view. It is impossible for you to say what these world-class non-ID scientists say, which is Hey, look at this fine tuning. Is that remarkable or what? Now I don't believe in God, but this sure demands an explanation. Let's investigate.

In giving that response, they are thinking like scientists. In covering your ears and saying "I don't see fine tuning, I don't see fine tuning, I don't see fine tuning" you are thinking like religious fundamentalists.

But both sides realize they have to explain the fine tuning. The fine tuning acknowledgment is not only made by IDers

— David Heddle

The property that ice floats is both surprising and beneficial. That's the key. There has been some assertion on here that its not so rare, so I did some quick research and stand by my statement that only water and bismuth have this property.

— David Heddle

(There was also some inanity about "so why does bismuth have that property?" I don't know why-maybe it's a curiosity. Maybe ice floating is just a curiosity. The ID argument does not depend on one but many findings.)

— David Heddle

And "large bodies of water" is not changing the subject, how could you even assert that? If ice doesn't float there would be no large bodies of water on earth, so it is very much the same subject.

— David Heddle

Do you really see "temperature is beneficial for fungi" as a rational counter argument? Temperature is not a surprise. Food is not a surprise, so "food is beneficial and we have food" is not put forth as an ID plank. "We need large bodies of water and we have them because ice floats and it is surprising that ice floats" is not an equivalent statement of type.

— David Heddle

So far none of you has answered my question: Why do non-ID physicists acknowledge the appearance of design?

— David Heddle

My hypothesis is that you cannot offer a cogent, impassioned, reasoned response to the question concerning non-ID physicists because you think it opens the door to ID. It violates your world-view. It is impossible for you to say what these world-class non-ID scientists say, which is Hey, look at this fine tuning. Is that remarkable or what? Now I don't believe in God, but this sure demands an explanation. Let's investigate.

— David Heddle

In giving that response, they are thinking like scientists. In covering your ears and saying "I don't see fine tuning, I don't see fine tuning, I don't see fine tuning" you are thinking like religious fundamentalists.

— David Heddle

Mr. Heddle,

For myself, at least, I will happily acknowledge that the universe seems "fine-tuned" in a way that is "fortunate" for us. I'm not a cosmologist or physicist, but I accept that as far as we can tell, a very slight change in any of a number of apparently fundamental properties would seem to result in a universe incompatible with life.

I'm throwing a lot of weasle words in here, because I consider that this is merely our current level of understanding. But for now, I will grant the above as the best we can do.

I will also happily acknowledge that design by an intelligence is a plausible explanation for the above. In fact, as I pointed out previously, a strong version of ID is the "best" explanation for the above, in the sense that it can fit our observations better than any other conceivable explanation.

But you ask that we discuss it as scientists, and that's the key issue. If you just want to hold out ID as an explanation, I have no problem with that. You can have your opinion, I can have mine, and we can both be happy.

But it seems that you want to hold out ID as a competing scientific theory (or maybe just a hypothesis). I say "seems" because I'm not sure you've ever been quite that specific in your language.

This is what I'm objecting to. ID has no scientific value, no utility, unless it makes testable predictions. Dose it do so? You have dodged this question before. Will you answer it now? Please describe at least one scientific prediction made by ID.

More specifically (as you surely realize as a practicing physicist), I'm asking for a prediction that is testable (at least conceivably), where ID says the outcome of the test should be one way and not another.

If there is one such test, then ID can be treated scientifically as a hypothesis. Even if the test is beyond our current ability to perform, someone could be working toward that ability.

If there is no such test, then ID cannot be treated scientifically. Again, that doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it doesn't say anything scientifically useful. And again, that doesn't mean it's not useful philosophically, spiritually, etc. It just isn't science.

That's the point I was trying to make earlier, which you dismissed as irrelevant. Perhaps it's not relevant to your point(s), but it's exactly relevant to whether ID is science, which is my point.

And you're perfectly correct that this point applies equally well to the "that's just the way it is" argument. That's part of the point!

You want an answer to why the universe has the properties it does. My answer is "we don't know." Maybe it was designed that way. Maybe it's just chance. Maybe it had to be this way, and we just don't know enough to understand why. More importantly, there is no objective, scientific reason to prefer one explanation over another. There are only non-scientific reasons.

