Creationism really is behind it all

GWW,

Why is it a strange question? Is transparency of the atmosphere in the region of the star's peak intensity required, in your view, for complex life?

It's a fair question, I think.

Is transparency of the atmosphere in the region of the star's peak intensity required, in your view, for complex life?It's a fair question, I think.

Mr. Heddle:

once again, why do you find this surprising at all? If our planet supported sentient life but its atmosphere only allowed different bands of the spectrum to pass through, we would most likely possess receptors that could perceive that. What are you marveling at? What is the mystical significance of, say, a wavelength of 700 nanometers compared to one of 800 nanometers? Is it really so more strange than, say, my legs 'unbelievably' reaching all the way to the ground?

Emanuelle, I am "marveling" at the coincidence that our atmosphere is transparent in the part of the spectrum where the sun's intensity peaks.

Clarification to my comment up above (currently Comment #22165) on "fine-tuning" and Design.

While the extent of "fine-tuning" is irrelevant to the argument that "life-friendliness" can not undermine a naturalistic universe (and is only neutral under strong restrictions on the intentions of the deity), the extent of "fine-tuning" is not irrelevant to the amount of support "life-friendliness" provides to a naturalistic universe. In fact, increased "fine-tuning" tends to increase support for a naturalistic universe, absent fairly strong assumptions about the intentions of the deity.

See http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html for further details. The page can also be found at http://bayesrules.net/anthropic.html

Somewhere on Zarbonia, a Zarbonian zealot tells some sensible Zorbonians, "Isn't it profound that our eyeballs are perfectly tuned to the infrared? They are exactly designed such that we can see other Zarbonians in the dark. Truly, god, who looks like a white-bearded Zarbonian, is awesome."

Well, I don't think David H's question in this case is so ridiculous; people seem to be attacking the conclusions that he might be trying to reach from his question. But it is an excellent question; to what extent has evolution been driven by the photochemistry that is possible from having an atmosphere that is transparent to solar radiation coincident with where solar radiation peaks. Given that the atmosphere absorbs much visible radiation as it is, then surely this is an interesting and almost certainly relevant factor to how life evolved on Earth. So, just how important is it?

people seem to be attacking the conclusions that he might be trying to reach from his question.

Cosmological ID is the hypothesis that our universe was designed to support life

I would never defend ID on a science blog.

Is that Heddle's question, or your question?

once again, why do you find this surprising at all? If our planet supported sentient life but its atmosphere only allowed different bands of the spectrum to pass through, we would most likely possess receptors that could perceive that. What are you marveling at? What is the mystical significance of, say, a wavelength of 700 nanometers compared to one of 800 nanometers? Is it really so more strange than, say, my legs 'unbelievably' reaching all the way to the ground?

I taught a year-long course on this subject, would you like the notes?

But don't forget my orginal challenge,

Before you can claim that there is fine tuning, you have to show that any tuning is physically possible. There is no current physical theory that allows for tuning. String theory might do it, but nobody knows yet if it will. Taking the current universe and saying it is fine-tuned is an exercise in begging the question (the question being begged is whether there is any other way to get a physically self-consistent universe than the one we know about)

Furthermore, if you don't know how to vary physical constants, if you don't have a mechanism you can't claim anything about probabilities. This is pretty basic, really.

And why does God need to fine-tune the universe? Fine-tuning implies that God is constrained by physics, it's like why does God need a starship?

Mr. Heddle:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but... don't an awful lot of stars emit a great deal of light in the fraction of the EM spectrum that we have evolved to see? Is that another of your "coincidences"?

Now, it is true that our atmosphere is partially transparent to visible light. It is also partially transparent to a great many other wavelengths. Yet, our eyes, "mysteriously", have evolved to perceive a handy range of wavelengths that happen to abound on our planet. Is that a surprising "coincidence"?

We haven't evolved in other conditions. We simply don't know what paths another evolutionary history might take, given different conditions. Heck, we don't know what paths another evolutionary history might take even in conditions closely resembling our own! Why do you presume this is a problem? Are you still pursuing the false image of evolution as a purely deterministic process, the counterpart of the just as fallacious evolution as a purely random process canard?

If only to see you once again resort to "Popper this" and "Popper that" in trying to explain how cosmological ID is not falsifiable, in spite of the fact that it can be refuted by experiment.

— David Heddle

And Heddle's hypothetical poll doesn't even match the situation. For ID doesn't "predict" the absence of multiverses. I've been over this several times now. ID is simply the alternative that ID's advocates and cheerleaders assert is possible once all natural alternatives are shown to be either false or unlikely. The existence or absence of multiverses has no impact upon ID itself; the only effect of the evidence is to alter one's assessment of the likelihood of a natural hypothesis to account for fine-tuning, "irreducible complexity", and "specified complexity". So, the real question to ask a bunch of Ph.D. scientists is: A scientist would like to test conjectured causative factor A, but cannot think of any effect that A has upon the real world. Instead, the scientist offers to disprove every possible alternative explanation of events that A might cause, and then assert that A has been tested and found to be correct. Is this scientist applying an appropriate experimental design? Is this scientist doing science? I predict that the overwhelming response would be "No" and "No".

Mr.(Dr?) Oriano: By pointing out that a lot of stars have similar spectra, you may think you're rendering David's observation less remarkable. Not so! I believe that David's inspiration in these things is a recent book entitled "Privileged Planet" - whose thesis is that life and the earth were uniquely designed to be ideal for discovering the rest of the universe. I believe, for instance, "Privileged Planet" makes the case that the diameter of the moon being a really good match for the diameter of the sun -relative to their distances from the earth - was specifically planned to facilitate astronomical observations during solar eclipses. So, by the same logic, it stands to reason that stars were designed to emit the kinds of EM radiation they do - so we could see them!

Russell:

I'm not a PhD. However, it doesn't take a PhD to notice that, by arguing backwards, one can support almost every conceivable scenario.

For instance, if one assumes that our being here at this particular juncture in time is somehow very, very significant, then one can easily conclude that everything in the history of the universe was specifically arranged ("fine-tuned", some would say) so that this momentuous fact could happen. But... do we really think we're that important? Talk about a superiority complex!

I simply see no reason to assume anything of this kind. And the moment you scratch the thin varnish of specious arguments that IDers have given their pet supernatural entity, you end up with the same old "Fine-Tuner of the Gaps" that has plagued us ever since we discovered that fire and lightning were not deities.

Russell, I really hope you're just trying to be funny.

Buridan: hey, check out the book. I'm not making this stuff up!

By the way, PvM did a pretty good discussion of "Privileged Planet" here and here on Panda's Thumb.
(And, just in case there was any confusion as to whether I was endorsing the Privileged Planet argument above: no. I was just pointing out that what you or I might find comic, these guys are perfectly serious about!)

