Privileged Planet: The puddle and the hole

Great idea, PvM. The Adams quote is a perfect rejoinder.

BCH

There is a wonderful phenomenon in physics that anyone favouring thinking a la "Privileged Planet" should ponder - the propagation of light.
Roughly: in a medium of constant density and composition (say air in a small room), light travels in a straight line. If it encounters a different substance (e.g. a piece glass ) then it will change direction at the boundary and proceed in a straight line (in the different direction) though the second medium, a phenomenon known as refraction.
Now it is an observed fact that if you take two points on the path taken by the light and look at the path taken by the light between them then the light will have taken the path of least time - in other words if the light had taken any other path it would have taken longer to travel between the points. How does light do this, given that when it starts out at the first point it does not know where it will end up?

Just wanted to point to a (free) video lecture with Feynman that explains the phenomenon described in PaulP's post.

Enjoy!

I wish I could take credit for it. Theoriste at amazon used the quote in her review of the book.

To critics, this "intelligent agent" sounds suspiciously like the Christian Triune God, but ID is a secular theory, and there are many ID researchers who are Jewish, Eastern Orthodox and Agnostic. The goal of the ID movement is not to kick evolution out of schools, but to allow students to question certain parts of Darwinian materialism.

— Scott Rank

Darwinian materialism? Interesting confusion about science (methodological naturalism) and philosophy. If ID's only goal is to allow students to question science, then it serves no function but by focusing exclusively on biology, ID has shown its true colors by trying to "pull a wedgie" over the eyes. As far as 'ID researchers', most of them seem to be Christians and clear that to them ID is all about the Christian God. No wonder, that I have found that to some Christians, ID appears to be 'deceitful' and harmful.

Conclusion One cannot escape the conclusion that these beaches were designed with a purpose in mind. A sceptic reader may object to the use of correlation to infer purpose but I intend to use a "cumulative case argument" to strengthen my case. By showing not only complexity but also a meaningfull pattern I will show how design is an INEVITABLE conclusion.

This morning, on my way to work, I listened to NPR. One of the guests, Ebbesmeyer described his recent work on tracking items found by beach combers. Once again I came to realize how the beach provides us not just with pleasurability but also measurability. Without beaches we would not be able to track Rubber duckies.

I was just looking at the enlarged version of the invitation for this event.
In the background is a stylized astronomical map that includes the constellation Leo, nice to have the Astology connection. I mean isn't it just amazing that earth is just so positioned so that we can see the 12 signs of the zodiac so that we can discover what sign we were born under, why we are the way we are, and what our future holds. I am just astounded about how perfect our world is for providing with such knowledge.

Darwinian materialism? Interesting confusion about science (methodological naturalism) and philosophy. If ID's only goal is to allow students to question science, then it serves no function but by focusing exclusively on biology, ID has shown its true colors by trying to "pull a wedgie" over the eyes. As far as 'ID researchers', most of them seem to be Christians and clear that to them ID is all about the Christian God. No wonder, that I have found that to some Christians, ID appears to be 'deceitful' and harmful.

— PvM

Re "How does light do this, given that when it starts out at the first point it does not know where it will end up?"

According to quantum mechanics, a bit of light (or any other particle) takes all possible paths, but the ones that don't minimize travel time destructively interfere with each other, leaving only the one that's far enough ahead of the rest to avoid the interference.

Henry

There is a very pro-ID film doing the rounds at the moment, which goes to some lengths to describe how the Earth and all the life in it was created by intelligent designers. I saw it at the weekend, and can confirm that there is nothing in ID that could disprove the basic thesis of the movie. In fact, it should be taken as a very thought-provoking exploration of some of those ideas, and the Discovery Institute could easily take a lead from it to help them find the demonstration and verification of their theories that are so far so sadly lacking.

All they need to do is go to Norway, examine a few glaciers and check for the signature of Slartibardfast.

R

According to quantum mechanics, a bit of light (or any other particle) takes all possible paths, but the ones that don't minimize travel time destructively interfere with each other, leaving only the one that's far enough ahead of the rest to avoid the interference.

— Henry

Very nice, Rupert. I must say, there is not a single day, not a one, that goes by that I don't find some occasion to miss Douglas Adams. It would not be too much to say that I miss him more than I do any other dead person, with the exception of one childhood friend. I can't begin to explain it. I never met him, although we did exchange a few emails shortly before his death. It's just when I read his stuff, especially nonfiction like "Last Chance to See," I find such a kinship. And I miss him because, between Doug and Richard Dawkins, they would have found the exact right words to pillory this "Privileged Planet" nonsense.