Don't confuse the A.P. as needing a designer

But it seems that you want to hold out ID as a competing scientific theory (or maybe just a hypothesis). I say "seems" because I'm not sure you've ever been quite that specific in your language.

Ummm David so you refute the physics of germanium and gallium? Man that is a new one. A physicist denying known properties of basic elements. You can be king of the IDers now.

Imagine if the question on how the nucleus of an atom was left up to IDers. IDers "We are not sure how the atomic nucleus says together, Therefore it must be designed"

I believe that the lake my grandparents summer place was on would not be that effected if ice sank. In fact I think you'd find that there would be less ice over all

Some really strange thinking colleagues here... ;o)

David, I would like to ask you to not to speak in the name of other physicists, it's quite annoying. I certainly don't agree with the bulk of your arguments, so please speak for yourself only. AFAICT, "fine tuning" is not a problem of the universe, it's the problem of the model. If a model requires very special values of it's parameters to work, but does not constrain them in any significant way, then the model is not viewed as satisfactory. It does not say anything about the universe.

Freddy, your idea about how science works is a little strange. David is right, we are not engineers, our quest is the search for thruth, so consistency is extremely important. The value of a theory is not in how useful it is, but how close to the truth it is. Newton's gravity law is most certainly inferior to GTR, precisely because it's correct only in very limited cases. If TOE contradicted quantum theory, it would be in a very hard position, because at least one of them would have to be wrong. And because quantum theory deals with things on a much more fundamental level and is backed up with numerous experiments, I guess only few would accept such TOE.

If a model requires very special values of it's parameters to work, but does not constrain them in any significant way, then the model is not viewed as satisfactory. It does not say anything about the universe.

Wow, I am surprised how easily you all have accepted that nonsense about the "floating ice".

1) World's climate is certainly not a simple system, so it's hard to be completely sure, but I would expect precisely the opposite than the "runaway ice age" effect. I always thought that the fact the ice floats really helps this, because the surface freezes first, thus reflecting the sunlight. If the bottom freezes first, the water above it will still absorb energy. In fact, there is evidence that in Earth's history such runaway effect occured several times (google for "neoproterozoic snowball"). Taking "regular" ice ages into account one could argue that "ice floating" is slightly detrimental for life on Earth.

2) In either cases, this has nothing to do with life in general. Consider Earth was closer to sun - in this case "ice floating" cools the climate and helps life. However, if Earth was further away, it could cause the runaway effect and thus would be detrimental. And I am only talking about life as we know it on present Earth. Life in general - who knows what's beneficial and what's not.

I'm not sure what that means. Many things are model independent. For example the sensitivity to the relative strengths of the fundamental forces. How can this not say something about the universe?

— David Heddle

World's climate is certainly not a simple system, so it's hard to be completely sure, but I would expect precisely the opposite than the "runaway ice age" effect. I always thought that the fact the ice floats really helps this, because the surface freezes first, thus reflecting the sunlight. If the bottom freezes first, the water above it will still absorb energy. In fact, there is evidence that in Earth's history such runaway effect occured several times (google for "neoproterozoic snowball"). Taking "regular" ice ages into account one could argue that "ice floating" is slightly detrimental for life on Earth.

In either cases, this has nothing to do with life in general. Consider Earth was closer to sun - in this case "ice floating" cools the climate and helps life. However, if Earth was further away, it could cause the runaway effect and thus would be detrimental. And I am only talking about life as we know it on present Earth. Life in general - who knows what's beneficial and what's not.

Very easily. The relative strengths of the coupling constants in the Standard model are completely arbitrary

The property that ice floats is both surprising and beneficial. That's the key. There has been some assertion on here that its not so rare, so I did some quick research and stand by my statement that only water and bismuth have this property

— David Heddle

(There was also some inanity about "so why does bismuth have that property?" I don't know why-maybe it's a curiosity. Maybe ice floating is just a curiosity. The ID argument does not depend on one but many findings.)

— David Heddle

Wayne,

Ahh, now I see the problem,

For those elements, you need to show that their solid density is less than liquid density at their melting point. I found Silcon's solid temperature, as you indicated, at 2.33 g/cm³ at 25C, but its melting point is ~1400C.