Rev, I am willing to and have already agreed that my opinions are just my opinions. And my clothes are just my clothes. And my car is just my car. I still don't see your point.

Wes, you need to start banging a different drum.

Rev,

I have stated over and over that ID is not science. I'll be happy to say it to anyone.

Wes, you need to start banging a different drum.

— David Heddle

Obviously in some situations the evolution of EM detectors, like eyes, would head to the highest frequency of radiation to which the atmosphere was transparent. That would give you the highest resolution. bees can see some UV we can't, though, and you can get info from infrared. Nothing mysterious about this. And about the sun, there's obviously other temperature/luminosity profiles you could fit life around.

"Wow, look how improbable this is!"
"How probable was it, exactly?"
"No idea! But I'm sure it was very, very improbable."

God of the Gaps arguments are lame. But, I find all apologetics lame. Science, on the other hand, is marvelous.

Buridan: hey, check out the book. I'm not making this stuff up!

— Russell

Regarding whether ID predicts anything about number of "universes":

It seems to me that for a hypothesis to predict an observation (or probablility thereof), said prediction has to be a logical deduction from the premises assumed by that hypothesis. If "something engineered it" is the only agreed on assumption, then there isn't much of anything that can be deduced from that. Including the number of what we call "universes".

(Although imo some other word should be used here instead, perhaps "multiple space-times" instead of "multiple universes", since the word "universe" literally means all that is, so by that definition would include all existing space-times.)

Re physicists describing multiple universe hypotheses:

My take on that is that when a physicist proposes a multi-verse (or whatever) speculative hypothesis, it is an attempt at explaining a set of presently unexplained observations, and would if correct explain them.

In contrast, what the arguments for ID (the ones I've seen anyway) purport to explain is why there are unanswered questions. Well, AFAIK unanswered questions are inevitable for as long as there are beings to ask questions, ergo no explanation is needed for their existence.

Henry

No, Zarbonians have blue beards in old age, not white.

I have stated over and over that ID is not science. I'll be happy to say it to anyone.

Rev, I am willing to and have already agreed that my opinions are just my opinions.

Rev:

Continuing our Zen session: my opinions are not holy or divine...

Mine are...

David Heddle, you still don't understand the question, do you? You try to assert that ID is indeed falsifiable, but then you concede that what you have been describing is simply your very specific version of ID. If multi-universes are found to exist, it would destroy YOUR version of ID, but it would not falsify all of ID. The reason is that ID can be re-written - even your specific version - to include any eventuality, and THAT is the reason why you can not falsify it. Everything confirms, "goddidit," and "goddidit" can be an explanation for anything. It's not falsifiable and of utterly no use to science.

Furthermore, it is arrogant to think that if your personal philosophies are destroyed that it will cause all of ID to come crashing down.

GCT,

Falsification is always at a personal level. Look at Hoyle: he believed in a steady state universe long after the data were sufficient to falsify it for everyone else. Similarly with Einstein and the probabilistic interpretation of QM.

Evolution is the same way. If an organism were discovered with no common DNA, then I suspect this would "falsify" evolution for some, while others would just say that life originated more than once.

Are you sure there is no test of evolution which, if it failed, would falsify evolution for some but not for all? Or is every falsification test for evolution guaranteed to convince 100% of all biologists?

I actually remember some falsification threads on PT where someone (pro-evolution) said X would falsify evolution and someone else (pro-evolution) said: "I don't think so, because..." indicating there was not universal agreement even among evolution proponenets about what would falsify evolution. Why should ID be required to supply a universally accepted falsification test?

If the atmosphere were opaque to the sun's electromagnetic radiation, IDists would be marveling over its capacity to support sound waves.

Perhaps more seriously, how would plants grow if the majority of radiation from the sun could not pass through our atmosphere? And on Venus, guess what? The sun's radiation cannot pass through.

Tube worm theologians will probably be praising the gods for shielding deep-sea vents from the sun, should they ever develop intelligence.

It's all a problem of cause and effect, this fact that we really cannot show that design caused whatever would be necessary for our current living conditions.

Furthermore, we don't need multi-verses to deal with any presumed "fine-tuning" of the universe for life. All we need is to recognize that what is in question is whether life is meaningful or not. You can't get from quantitative probabilities to the meaning of life in the cosmic sense.

Here's the issue in short: a universe is going to have possibilities for energy/information configurations. Some of these possibilities will support life, and some will not. If we don't know that life is anything special in a cosmic sense, there is absolutely no meaning to be inferred if possibilities for energy/information/life appear in one of many universes, or even in the one sole universe that ever exists (should this be the case). If the possibilities for life are meaningless in the cosmic sense, there is nothing to be known from the appearance of life in any universe (or in the one universe that can ever be).

People try to make life meaningful by showing that it is unlikely (whether this is true or not). Any energy/information possibility may be unlikely, but should we say that a demon made the universe because the miseries suffered by life appear in this universe?

An ancient Greek story has a demon telling the "truth of life", that it is better not to have been born, and that if one is unlucky enough to be born, the best hope is to leave life as soon as possible. Not my story, but one that has been believed by enough people to have survived down the ages.

If this Greek story tells the truth, then we are unlucky--or some "design" has specifically been created to produce unfortunate beings. Or one might turn it around, and suppose that life is a lucky accident--or some kind of "design". The point is that you have to have some meaning assigned to life prior to matching up its existence against the probabilities of its existence, and we have only our own evolved sensibilities to use (either positively or negatively). And there is nothing in the probabilities to tell us if life is sweet or sour.

There's a big difference between falsifying a theory and falsifying a hypothesis. Hypotheses are written so that they can be falsified. If they are repeatedly verified, they become theory or become part of a theory. Evolution is a full blown theory with many different hypotheses that have been written as ideas that could be scientifically falsified, but have not yet been falsified. If you falsify one of those hypotheses, it puts a kink in that specific part of the overall theory, but may not necessarily destroy the whole theory. It should be noted, however, that the hypotheses were all written to be falsifiable by the scientific method.

Now, with ID, there is no coherent theory. ID is a mish-mash of god-of-the-gaps philosophical arguments. What you have done is taken one specific outlook of ID (yours) drawn a line in the sand, and said that if the line is crossed, you will recant your specific outlook. There is no scientific hypothesis at stake here that can be falsified, only your personal philosophy. So, when or if your personal philosophy is debunked, it will not cause all of ID to come crashing down. If you don't understand the fact that "goddidit" is not falsifiable, then you have no concept of what science is.