... I believe in the truth and thus I only support valid arguments for design.

— Rich

There is a wonderful phenomenon in physics that anyone favouring thinking a la "Privileged Planet" should ponder - the propagation of light. Roughly: in a medium of constant density and composition (say air in a small room), light travels in a straight line. If it encounters a different substance (e.g. a piece glass ) then it will change direction at the boundary and proceed in a straight line (in the different direction) though the second medium, a phenomenon known as refraction. Now it is an observed fact that if you take two points on the path taken by the light and look at the path taken by the light between them then the light will have taken the path of least time - in other words if the light had taken any other path it would have taken longer to travel between the points. How does light do this, given that when it starts out at the first point it does not know where it will end up?

What are these valid arguments you speak of? Additionally, what is this truth of which you speak?

A good rebuttal to Rare Earth is Life Everywhere by David Darling. I got it for $4 from Amazon.com.

What was expecially interesting is that Darling discovered that Rare Earth authors Ward and Brownlee had used Gonzalez as a major scientific source without being aware of his regular contributions to Reasons to Believe and other efforts promoting divine design. Golzalez later admitted to Ward, unapologetically, that his "theistic theological views motivate my science and vice-versa." He said he has not been more open with his theological views at UW because of the "open hostility among many faculty."

Re "I read the post about the quantum explanation, but I'm still a bit puzzled."

Well, as one of the experts of Q.M. put it - anybody who thinks they understand Q.M. hasn't been paying attention.

As I understand it (even if I don't ;) ), anything that would reveal the presence of a photon along one of the possible paths would leave two possibilities: if "revealed" on that path, then it didn't take any of the others, and if not revealed, then it didn't take that one. I presume the probablity method of describing it would have its way of saying the same thing.

Henry

Did Paul happen to read the next sentence of Rich's post?

— RBH

Sorry for the massive grammar and spelling errors, I should not drink and post.

Thanks for the link, I feel like my mental accumen is well below par reading some of the stuff here. There I'm a self-assured genius once again.

just curious, Paul, which protestant university was that? have you transfered out of there?

one of the problems in this whole discussion is that there really is no "fence" on most of the issues concerned; there are those who believe that the scientific method has value in its application, and should not be denigrated or marginalized by those who believe that religion is a better "method" for practical application. no, the two are not mutually compatible. The explanatory and practical use of religion has been shown to be a failure. that's why we switched to the scientific method hundreds of years ago.

However, there is nothing saying that faith in god as religion is of no value to a human being; in fact quite the contrary, many scientists that have faith in god also apply the scientific method when they test evolutionary theory. It's sad that folks like behe and dembski can no longer apply the scientific method to their arguments; they abandoned reason long ago.

the whole argument shouldn't even exist, except the evangelical movement has garnered a sufficient amount of cash to make it an "issue". hell, the front page of my local paper even had a nice story on the shift in wealth over the last 25 years, and how evangelicals now hold a major sway in policy simply because of the wealth they have obtained. And this is a very conservative newspaper :)

it's funny that the whole rest of the world for the most part has no problem with evolutionary theory and science in general. the only other places where religion essentially trumps science are in the middle east and South Africa, places where extremism have a stronghold.

I personally don't want to be "saved" by any of these exremists, and see no "fence" in the middle.

I agree with your position that there are no valid scientific arguments that rich could have possibly put forward for design, because there simply aren't any.

I don't think you degraded the thread in any way; but that's just my opinon.

cheers

As I understand it (even if I don't ;) ), anything that would reveal the presence of a photon along one of the possible paths would leave two possibilities: if "revealed" on that path, then it didn't take any of the others, and if not revealed, then it didn't take that one. I presume the probablity method of describing it would have its way of saying the same thing.

—

The 'all possible paths' or 'sum-over-paths' approach is a version of quantum mechanics proposed by Feynman. It is contrary to the more accepted 'probability-wave' approach of Schroedinger et al, though each are consistent with the data.