I could not find any data that gave the densities of solid/liquid silicon (I only looked for Silicon) at its melting point, which is the relevant number. You have just listed bulk properties.

Yes you will find MANY elements that if you just look up their density as solids and liquids at vastly different temperatures they have the property--but the ice floats property relies on their densities being so ordered at the melting point

In other words, in the plot of density vs. temp., you need to find substances with the property of water that, as you cool it to the freezing point it contracts, just as expected, but just before it freezes (at 4C) the plot density plot peaks -- leaving ice less dense than water.

You may be right about those elements, but so far you have not demonstrated it.

Maybe I should have been specific that the magic property of water is that ice floats even when in thermodynamic equilibrium with liquid water.

About bismuth floating: I think the question "well why does bismuth float (from a design perspective)?" is a red herring It's essentially "well if you can't explain everything then everything you say is nonsense." I am assuming there are some questions in evolution that are still unanswered? Even from an ID rather than a science perspective I would never claim that all rare properties are beneficial, but I would claim that all rare AND beneficial properties can be grouped, and the grouping taken as a whole is evidence for fine tuning.

A better example than bismuth floating is the total solar eclipse. I would love to put the fact that we have total solar eclipses in the ID evidence category, but I don't know of any beneficial effect of solar eclipses. But they are suprising, and do not occur for any of the other planets. They rely on the fact that for a brief period in cosmic time the moon, which is 400 times smaller than the sun, is also 400 times closer, so they appear to be the same size. (This coincidence is enhanced by the fact that normal planetary formation models suggest that small inner planets like earth should not have large moons such as ours. The moon itself has enormous benefit for life, from cleaning the oceans to stabilizing our orbit, but I don't see a benefit of the fact that it is "just right" for producing total solar eclipses.)

So bismuth floating -- I see no benefit so I don't include it as ID evidence
Total solar eclipses -- same thing

Maybe someday someone will show how periodic solar eclipses have some benefit--perhaps on the earth's magnetic field (just speculating)

(There is one possible way to put solar eclipses in the ID categeory--the so-called tie breaker. Get your flamethrowers ready!!!! The argument goes like this. What might be different between a universe that is fine tuned because it is one of an infinite number of parallel universes [most of which are not fine-tuned] and a single universe that was designed? At first, there would seem to be no way to distinguish. But it may be that the designer loves for man to study science and would like to make the universe not only hospitable but also observable. A few pieces of evidence of design not just for life but for science: (1) we are at the optimal time in cosmic history for viewing the universe--this is a general relativity horizon effect--at the present time most of the universe is observable -- at other periods is cosmic time more of the universe was "beyond the horizon. Last year Scientific American had a cool plot that showed this. (2) We are in a very empty region of the galaxy (between spiral arms), which allows us see into deep space. Our "backwater" location means that there are not too many nearby stars obscuring our view. At most locations in the galaxy, we would not be able to see outside the galaxy, which would have severely limited the development of cosmology. (3) Because of total solar eclipses, we have learned a great deal about the sun and how stars work from studying the corona during the event.)

Why are we arguing? I don't know--I guess I find the head in the sand attitude frustrating. In physics, the fine tuning is obvious and excites people of all stripes. Maybe it's an artifact of the way you guys do battle with IDers in the biology realm, but I find it almost beyond reason that anyone who says they are scientists and not dogmatists denies even the appearance of fine tuning in cosmology.

You have the description of some of the important properties of gallium just about right, although I would not have described it as 'volatile'. Why are some considered unusual? Well, they are unusual simply because they are the sorts of property you do not often find. Well over 99% of solids that melt are more dense than their liquid state. There is only one other solid I know of that floats on its melt -- water ice!

Freddy, your idea about how science works is a little strange. David is right, we are not engineers, our quest is the search for thruth, so consistency is extremely important. The value of a theory is not in how useful it is, but how close to the truth it is. Newton's gravity law is most certainly inferior to GTR, precisely because it's correct only in very limited cases. If TOE contradicted quantum theory, it would be in a very hard position, because at least one of them would have to be wrong. And because quantum theory deals with things on a much more fundamental level and is backed up with numerous experiments, I guess only few would accept such TOE.