Furthermore, we don't need multi-verses to deal with any presumed "fine-tuning" of the universe for life.

Falsification tests aren't the essential issue. Epistemologically this is because we really can only deal with positive evidence from our senses, and correlations must be made prior to using falsification tests within various proposed correlations. Popper got it wrong, although falsification is often a very good way to test a theory.

I have to agree, though, that it isn't easy to come up with a single falsification test for evolution. Undisputed rabbit fossils from the Cambrian are a favorite, but there really is nothing in rabbit fossils from the Cambrian that could falsify the evidence-based story of fish evolution in the Devonian. People mistake the general predictions of evolution as necessarily applying in every instance, when of course they need not. We have organisms today that show evidence of design, after all, and this evidence (which is typically due to human genetic engineering) does not falsify the evolution that led up to our subjects for experimentation and engineering.

Evolution is falsifiable, however, because it makes strong predictions regarding patterns. It could be falsified specifically in some cases, or in general if its predictions were never borne out. Popperian falsifiability does indeed work in the case of evolution, it's just that one should not confuse the fact that evolution by NS is now believed (and sufficiently shown) to be universally active in life (including in genetically engineered organisms--they have a tendency to select back more toward the "wild type") with the fact that it need not to have been universally explanatory--any more than language evolution theories apply straightforwardly to Esperanto. Cambrian rabbits (should they be found) might very well not have evolved, at least on earth. But we'd need data specific to fishes to indicate that they did not evolve independently of Cambrian rabbits, had they been discovered.

You'd need to give us falsification criteria and/or correlations that indicate that life is a "special outcome" before we could consider any kind of ID to be science. And because I can't even imagine how you can show that life is a "special outcome" prior to probabilistic calculations, and the latter cannot indicate life to be a "special outcome" through quantitative means alone, I don't think you're likely to meet the minimal criteria of science.

Evolution is a full blown theory with many different hypotheses that have been written as ideas that could be scientifically falsified, but have not yet been falsified. If you falsify one of those hypotheses, it puts a kink in that specific part of the overall theory, but may not necessarily destroy the whole theory.

You might want to alert the non-ID world-class cosmologists who are investigating alternate cosmologies for exactly that purpose: they are motivated by the unseemly appearance of fine-tuning. You know, tell them to stop wasting their time. I'm sure they would be thankful.

David, if ID is not science, then why do you even care? I've asked you this repeatedly, yet you don't answer. Also, your duplicitous nature makes me unwilling to trust you when you say that, "ID is not science," especially because you continually argue for ID and I believe I remember you arguing that ID should be taught in high school science classes.

If ID is not science, then scientific falsification is not an issue, and you shouldn't be pushing for it. Also, you shouldn't be peddling it here on a science-related site and trying to equate it to a robust scientific theory (evolution.)

Your idea of the semi-miraculous threshold is laughable. Evolution has made predictions and they have been shown to be correct, time and again, which is why it garnered the label of a theory in the first place. If it ceases to hold predictive power, it will be back to the drawing board. Once a hypothesis is falsified, however, no one would hold that it is still true, except for cranks, like the ID crowd that are peddling the same arguments that have been debunked for hundreds of years or longer.

What I suspect is, for example, that after a certain number of hypotheses fell, especially if they were near and dear to you, at some point you'd abandon evolution. At the same time, perhaps GWW would hold on.

You obviously know incredibly little about cosmology. There are a variety of reasons that multi-verses are posited, most of which have to do with physics issues, You appeal to the mistake, made among some cosmologists, of assuming the specialness of life to bolster your own inadequate argumentation.

I do sometimes (well, rarely, since most don't listen to philosophers well---which is understandable considering how much bad philosophy is out there) tell them the philosophical reasons why "fine-tuning" is faulty reasoning, but the specialization of academia today means that many do not understand the problems with the "fine-tuning" arguments.

Huh? Is your memory that short? I've given you examples of events that would render evolution (and many other theories) silly and useless and make ID creationism look like a profound insight. Do you recall what your reaction was to those examples? You scoffed at them because they were "miraculous"!

Why should ID be required to supply a universally accepted falsification test?

— David Heddle

Relying on simple induction, one might conclude that God arranged things to make life exceedingly rare in the universe. It could even be that this is not the best of all possible worlds, but the emptiest. We're only here at all because God couldn't have prevented us with out allowing more conscious life somewhere else.

Weimar era version of old Greek story mentioned above: "So miserable is human life that it is preferable to die young. Indeed, it is better never to have been born; but scarcely one in a million is that lucky!"

Oh, the irony.

It's absurd for modern-looking human fossil to be dated to the pre-Cambrian, but not absurd for an invisible omniscent being to create a universe so that creatures on one of the planets can write books about him. Whatever.

GCT,

Why do I care, given that ID is not science? Is that a real question? Do you only care about science?

Falsification is not unique to science. If I tell you my name is Bill Buckner, that is a non scientific yet falsifiable statement.

It seems odd to me that you and others would argue with most IDers who claim ID is science, beating them to death over the issue, yet when I agree with you, then you claim I am lying about it. Man, talk about taking both sides.

You have avoided the evolution falsification question. Once again: are there any tests that would sway some biologists but not all? You attacked me by saying just because DHID is falsified, doesn't mean ID is falsified, but you haven't demonstrated that evolution does not suffer the same fate.

As for teaching ID in school, I believe the strongest statement I made is that it can be brought up, not necessarily in a science class. There is absolutely nothing wrong about bringing up ID and discussing it, unless you think all students are feeble minded. Students discussing controversial ideas are one of the things students are supposed to do. I never, ever, stated that it should be part of the science curriculum. I always brought it up (cosmological ID) in the grad classes I taught, usually the last lecture of the year. I would tell the students I'd be talking about it, and that it was optional, Typically we had a blast.

Wesley,

Do you have a (non-absurd) universal falsification test for evolution?

... that scientists should not be worried about offending religious sensibilities when those sensibilities are based on claims about the universe that are manifestly wrong. Moreover, he said that while there was no connection between science and religion, he claimed there is a natural tension between them because, as physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg has said, science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God, but it makes it possible to not believe in God. Finally, he argued that programs supporting research in areas such as "fine tuning," with an aim to building a connection between science and religion, are ultimately disingenuous because they are designed to suggest that there is some divine purpose to our existence, which grossly distorts what the science actually implies.

By the way, if anyone is interested in checking my Krauss quote, it can be found here:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/1214startrek.shtml

Our current understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics says that empty space should have about 120 orders of magnitude more energy than the amount we measure it to have. That is 1 with 120 zeroes after it! How to reduce the amount it has by such a huge magnitude, without making it precisely zero, is a complete mystery. Among physicists, this is considered the worst fine-tuning problem in physics. When we solve this problem, we're going to have to explain why the number that we measure is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than we would expect it to be. No one has an idea how to do that. And that's why it's the most exciting thing in physics. Because weird makes things exciting.