— Piltdown Syndrome

... but I'm still a little hazy on what it would show if we tried to detect the photons in flight on the different pathways

— Arne

When dealing with the phenomenon of light taking the path of least time, forget about quantim mechanics. When describing this phenomenon, we are talking about a "beam of light" that can be seen, as in the following:

Imagine a light source on a table in a darkened room. Physicists use a device called a collimator (essentially a narrow tube) to get a straight beam of light - cover almost all of the light source and put one end of the collimator right up against the uncovered bit, making sure that end of the collimator has a larger cross-sectional area than the uncovered bit. Then out of the other end of the collimator you will see a beam of light in the darkness. Put a piece of glass on the table so that the beam hits it. The direction of the beam will change by refraction.

Now if you take any two points on the path taken, the beam of light could not have travelled between the two points on another path and arrived at teh second point any sooner.

The reason you can forget QM is that if you put photon detectors anywhere in the darkness you will not detect any photons. This is not a version of a beam splitter experiment where you do not know the path taken by the photon.

Remember too that even in classical optics, by Huygens principle every point on a light wave front is the source of other light waves, which intefere with each other everywhere they meet. So if you have a straight beam of light as in the above setup, there are waves of light in the dark area of the room because at every point in the darkness the interfering waves cancel each other out.

I read the post about the quantum explanation, but I'm still a bit puzzled.

— Arne Langsetmo

The reason you can forget QM is that if you put photon detectors anywhere in the darkness you will not detect any photons.

Now there you see what you might get when a experimentator and theorist explain the same thing... ;o)

The reason you can forget QM is that if you put photon detectors anywhere in the darkness you will not detect any photons.

— PualP

Koly wrote:
"Now there you see what you might get when a experimentator and theorist explain the same thing . . . ;o)"

Or even when an experimentor tries to explain it to himself.

Here in Ireland we have an expression: "it works in practice but not in theory". Perhaps it's relevant here.

Koly wrote:
"Now there you see what you might get when a experimentator and theorist explain the same thing"
It also applies when an experimentor tries to explain it to himself:-)

We have a saying in Ireland: "It works in practice but not in theory". It might apply here!

So how can you see the beam if there are no stray photons?

— PaulP

People use smoke/mist to make laser beams visible

the only other places where religion essentially trumps science are in the middle east and South Africa, places where extremism have a stronghold.

— Sir_Toejam

However, there is nothing saying that faith in god as religion is of no value to a human being...

— Sir_Toejam

As a South African I'd like to know if this is the general perception of South Africa from other countries? I suppose that if you look at the fanatic evangelical white Afrikaans segment of the population you might get that impression. Why do you say that religion essentially trumps science?

please correct me if i am wrong, but several south African public school teachers have written me and informed me that evolution is not taught in public schools at all. In fact, they gave me the impression that essentially creationism is what is taught, and that is pretty much decided at the level of government. I also have noted statistics indicating that 90% of South africans essentially would be classified as creationists (as opposed to about 45% here).

are they giving me total misinformation? would you care to add you perceptions to the mix? do you have more updated statistics on the issue?

cheers

please correct me if i am wrong, but several south African public school teachers have written me and informed me that evolution is not taught in public schools at all. In fact, they gave me the impression that essentially creationism is what is taught, and that is pretty much decided at the level of government. I also have noted statistics indicating that 90% of South Africans essentially would be classified as creationists (as opposed to about 45% here).

— Sir_Toejam

thanks, peete.

always looking to update my information.

cheers

Maybe the "shortest path" rule is for using when the light beam is unobstructed? Obviously if it bounces off some mirrors it can wind up hitting a point after taking a longer path than if it went straight. (I wonder if this physics stuff is getting off topic for this thread?)

Henry

I know a way to combine puddles and sand: quicksand! No, wait; didn't Mythbusters busted the one about quicksand sucking you under?

I know - it's off topic, but I couldn't resist.

Indeed, I did. I should have elaborated, if someone says they only support "valid arguments for design" it implies the existence of a real argument. The adjective valid implies verification. It was my understanding that the PT was dedicated to thouroughly debunking the specious claims of the entire anti-evolution movement and was curious what valid arguments there might be. The ontological argument is the only creationist claim I personally find to be infallible. Am I a bit spiteful of christians at the moment? Yes, I am. Let me give a brief explaination of how I got here (PT). At a large protestant university I attended, I read about a winterim course offering called cosmogony. I had a very misinformed view of what the ID/C was about. The content was likely quite similar to your typical young earth creationist weekend seminar. Except this was 3 weeks at 4 hours a day. I learned that if I believe in evolution I don't believe in God (the case made against theistic evolution has me convinced.) Rather than be drawn with the power of an electromagnet to a 6-10 thousand year old earth for the sake of my salvation, I remained as the lone dissenter out of approx. 25 students. Do you know what it's like when you find out that the Ph.D professors you held in such high regard, believe in all the tenets of young earth creationism? Are you one of their favorite students after they discover this? It made this past semester pretty difficult. I apologize to you if you feel I degraded your thread in any way. I thought one of the main things ID and YEC talk about is their quest for "truth." I still have no clue what the message of Rich's postings are, I don't see where his legs are while he's straddling both sides of the fence, and I can't even see the fence. I wanted to know what he's trying to say, I just went about it in a condescending way, and that was the wrong way.