—

I came across many .edu (non-ID) sites that pointed out that it was critical for life on earth.

You know what's curious about you GWW? Why they let you continue to post here. I wouldn't permit someone whose only method of discourse was to insult. But maybe the regulators of this site enjoy having slavish attack dogs do their dirty work while they perpetuate myths of level playing fields.

There is much wrong with this argument, although I hesitate to continue this debate. The surface freezing first, as it does, protects the fish. If ice sank, then a simple thermo analysis says that not only would lakes freeze solid, the freezing would occur very quickly.

— David Heddle

The electromagnetic strength is roughly 1/100 the strong force strength. Are you saying I can just decide to take the electromagnetic strength to be a thousand times smaller instead? You can't be saying something that wrong so I must be missing something.

Hmmm, rereading my last post I realize that I might have rather badly misspoke. Nobody called me on it, and maybe this thread has gotten so long that nobody is reading much of what people are writing anymore, but let me go ahead and clear up my argument a little bit. One of the strengths of a scientific theory or model is that it is consistent with other models. So, in the case of Newtonian gravity and general relativity, general relativity does reduce to Newtonian gravity in the situations where Newtonian gravity applies best. Similarly, quantum mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the macroscopic world. So, in that sense, those theories are not really inconsistent in the way that general relativity and quantum mechanics are. But, consistency with other theories is not a requirement of scientific models, it is just one of the tests we apply to differentiate weaker models from stronger models.

To take one more stab on why I think the argument about ID and all of the evidence for and against is just a bad argument for a scientist to get into, let me put forward what I think is the approach favored by myself and others who like to say that ID is not "scientific" regardless of if it is true. Let me also say that this seems to be an argument which is attempted by most anti-ID scientists, but then quickly gets drowned out by the red herring argument over evidence for or against ID. This red herring argument is conflating, in my mind, two separate arguments that are both worth talking about, but are not so much in favor of ID as simple arguments over evidence. The two arguments are:
1. What makes something science?
2. Why do we do science?
It is the first argument that I and, more eloquently, Ruthless and others have tried to put forward. The second argument is more metaphysical, and is generally what ID proponents are talking about when they talk about science being antagonistic towards religion and ID "theories". I think #2 speaks to science's search for truth, but regardless of the answer to #2, ID does not, in my mind, pass the test put forward by #1, which makes no assumptions about truth or evidence outside of rather narrow scientific definitions of such words. In other words, #1 goes back to my argument that gravity may or may not be real, but it certainly is scientific. As a scientist, I feel like the most honest argument I can make is that ID may or may not have worth, but, right now, it is not science, and, conversely, someone who disagrees with the findings of science need not accept the "truth" claims of all scientific theories while still accepting that science is a socially worthwhile pursuit. Of course, the logic is dicey, particularly in my second claim, but it seems to me that what the "civilian" (that is, people who don't get paychecks from DI) advocates of ID are most uncomfortable with is science's claim to absolute knowledge in areas where they much prefer there to be doubt. I know people like GWW would argue that this is dishonest, but it shifts it the debate from a fight over strongly-held beliefs to a discussion about the place of science in society, which I think is a much more interesting discussion to have.

1) We have a lake
2) We have an outside air temperature below freezing.
3) We can assume that the air is an infinite heat bath at constant temperature (anything else complicates the calculation without really changing anything)

As it is, the lake will cool until it obtains the following profile: 4C at the bottom, 0C on top (since 4C is the max density)

the surface will then freeze. To first order that's it, because it is hard for the heat of fusion to transfer from the water below the surface freeze to the surface because ice is an insulator. Only if the temperature is well below freezing will the ice gradually thicken.

Now if ice sank, the complete freezing of the lake would occur fairly rapidly (details depend on the size and the air temperature, of course) because then there is no insulation preventing the transfer of the heat of fusion. The ice would not grow from the bottom as slowly as it now descends from the top. The surface layer would constantly transfer the heat of fusion to the cold air, sink, and be replaced with another surface layer already primed to freeze. Such rapid freezing is familiar with other materials that are cooled down.

So except where the air temperature holds steady just below freezing for a long time, ice as it is today would not be better at reflecting heat. Only a small band of the earth would have ice that now has a surface freeze and yet would not have lakes that freze solid.