Your insult does not hide the fact that you have missed the boat completely.

None of non-ID cosmologists who investigate multiverses (and the like) are doing so because they assume "specialness of life". On the contrary, they are doing so to avoid the conclusion of the "specialness of life."

Avoiding the fine-tuning is a physics issue, to the physicists, or at least that misguided subset that hasn't sought your advice.

Hence Krauss' comment (in Scientific American and elsewhere) about the cosmological constant being the "worst fine tuning problem in physics." He is far from motivated by ID or an assumption of life's "specialness;" he categorically denies ID. He is motivated, however, by the appearance of fine-tuning.

Your insult does not hide the fact that you have missed the boat completely.

None of non-ID cosmologists who investigate multiverses (and the like) are doing so because they assume "specialness of life". On the contrary, they are doing so to avoid the conclusion of the "specialness of life."

Avoiding the fine-tuning is a physics issue, to the physicists, or at least that misguided subset that hasn't sought your advice.

Hence Krauss' comment (in Scientific American and elsewhere) about the cosmological constant being the "worst fine tuning problem in physics." He is far from motivated by ID or an assumption of life's "specialness;" he categorically denies ID. He is motivated, however, by the appearance of fine-tuning.

Bad physicists who don't listen to you! Bad!

So you have discussed Krauss's foolishness with him? And he didn't listen? Imagine that.

See, David, there are more fine-tuning problems than your benighted beliefs imply. So when Krauss discusses a fine-tuning problem you immediately leap to the false conclusion that he's discussing your fantasies. Why would a serious physicist be discussing the twaddle you amplify and reproduce?

Mr. Heddle:

As anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty has seen, you are equivocating on what Dr. Krauss means by "fine tuning".

No problem. I hoped against all hope that you might be different from what you appeared to be. You're not; too bad.

Have a nice life.

Glen Davidson,

You are truly a national treasure, if only physicists would take advantage of all you have to offer! We could avoid so many fruitless and wasteful research programs.

Now, can you point out where I stated that Krauss argued for "fine tuning for life?" I appreciate your catching me in that error and I'd like to include the reference when I retract my statement.

The issue with Erik was a PT classic. Up there with your dropping claims of logical fallacy amidst your insults. If I remember correctly, he is the one who wrote an "unbiased" letter to Krauss asking him a very fair question which I'll paraphrase: "Some IDer here [that'd be me] claims your fine-tuning statement supports ID. Do you agree?" And there was great rejoicing when Krauss responded "no." I asked that someone actually send Krauss a fair question, such as "is there apparent fine tuning in physics?" (which is all I ever claimed he said) but it was not heard amid the glee.

What exactly are your credentials anyway? Do you have a cv on-line?

Emanuele,

Please explain what Krauss means by fine tuning, if he doesn't, in fact, mean fine tuning.

You are truly a national treasure, if only physicists would take advantage of all you have to offer! We could avoid so many fruitless and wasteful research programs.

Now, can you point out where I stated that Krauss argued for "fine tuning for life?"

None of non-ID cosmologists who investigate multiverses (and the like) are doing so because they assume "specialness of life". On the contrary, they are doing so to avoid the conclusion of the "specialness of life." Avoiding the fine-tuning is a physics issue, to the physicists, or at least that misguided subset that hasn't sought your advice. Hence Krauss' comment (in Scientific American and elsewhere) about the cosmological constant being the "worst fine tuning problem in physics."

I appreciate your catching me in that error and I'd like to include the reference when I retract my statement.

"Some IDer here [that'd be me] claims your fine-tuning statement supports ID. Do you agree?" And there was great rejoicing when Krauss responded "no." I asked that someone actually send Krauss a fair question, such as "is there apparent fine tuning in physics?" (which is all I ever claimed he said) but it was not heard amid the glee.

What exactly are your credentials anyway? Do you have a cv on-line?

Please explain what Krauss means by fine tuning, if he doesn't, in fact, mean fine tuning.

And I'm not going to respond to David Heddle in this matter any more, since he refuses to even broach the important issues with the proper epistemological stance. It's not a promise, but an intention, and quite likely. There is too little time in my life to waste it on someone who refuses even to learn how to deal with science and philosophy.

I've made some excellent remarks, and they can stand on their own. Heddle's avoidance of the issues only shows his incapacity for dealing with what's been said by most posters here.

GCT, Why do I care, given that ID is not science? Is that a real question? Do you only care about science?

— David Heddle

It seems odd to me that you and others would argue with most IDers who claim ID is science, beating them to death over the issue, yet when I agree with you, then you claim I am lying about it. Man, talk about taking both sides.

— David Heddle again

You have avoided the evolution falsification question. Once again: are there any tests that would sway some biologists but not all? You attacked me by saying just because DHID is falsified, doesn't mean ID is falsified, but you haven't demonstrated that evolution does not suffer the same fate.

— DH one more time

So when Krauss discusses a fine-tuning problem you immediately leap to the false conclusion that he's discussing your fantasies.

I've lost track of why we're wasting time on whether ID is falsifiable, when Heddle has said from day 1 that ID is not science. The more provocative claim that he made, also from day 1, is that evolutionary theory is no more scientific than ID. Now, I've never understood his problems with the falsifiability of predictions made by evolution: fossils in a particular temporal order, the twin nested hierarchies of DNA sequences and morphologically/physiologically based phylogenies, to name a couple of the more frequently cited examples. Wouldn't that be a more interesting discussion?

Yes, it is a real question. Maybe I should rephrase it though. Why do you care/argue for the SCIENTIFIC falsifiability of ID on a SCIENTIFIC blog? ID is not science (even according to you) so the point is moot.

Is there a point where some people might jump ship while others might not? Yeah, I can see that happening, but the big difference is that evolution is built upon a plethora of falsifiable hypotheses that can be agreed upon and empirically tested.

The more provocative claim that he made, also from day 1, is that evolutionary theory is no more scientific than ID. Now, I've never understood his problems with the falsifiability of predictions made by evolution: fossils in a particular temporal order, the twin nested hierarchies of DNA sequences and morphologically/physiologically based phylogenies, to name a couple of the more frequently cited examples. Wouldn't that be a more interesting discussion?

From Earl Lee's Kiss My Left Behind, page 1: Captain Ramrod Steel leaned back in his pilot seat and closed his eyes.

Wesley, Do you have a (non-absurd) universal falsification test for evolution?

— David Heddle

David Heddle, you just don't get it. ID has NO falsifiable hypotheses based on empirical testing. None. Not one. All of your protestations aside, there is not one. You claim that empirically detecting another universe would falsify hypothesis A for you, but I don't hold that hypothesis, nor does anyone else on this site most likely. On the other hand, evolution has hypothesis X (and Y, Z, and many others,) that is written in such a way that it can be falsified for all. When that hypothesis is falsified, then we would all say, yes, it has been shown false. It's apples and oranges, and that's why the complaint is valid. When ID has formulated hypotheses that are agreed upon by ID advocates as part of the "theory of ID," and those hypotheses are falsifiable empirically, then maybe we will start to take it seriously.

As for this being a political blog, I don't care if it is, it still deals with a scientific subject. What you are doing is like if I went to a muslim blog and started talking about pork recipes. You show up here, act like ID is science with one side of your mouth, say it isn't out of the other side of your mouth, then denigrate evolution and show a complete lack of understanding of science at the same time. I can't decide if you are better or worse than the DaveScots and JADs here. At least they are honest in coming right out and saying what they think.

Evolution reminds me of the story of the guy standing in front of the Mona Lisa. He says to the security guard, "I've been looking at this thing for years. I just don't get it. It's crap. Why do people think this thing is any good?" and the security guard tells him, "Sir, at this point, it's not the Mona Lisa that's at issue here. It's you."

Popper's only interesting to anti-evolution folks because the falsifiability bit allows them to ignore the warehouses full of positive evidence for evolutionary theory. What's next? Holding up a piece of chalk before a bunch of freshmen and asking, "How do I know for sure this chalk is real?"

So far, David has shown a lust for equivocation that I simply can’t fathom.

Try http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=equivocation for some help on that, Mr. Heddle.

Further, I have made no statement like "Evolution is falsiable!"

Hey David: is physics falsifiable? Yes or no?

David Heddle, cosmological ID would survive the detection of a parallel universe, your philosophy would not. That is the difference. Evolution per se is not "universally" falsifiable - as you put it - unless one faslifies every hypothesis that is entailed by evolution. Wesley points out that it is silly to say that a class of phenomena is falsifiable, which is what we are talking about here. Evolution, however, is built upon a platform of falsifiable hypotheses. ID has not a single one. To equivocate them is ludicrous. Furthermore, hypothesis X in evolutionary theory if falsified would be falsified for all, not just for me.

The reason we talk about ID being un-falsifiable is because it rests on no testable hypotheses. Not one. If you don't understand that point, then there's not much hope for you, and I'm not holding my breath.

Russell,

No. "Physics" is a label given to the study of the physical world, i.e. of energy and matter. A label cannot be falsified.

Is that all evolution is? A label? Synonymous with "biology"?

GCT
I am confused--did you or did you not claim that if enough of the hypotheses were falsified that some would abandon evolution? If you asked them whether in their opinion evolution was falsified, would they reply "no, but I'm bailing out anyway?" Or maybe they'd reply, "I'm not sure, I'll have to check with Popper?"

Actually, Russell, a better analogy would be:

"Hey David: is gravity falsifiable?"

Is that all evolution is? A label? Synonymous with "biology"?

neo-anti-luddite:
"gravity" is not falsifiable, but any particular theory of gravity is.

Russell:
regarding evolution, fair enough. Your answer that evolution is not falsifiable seems reasonable to me.

However, cosmological ID does make this falsifiable prediction:

This is a unique, fine-tuned universe.

That is much stronger than an Anthropic statement that the universe has to have the characteristics necessary for supporting its observers.

David Heddle,

I have a serious question for you (no sarcasm here), because I'm not particularly up on cosmology, and I'm curious what your answer to my no-doubt simplistic question is (and again, there is no sarcasm intended in the preceding sentence):

My undrestanding of the "fine-tuning" argument is that there is a very narrow range of values for certain cosmological constants that make the universe amenable to the development of life. My question is, since any two numbers have an infinite number of numbers in between them, how can the tuning be described as "fine"?

I've never understood this argument, but, as you yourself have pointed out, there are prominent physicists who speak in such terms, so I'm obviously missing something. I just have absolutely no idea what it is. I would appreciate any assistance you can provide; thanks for the consideration.

However, cosmological ID does make this falsifiable prediction: This is a unique, fine-tuned universe.

regarding evolution, fair enough. Your answer that evolution is not falsifiable seems reasonable to me.

However, cosmological ID does make this falsifiable prediction: This is a unique, fine-tuned universe.

neo-anti-luddite

Suppose I told you that I am going to use an infinite precision random number generator that generated random numbers between 0 and 1. Then suppose I told you that you will die unless, on the first try, I generate a number between 3.00000040 and 3.00000042. I don't think you would take much comfort in the fact that there are an infinite number of numbers between 3.00000040 and 3.00000042.

Furthermore, I think you would be pleasantly surprised if I generated 3.0000004095356.

I don't mean this as any example of any actual fine tuning, or of probability distributions, or anything of the sort, but only to point out the error with the "infinite number of numbers" argument.

DavidF:

You would have a point if it were not the case that there was ongoing research aiming to demonstrate that (a) this universe is not unique and/or (b) this universe is not fine-tuned. That elevates the ID prediction from the metaphysical to the real.

But don't make the common mistake of saying this has anything to do with falsifying God. If there are multiple universes and/or this universe is not fine tuned, I have to give up ID, but not God. I agree with what everyone likes to say here: a deity could create the universe with no fine tuning. Or he could create any number of universes with different chemistry and physics. But there would then be no legitimate way to argue design against the claim, which would then be, by Occam's razor the sensible view, that of course of all universes we are in the one that appears fine tuned because otherwise we wouldn't be here duscussing it.

Russell:

I have no idea where you can find that prediction. Maybe on Hugh Ross's site? I am not "in" the ID community, and if I were it wouldn't be the DI community as it focuses a great deal on evolution. Surely if you ask biologists what might falsify certain evolution hypotheses, such as common descent, they might think about it and say, "I claim this would.." without referring to a textbook or the literature.

oops, change that random number generator in the previous post to be between 0.0 and 10.0 or neo-anti-luddite would be in really big trouble!

David Heddle,

Okay, I think I get what you're saying. It's a matter of a subset within a larger range, rather than simply a range that could be taken out to an infinite number of places. Thanks. (And thanks for correcting that random number generator; I had visions of "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose.")

David Heddle,

Okay, I think I get it. It's a matter of a subset of a larger range, rather than simply a range that could be taken out to an infinite number of places. Thanks. (And thanks for fixing that random number generator; I had visions of "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose.")

Aaaaaigh! Double post!