Now, what about when temperatures rise? As ice is, the surface ice melts fairly rapidly, since the surface ice just absorbs the latent heat from the air. But what if ice sank? Then the surface would melt, but now it becomes very diffcult to melt the ice under the surface melt, for once again you have to transfer the latent heat through an insulator (the surface liquid.) So it becomes very difficult to thaw the lake. It will continue to refelect light (although not as effectively as when the surface was frozen.) Here in New Hampshire, a moderate size pond like I have in my backyard would freeze solid very quickly and only a few inches of the surface would melt in the summer. (If you want to makes some assumptions about the size of my pond and use the avg. air temps of NH and the basic properties of wayer, I can back this up with a calculation.)

There would not be less but MORE ice surface area, for another reason. When the ice sank, the lakes would "grow" --i.e. overflow, from Archimedes (the sinking ice would displace its volume of liquid water which, if ice sank, would be greater than the volume of the ice, hence flooding, which is the same as saying the lakes grow in surface area.)

The bottom line is that in regions that never got much below freezing there may be a bit less reflection--but those regions don't play a big role anyway. In colder regions, like New Hampshire, the lakes would freeze solid quickly (the cold air quickly absorbing the latent heat) and then reflect just the same (except with more area because of of Archimedes) and for a much longer time (because the ice would only melt slowly from the surface due to insulation) and would continue to refelect light (at a diminished but still appreciable level) much, much longer.

Over the years I believe this would lead to a cooling of the earth. I could be wrong, but it is not obvious where, and your "model" certainly would not be the explanation.

When you say the coupling constants are abitrary, do you really mean they are free parameters? That is a very different thing. Please clarify.

I would argue, though, that, in that case, the situation would be more analogous to Newton's gravitational theory and general relativity, where we recognize that one model provides a good explanation for certain data and another model provides a good explanation for other data.

— freddy

Hmmm, rereading my last post I realize that I might have rather badly misspoke. Nobody called me on it, and maybe this thread has gotten so long that nobody is reading much of what people are writing anymore, but let me go ahead and clear up my argument a little bit. One of the strengths of a scientific theory or model is that it is consistent with other models. So, in the case of Newtonian gravity and general relativity, general relativity does reduce to Newtonian gravity in the situations where Newtonian gravity applies best. Similarly, quantum mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the macroscopic world. So, in that sense, those theories are not really inconsistent in the way that general relativity and quantum mechanics are. But, consistency with other theories is not a requirement of scientific models, it is just one of the tests we apply to differentiate weaker models from stronger models.

— freddy

1) We have a lake 2) We have an outside air temperature below freezing. 3) We can assume that the air is an infinite heat bath at constant temperature (anything else complicates the calculation without really changing anything)

— David Heddle

Koly, you are wrong.

The air mass above a lake can well be approximated as a heat bath. As it absorbs heat from the lake the warmer air will circulate--so there is no static tempertature gradient developed. It is a very good approximation.

Anyway, I am weary of arguing this point. I am more interested in what kind of physics you do, and where you do it. What kind of low energy hadron physics?

You know what's curious about you GWW? Why they let you continue to post here. I wouldn't permit someone whose only method of discourse was to insult. But maybe the regulators of this site enjoy having slavish attack dogs do their dirty work while they perpetuate myths of level playing fields.

When you say the coupling constants are abitrary, do you really mean they are free parameters? That is a very different thing. Please clarify.

— David Heddle

David, I have done a simple calculation for you. I've looked after the heat capacities and this is what I have found: it is something like 4 kJ/kg C for water and 1 kJ/kg C for air (at some ordinary conditions). Let's calculate the heat capacity of 1km^3 of ocean and 10km^3 of air above it (I hope you won't argue about the bulk of the mass not being close to the surface). I'll compensate for the rest of the mass of the atmosphere by taking the density of the air as if it was all under ground pressure, that is about 1.3 kg/m^3. Here it comes:

1km^3 of ocean: 4x10^12 kJ/C
10km^3 of air: 1.3x10^10 kJ/C

I hope you can agree that you can no longer assume that the air is an "infinite heat bath". Even a 10m deep lake has probably more heat capacity than the air above it. Even if you took 100km of air so dense as it is close to the ground, it would still be less than that of a 100m deep lake. And who said 6000km of the Earth underneath doesn't have any capacity. As I said, the atmosphere's heat capacity is negligible compared to that of the surface, not the other way round. Please, try to be rational, the "floating ice" argument is really the silliest one you have presented here, you can throw it away.