You say that if you find a pre-Cambrian human fossil, an investigation that, because of its absurdity, no funding agency would support, then evolution is falsified.

You would have a point if it were not the case that there was ongoing research aiming to demonstrate that (a) this universe is not unique and/or (b) this universe is not fine-tuned. That elevates the ID prediction from the metaphysical to the real.

But don't make the common mistake of saying this has anything to do with falsifying God. If there are multiple universes and/or this universe is not fine tuned, I have to give up ID, but not God.

I agree with what everyone likes to say here: a deity could create the universe with no fine tuning.

Or he could create any number of universes with different chemistry and physics. But there would then be no legitimate way to argue design against the claim, which would then be, by Occam's razor the sensible view, that of course of all universes we are in the one that appears fine tuned because otherwise we wouldn't be here duscussing it.

I have no idea where you can find that prediction. Maybe on Hugh Ross's site? I am not "in" the ID community, and if I were it wouldn't be the DI community as it focuses a great deal on evolution. Surely if you ask biologists what might falsify certain evolution hypotheses, such as common descent, they might think about it and say, "I claim this would.." without referring to a textbook or the literature.

What exactly are your credentials anyway?

My guess that Neptune is orbited by bite-sized pink tootise rolls does not get elevated into a "prediction" by the launching of a probe to measure the size and nature of particles orbiting Neptune.

If life were to be discovered on Titan then would ID be disproved

Are you saying that if multiple universes were found then God did not create them?

Only a God that is an idiot would intentionally create a universe and put life in it for which the Universe was unsuited.

then we simulataneously are making the deduction that that Designer is limited in His ability. He cannot have made alternative Universes

Along these lines, why, since the Bible stresses that we should believe in God based on faith, do people constantly seek such materialistic proofs of God's existence?

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)

Continuing our Zen session: my opinions are not holy or divine . . .

Rev, you are perhaps the greatest logician on PT. It's close, your competition is tough, including:

PT Theorem 8.2: You are an IDer, and you think ID is science! You fool!
PT Theorem 8.3: You are an IDer, and you don't think ID is science! You liar!

But I like your reasoning better:

Rev: David, will you admit this?
David: Yes Rev, I admit that.
Rev: Good. Except you're lying!

One complaint Rev, you forgot . I've come to expect that, like Selah in the Psalms.

Hmm, Rev, my bad, what you forgot was "crickets chirping". It got stripped from my post when I put it in angle brackets.

DavidH,

Although I am an atheist my argument is with ID and not with someone believing in God.

But to get back to the point. I think the major difference is now down to "what qualifies as a prediction?" You seem to be saying - albeit not directly - that any sort of statement that someone makes as a prediction is automatically a prediction which can be falsified. This is true on one level but it isn't helpful since talk is cheap and falsification is expensive. In addition to falsification experiments also, if possible, need potentially be able to provide support for a theory as well. No theory can be established purely by experiments which only "don't falsify" it.

A theory is something which, if one subscribes to its basic elements, leads inescapably to a prediction, or, possibly a small number of mutually exclusive predictions. However, those elements must have some basis in logic or fact or, preferably both. Here are two examples, with one of them not qualifying as a legitimate prediction;

(i) If I integrate Newton's equations for the small moons of the giant planets backwards into the past I find that there is some good probability that moons have collided with each other. This suggests that moons will occur in clusters with similar orbital elements. This is, in fact, observed. But it isn't a specific prediction since the model is consistent with already known facts. What does the model predict? It predicts that the surface color and composition of moons in these observed sub-clusters will be similar.

(ii) A giant gas-phase octupus gathered up moons in a force field generated by its legs and hurled them at the giant planets. Some of these moons collided with each other. This suggests that moons will occur in clusters with similar orbital elements. This is, in fact, observed. But this isn't a prediction since the model is consistent with already known facts. What does this model predict? It predicts that the surface color and composition of moons in these observed sub-clusters will be similar.

I'd say that the second example is basically a wild guess and any actual observations of moons may or may not be consistent with the guess. Sure, the guess can be ruled out by observations but it cannot be supported by observations whereas (i) can.

To me, this is the essential difficulty with ID - as you say it isn't science - but, science or not, it is incapable of making predictions that go beyond inspired guesses. It makes speculations. Discovering multiple fine-tuned universes cannot falsify ID because such universes are not inconsistent with ID except as an added article of faith. That is, the prediction is not an ineluctable conclusion of the theory of ID (if such existed). It might disprove your own particular belief in ID but theories cannot be so subjective that their validity depends on the observer.

I agree that multiple universes from an Occam's razor point of view would make ID harder to justify but Occam's razor is only useful in choosing between competitive ideas that have some basis in fact. It really cannot be used to distinguish between guesses. After all, if it could, then why not pick one's religion based on which is the most economical? That is, apply Occam's razor to all religions and use it as a criterion of which is "The Truth." I can see a decent cult coming out of that.

Now, I know you say ID isn't science but, equally, it isn't theology since theology doesn't make predictions. I'm not sure what ID is in your book, but it looks more like a personal hope that God left a biscuit trail for us to follow. But the Bible pretty much tells us that He didn't - Jesus said explicitly that no sign would be sent.

¹¹The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. ¹²He sighed deeply and said, "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it." ¹³Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side. (Mark 8:11-13)

Comment #22273 Posted by David Heddle on March 28, 2005 05:04 PM GWW, Why is it a strange question? Is transparency of the atmosphere in the region of the star's peak intensity required, in your view, for complex life? It's a fair question, I think.

— David Heddle

1) I believe in ID because at the moment I believe our universe is unique and fine tuned and those two things together can only be explained by design (or amazing luck).

2) If you demonstrate otherwise (and people are working on it), I will no longer believe in ID.

8The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Comment #22288 Posted by David Heddle on March 28, 2005 05:59 PM Emanuelle, I am "marveling" at the coincidence that our atmosphere is transparent in the part of the spectrum where the sun's intensity peaks.

— David Heddle

Wayne,

DavidH is correct - the atmosphere is fairly opaque outside the vis and near-vis parts of the spectrum apart from a window in the microwave region.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/introduction/emsurface.html

1) I believe in ID because at the moment I believe our universe is unique and fine tuned and those two things together can only be explained by design (or amazing luck).

Comment #22410 Posted by GCT on March 29, 2005 11:11 AM ... I believe I remember you arguing that ID should be taught in high school science classes ...

— GCT

Comment #22423 Posted by David Heddle on March 29, 2005 12:01 PM ...He likes the fine tuning problem. It interests him. He doesn't put his head in the sand and deny that it exists.

— David Heddle

When we solve this problem, we're going to have to explain why the number that we measure is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than we would expect it to be. No one has an idea how to do that. And that's why it's the most exciting thing in physics. Because weird makes things exciting.

is remarkably like believing in a creator because the Earth seems to be at the center of the universe.

Do you mean that you will no longer believe that an Intelligent Designer made the world or that you will no longer believe that we can deduce a designer from observations?

Why should special insight only be available to those with the ability to study cosmology?

ID-ers really are asking for a sort of miracle to prove that God exists

in the last 2 weeks, that someone caught him out in a contradiction where he was saying one thing here but another on the other blog/forum

You coming up and saying that he [Krauss] means "We don't know why this is this way we have to explain it so we can disprove God"

Comment #22440 Posted by David Heddle on March 29, 2005 01:05 PM . . . When, in fact, I have never said anything beyond claiming that Krauss acknowledges fine tuning. . . .

— David Heddle

The it's the same question I asked Emanuele, what does Krauss mean when he uses the term fine-tuning? He is not asking, as you seem to suggest, if I read you correctly, why does it have "this value", like why does pi have the value 3.14159...

He states specfically that it is a 120 order of magnitude problem, and the worst fine tuning problem in physics.

I don't see what he means by "fine tuning" other than what I mean by fine tuning. The only difference is where you turn after you acknowledge the fine tuning.

I'll look for you answer tomorrow. It's off to bed for me.

Mr. Heddle:

I've asked Dr. Krauss. I hope that he'll reply, and that he'll authorize me to quote him.

As for me, I have a very strong hunch of what he means: I think he means that our theories and models must be fine tuned in order to accurately reproduce our observations of the universe.

Yes, it is a problem: at present, our theories and models are not "fine tuned" enough to account for those discrepancies. Yes, it is fascinating: where and how are our theories and models wrong or incomplete? No, it has nothing to do with the preconceived idea that the universe itself must be fine tuned.

But as I say, this is only my layman's opinion.

Emanuelle, people have pointed this out about Krauss to Heddle several times. It hasn't made a dent. It's not going to. People have pointed out his basic statistical error. Same thing.

When someone wants to believe, no one can stop them.

A good article for Panda's Thumb would be lignin. At some point, plants evolved the ability to make lignin, which is assembled in random configurations. The randomness helps prevent bacteria from attacking and eating it with simple enzymes. So in this case, fitness meant adding randomness. Adding genetic information to get randomness. I would love to see IDers try to pretend that fits their idea, and further, that they anticipated it.

Comment #22537 Posted by DavidF on March 29, 2005 07:51 PM Wayne, DavidH is correct - the atmosphere is fairly opaque outside the vis and near-vis parts of the spectrum apart from a window in the microwave region. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/introduction/emsurface.htm . . .

— DavidF

Comment #22547 Posted by David Heddle on March 29, 2005 08:57 PM DaveF: ... Wayne: in the last 2 weeks, that someone caught him out in a contradiction where he was saying one thing here but another on the other blog/forum what was my contradiction? (I'm not saying that it's not possibly or even unlikely---I've been blogging and arguing for many years---no doubt I have said some inconsistent things either because I spoke to soon (it happens) or my position has evolved---I just don't remember what my recent contradiction might have been. And did I deny the contradiction?) ...

— David Heddle

Comment #21004 Posted by Air Bear on March 18, 2005 08:59 PM Sorry to jump on the David-Heddle-is-flexible bandwagon, but here goes: ...

— Air Bear

Comment #22547 Posted by David Heddle on March 29, 2005 08:57 PM DaveF: ... You coming up and saying that he [Krauss] means "We don't know why this is this way we have to explain it so we can disprove God" I think that is stronger than what I said, which is that he wants to explain it to avoid a fine tuning problem. I am certain that he realizes that IDers will use it as fine-tuning fodder until (and if) it is explained, and I suspect that part of his motivation might be to enjoy shutting up IDers who use the cosmological constant argument, but I never said that is his primary goal---I said repeatedly nothing more than he acknowledged the fine tuning and searched for a non-ID explanation.

— David Heddle

When science and the bible disagree, the bible is always right. When science and Christians disagree, Christians are sometimes wrong.

the number is very different then what our current model would predict.

People have pointed out his basic statistical error

I am confused---did you or did you not claim that if enough of the hypotheses were falsified that some would abandon evolution? If you asked them whether in their opinion evolution was falsified, would they reply "no, but I'm bailing out anyway?" Or maybe they'd reply, "I'm not sure, I'll have to check with Popper?"

— David Heddle

May it never be. What I am saying is: if the body of evidence that supports ID is lost, then you can no longer claim there is any evidence supporting ID! i.e., ID is falsified. Although ID apart from theology is nonsense to me, theology does not require ID. ID is stating that not only did God design the universe, he left evidence for us to discover his design through science.

— David Heddle

What I say is very limited: in the face of multiple universes I cannot put forth any scientific evidence in support of design.

Mr. Heddle:

My question to Dr. Krauss was more or less "You wrote this and that on SciAm. Can you please clarify what you meant by fine tuning?"

If/when he answers, and if he tells me he has no objection to my publishing his reply, I won't fail to do so.

I have no problem with teaching evolution in school and am not an advocate of teaching ID (although I always had an optional lecture on cosmological ID when I was a prof.) [...] It seems to me that if I taught evolution I would want to tackle the predictions of ID head-on... [...] I guess I am trying to say that you do a disservice to your own cause and to education in general if you demonize your opponent (even as they demonize you.) To me, the best way to respond would be to answer their criticisms about things like irreducible complexity, convergence, insufficient time, the complexity of the earliest life, reemergence of extinct species, etc., rather than making fun of them and then teaching the same-old same-old. After all, you'd be teaching the same science you want to teach anyway, and in a manner that would be engaging, and in a manner that would address the critics. [...] Even if there are no predictions (I have referred to at least one paper) why not say, "The IDers say convergence is a problem for us. Let's look at some of the examples they give (the salamander and some fish with the same type of eyes) and discuss how this happened via evolution." You would still be teaching science but would be able to say that, like all good scientists, you are addressing criticisms of the theory. Where is the downside? [...] So okay, forget predictions, since you'll never agree that what they call predictions are in fact predictions. As per my previous post, what's wrong with putting, say, two weeks in the syllabus where you address criticisms of evolution? Think of the political capital, and, as I said, you'd be teaching science. And equipping the students to answer the criticisms. [...] I have not been defending ID, and you'll never win hard-core IDers. What I have been saying is stop wasting time arguing that their premise of miraculous creation and design is faulty. Don't even argue that they are not science. Simply say (in the curriculum) here are the things that ID says are problems for evolution. Let's take a couple weeks to examine them. You might put the political argument to rest, for the sides are fairly evenly drawn, as far as I can tell. Winning over, via accommodation, a few percentage points of popular opinion, while still teaching science, would seem to be a win-win.