I am (hopefully) finishing my PhD. thesis at IPNP MFF UK in Prague. Chiral Perturbation Theory is what I am struggling with :o)

Koly, remember air moves, so the air mass above lake doesn't stay there. Plus, when the air absorbs the heat from lake it rises, adiabatically expands, and cools. Plus there is radiative cooling into space.

Also, if your canonical lake is 10m deep, then your effective atmosphere is only 100m high. Even given the use of the surface density for air, I don't know if that is a reasonable approximation.

The heat sink of the ground is an interesting effect and a fair point--presumably it would be another huge heat sink, probably just above freezing. That might melt some of the first ice that sank until thermodynamic equilibrium-that might be a big effect but off the top of my head I just don't know.

My Ph.D. thesis was in a quark model of hypernuclear decay.

David, you assume that the atmosphere is an infinite heat bath. My simple calculation shows that if anything, the opposite should be the case. What does have air moving do anything with that? Why are you mentioning "lake" all over again? There are oceans etc. You have not shown anything that would indicate that my calculation could be more than 5 orders wrong.

Simply, you have two options. Take the most simplistic book about climate or weather and read. Or go out in a hot sunny day and measure the temperature of the ground and that of the air. Do you really think that the air is heating the ground? You cannot be that ignorant.

Koly,

The air moving has a lot to do with it, for it increases the effective volume of air above the lake/ocean (I was using your numbers! what's the difference if I call it lake or ocean?)

Plus the adiabatic cooling is a huge effect, and it exchanges its heat with the upper atmosphere which you have ignored.

Plus the radiative cooling.

Since leaving nuclear physics I have worked in space weather and the physics of the atmosphere. I know a little more about it than you'd find in "the most simplistic book."

Lets look above the big blue ocean. If the air above the ocean does not have a huge heat capacity, as you say, how can there ever be an air temperature over the ocean significantly different from the water temperature?

Damn, I thought I found one person on this site who wasn't insulting.

Why do non-ID physicists acknowledge the appearance of design? .... My hypothesis is that you cannot offer a cogent, impassioned, reasoned response to the question concerning non-ID physicists because you think it opens the door to ID.

For those elements, you need to show that their solid density is less than liquid density at their melting point. I found Silcon's solid temperature, as you indicated, at 2.33 g/cm3 at 25C, but its melting point is ~1400C.

— David Heddle

very surprising: only water and bismouth have the property that their solid state has lower density than their liquid.

— David Heddle

A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

— Fred Hoyle

It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.

— Stephen Hawking

David, I am sorry if you think I am insulting you. I am a little surprised you deny some obvious basic facts you can read in elementary pop-science books or easily observe for yourself. You assume that the atmosphere is an "infinite heat bath", so you should back up this premise at least a little. I have shown you that exactly the opposite is the case, your objections are completely irrelevant:

The air moving does not change it's effective volume. It's moving from one place to another - everywhere is surface underneath. The difference between a lake and an ocean is big - you are still thinking locally about a little lake and ignore it's surrounding. Think about the whole planet and you won't miss trivialities like this one about "moving air".

I have not ignored the upper atmosphere, I have roughly estimated it's mass by assuming constant density over 10kms. Still, in case you missed it, even if I took constant density over 100kms, which is an absolute nonsense, the heat capacity of the air would be still very small compared to that of the surface.

What do you mean by mentioning radiative cooling? You mean the radiative cooling of the surface, not the atmosphere I guess, because that is relevant.

You should look above the big blue ocean and you'll see, that if you average over the fluctuations, the air CANNOT have significantly different temperature from the surface underneath.

Try to explain these simple observations, (which you can verify by yourself) based on your model, especially how are they consistent with the "infinite heat bath" premise:

1) In a sunny day, the temperature of the ground is higher than that of the air.

2) On a clear night the temperature drops more than on a cloudy one.