— David Heddle

I have to admit that your duplicitous nature makes me continue to have doubts, but for now I will take you at your word that you are not advocating teaching ID in schools.

No problem David. I'll be more sincere as soon as you are.

Except the earth isn't at the center of the universe. If "the earth is at the center of the universe" was my version of ID, then not only would it be falsifiable, it would in fact be falsified.

Your reference to Col 2:8 would be applicable if I were advocating that we attend the "church of the designer." I don't---I attend a church that proclaims the cross each week. ID is not a replacement for faith in Christ. It just a glimpse of creation.

here are the things that ID says are problems for evolution. Let's take a couple weeks to examine them.

Mister Heddle:
Not to pile on, and in no way do I pretend to any authority or expertise in biology, but only as an interested "lay-lurker" I have to ask what you mean when you say: "I stand by the claim that fossil record does not dispute the chronological ordering found in Genesis."? Do you refer to Genesis 1 when "God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind" etc., etc. THEN made man? Or Genesis 2 when "the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them."? Since these are obviously contradictory accounts one of them must be contradicted by the fossil record. I'm betting it's Genesis 2.
Thanks, Gary

Gary,

The Genesis 2 account does not contradict Genesis 1. It is an expanded, non-chronological look at creation, with more details on the creation of man.

For a chart (PDF) that shows the fossil record overlaying the Genesis 1 Chronology, look here.

Rev: I am sure that the Genesis 2 account is a non-chronological recap because I am a Calvinist and we are correct on all matters theological. {harps strumming}

Makes sense to me. I have always had a suspicion that original sin was encoded in our genes. I bet if Augustine was around, he'd agree.

—

Imagine that David, a single mutation may make someone free of original sin.

—

PvM recognized (I think) my comment as tongue-in-cheek, as it was intended, to match the whole tone of the thread, which, at least at the start, had an undercurrent of amusement. (Which is not to say I haven't speculated on the possibility, but nowhere do I claim it has any scientific basis.)

—

RE: encoding original sin in DNA. Just for the record, I assumed David was making a joke. I got a chuckle out of it. Thanks David.

And no one need follow them listen to them, or pay any attention at all to them, right? Any more than mine, my next door neighbor's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas, right? See, that didn't hurt, did it . . . . . . . Alas, if only I were convinced that you actually believed it to be so. But you have already demonstrated yourself to be too prideful to do that. I remember reading somewhere that such "pride" is a sin . . . .

Rev: David, will you admit this? David: Yes Rev, I admit that. Rev: Good. Except you're lying!

Me: I see no objective way that anyone can claim that ANY interpretation of ANY biblical verse is, or is not, The True and Correct One(c). No one, not me, not you, not anyone, can make the claim that his or her biblical interpretations are any more authoritative than anyone else's. Your interpretations are not infallible, neither are mine, neither are those of the kid who delivers my pizzas. There is simply no basis to claim that any interpretation is any better or more "correct" than any other. Other than one's own say-so.

You: OK, with that dizzying exegesis I'll concede that I lost the bet that Rev agrees with me in this one instance. It was a fool's wager, to be sure.

The Genesis 2 account does not contradict Genesis 1. It is an expanded, non-chronological look at creation, with more details on the creation of man.[.quote]

Says you.

Are you giving an author commentary, David? Or do you just think that not only is the Bible inerrant, but your interpretations of it are also inerrant.

Sorry, David, but I don't believe that you are inerrant. I don't even believe that you are particularly holy.

The real question is how grown men and women find themselves trying to find authoritative messages about biology or physics in old Hebrew books. It's not that I'm hostile to the old books---I'm very fond of 'em myself---but it's kinda nutty to think that they are authoritative as well as venerable.

Apparently, all you accomplish by making a set of texts into infallible scriptures is make them impossible to read. Only the most tortuous exegesis can make orbiter dicta from the 6th Century BCE relevant to our scientific and philosophical concerns.

Rev, Rev, Rev, haven't you been listening? My views are correct because I am a Calvinist and we are always correct in all aspects of theology, exegesis, and apologetics. The Apostle Paul was a Calvinist, and so was Augustine. We laid low for a millennium and what happened? Apostasy! Indulgences were being sold. Republicans and Democrats were living together. But along came Luther who was a Calvinist, and Calvin (both a Calvinist and a Frenchman!) and we've been vigilant ever since.

Fundamentalists are steering our nation off course Many of the men and women who have been holding vigils outside Terri Schiavo's hospice are exhibiting the worst of America's homegrown strain of religiously grounded ignorance and hypocrisy. ... The Schiavo protesters tend to be people who believe the Bible is to be taken as literal truth. They apparently have no trouble reconciling the 3.5-billion-year-old fossil record with the creationist theory that the Earth is some 6,000 years old. ... In his book "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason," author and neuroscientist Sam Harris writes that it is time we stop tiptoeing around religious zealots - of any faith or denomination - and start challenging their implausible world view. ... In Deuteronomy 13:6-10, it is written that if your brother, son, daughter, wife or friend tries to steer you toward worshiping another God, you "must surely kill him. . And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die." ... Those people in the middle, who think it is inappropriate to challenge the religious certainty of others, have allowed our country to be hijacked by irrational forces. In poll after poll, a large majority of Americans say they would not want to be kept alive as Terri Schiavo has been. But the elected branches of government are beholden to a vocal fringe of religious extremists...

Rev, Rev, Rev, haven't you been listening? My views are correct because I am a Calvinist and we are always correct in all aspects of theology, exegesis, and apologetics. The Apostle Paul was a Calvinist, and so was Augustine. We laid low for a millennium and what happened? Apostasy! Indulgences were being sold. Republicans and Democrats were living together. But along came Luther who was a Calvinist, and Calvin (both a Calvinist and a Frenchman!) and we've been vigilant ever since.

Mister Heddle, you said:
"The Genesis 2 account does not contradict Genesis 1. It is an expanded, non-chronological look at creation, with more details on the creation of man."
On what authority exactly, beside your say-so, or that of your religions teachings do you make this statement? Did the authors of Genesis leave a heretofore undiscovered footnote clarifying this glaring contradiction? I have gone over this book many times in several different translations and no amount of rationalization and apologetic gymnastics can make these two clearly contradictory accounts consonant with each other in a fundamentalist, literal reading of this book.
If you are not claiming a literal interpretation of Genesis should be read as being aligned with the scientific evidence,then fine, we agree. But it does leave me wondering why you would make such a claim in the first place.
Gary