3) There is a huge difference between continental climate and that over the ocean. E.g. the average temperature in January is about 4C in London and -8C in Volgograd (Russia), which have about the same latitude. In July it is 17C in London and 24C in Volgograd. Explain how it is possible (see www.worldclimate.com if you need more data).

4) There is a huge difference in climate at different latitudes. Explain why the tropic climate is hot while the arctic is so cold.

Note that when talking about climate or weather, by temperature people mean the temperature of the air, not that of the ground.

David, I have one more observation for you to explain:

5) The temperature is constant throughout the year only several meters under ground.

1) We have a lake 2) We have an outside air temperature below freezing. 3) We can assume that the air is an infinite heat bath at constant temperature (anything else complicates the calculation without really changing anything) As it is, the lake will cool until it obtains the following profile: 4C at the bottom, 0C on top (since 4C is the max density) the surface will then freeze. To first order that's it, because it is hard for the heat of fusion to transfer from the water below the surface freeze to the surface because ice is an insulator. Only if the temperature is well below freezing will the ice gradually thicken. Now if ice sank, the complete freezing of the lake would occur fairly rapidly (details depend on the size and the air temperature, of course) because then there is no insulation preventing the transfer of the heat of fusion.

— David Heddle

Now, what about when temperatures rise? As ice is, the surface ice melts fairly rapidly, since the surface ice just absorbs the latent heat from the air. But what if ice sank? Then the surface would melt, but now it becomes very diffcult to melt the ice under the surface melt, for once again you have to transfer the latent heat through an insulator (the surface liquid.)

There would not be less but MORE ice surface area, for another reason. When the ice sank, the lakes would "grow" --i.e. overflow, from Archimedes (the sinking ice would displace its volume of liquid water which, if ice sank, would be greater than the volume of the ice, hence flooding, which is the same as saying the lakes grow in surface area.)

Now Hawking said that . . . .. but he didn't mean that . . . ..

This seems much too glib to me. As Dr Heddle noted further down, liquid water is also an insulator. In fact, according to the figures given at this site, the thermal conductivity of ice at 0°C is about 4 times greater than that of water at the same temperature. So if ice sank (and all the other relevant properties of water remained the same) the layer of water at the surface would constitute an even better insulator than the ice would have been.

"ice floating" is an evidence for ID, because without that, the life would not exist or at least there would be much harder conditions for it.

David, I am quite confused about what do you want to say.

I don't agree with David Heddle about very much, but I don't understand the point of making personal attacks on him.

Cool it.

I don't agree with David Heddle about very much, but I don't understand the point of making personal attacks on him.

Conservatives try to implicate the left for "lowering the discourse." They're not worried about us lowering- or raising- the discourse. They're worried that we might get a clue and stop engaging them in discourse. We've raised Ann Coulter to new heights by trying to counter her. She doesn't care. Michael Moore is delegitimized by the Right by means of sarcasm and humor. Dean was destroyed by jokes about the scream. If Crossfire opened every show with "and look what that crazy bitch said today," followed by a shot of Paul and James laughing their asses off, Ann Coulter would be the leggiest assistant corporate attorney in Accounts Recieving right now. The right-wing bloggers don't want to hear our rebuttals. The President doesn't want to hear the Democrats' counter-proposals. History will never look back on this time and discuss how changes were made through the art of rational bipartisan discussion. But I'm damn sure history has a chance to look back on this era... and laugh.

California Sen. Barbara Boxer questioned Rice aggressively before the panel broke for lunch, suggesting that Rice's loyalty to Bush and her mission to defend the war in Iraq "overwhelmed your respect for the truth."

This fellow Jim Black was introduced as a "distinguished scholar", and he is being taken seriously enough that he's being interviewed as an authority on the universities (by Robertson, I know . . . but there are millions of people who trust that smarmy twit). And look what he is doing. He is lying. He is flat-out slandering our profession and our institutions, and pandering to the stereotypes of the ignorant boobs who look up to Pat Robertson. He is making shit up. And there he is, regretfully declaring that the American university doesn't teach science and has watered down the curriculum to a hateful fraud who wants to gut science and stuff it with the dogma of creationism. Oh, the irony of it all.