While I understand that the formalism says that the quickest path is the one taken, I still have some difficulties with that notion.

From what I Googled about "Huygens" and "minimal path of light", it doesn't even make sense to talk about which path the light takes (it's taking them all or any, and all you can see is the result, and any attempt to look at how that happens, by measuring photons on a specifric path, invalidates the actual conditions). But I'm still curious about what happens with a lens. You can construct a classical lens with no (macro) spherical aberration for a given point source and destination (i.e. focal points) at least for a given wavelength. So if the "path of shortest time" is any of the many possible ones through a given lens system, why would F/stop make any difference?

Cheers,

Maybe the "shortest path" rule is for using when the light beam is unobstructed? Obviously if it bounces off some mirrors it can wind up hitting a point after taking a longer path than if it went straight. (I wonder if this physics stuff is getting off topic for this thread?)

Henry:
Because of the mirror it could not go in a straight line all the way along the path.

If you use a mirror to change the path of a beam of light you will still find that the path it actually took is that which takes the shortest time.

In case I did not make the point clearer: when discussing the path taken by a light beam or even an individual photon we are asking a particle-like question so you can forget about the wave properties of light.

Arne, f/stop is a ratio of lens focal length to aperture diameter size. I'm not really sure why you think it has to do with the path of shortest time through a lens system. The f/stop is generally thought of as a measure of how much light is allowed into the lens. Any light that is allowed into the lens by the aperture would then take the path of shortest time.

Re "Bohr's concept of complementarity was designed to allow us to talk about such situations. "

But was it intelligently designed? (heh heh)

Anybody seen this yet?

I could only get the abstract of the study and it states: "Centrioles consist of nine microtubule triplets arranged like the blades of a tiny turbine. Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes
that they are holistically designed to be turbines."

Did Wells slip one by the editors by avoiding the term "intelligent design" and opting instead for "holistically designed," whatever that may mean?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JUNE 2, 2005

Press Contact: Rob Crowther

Discovery Institute

(206) 292-0401 x.107

rob@discovery.org

Another Biology Journal Publishes Article Applying Intelligent Design Theory to Scientific Research

Seattle, WA -- For the second time in nine months, an article explicitly applying intelligent design theory to scientific research has been published in an internationally respected biology journal--despite Darwinists' claims that this never happens.

An article by molecular biologist Jonathan Wells, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, has just appeared in Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, one of the oldest still-published biology journals in the world. Wells' article uses intelligent design theory (ID) to formulate a testable hypothesis about centrioles, which are microscopic structures in animal cells whose function is not yet understood. Wells's hypothesis--if confirmed by experiments--would explain how centrioles function in normal cell division and malfunction in cancer. The hypothesis could also help to explain why there is a correlation between calcium and Vitamin D deficiency and major types of cancer.

"Darwinian evolution, despite the claims of its defenders, has been remarkably unsuccessful in guiding practical research in biology and medicine," said Wells. "Although ID is still controversial in the scientific community, some of us are now using it to formulate testable hypotheses."

"The interesting thing here is that scientists are applying intelligent design theory to cancer research," said Discovery Institute President, Bruce Chapman. "Who knows what new avenues of research and experimentation this could open up. I think you will see more and more scientists applying intelligent design theory to their research in coming years."

Intelligent design is an inference from scientific evidence. It maintains that certain features of the natural world--from miniature machines and digital information found in living cells, to the fine-tuning of physical constants--are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.

Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture was founded in part to help support the work of scientists researching the emerging theory of intelligent design. The Center's website is at http://www.discovery.org/csc/.

Dr. Jonathan Wells earned two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, taught biology at California State University in Hayward, and worked as the supervisor of a medical laboratory. He has published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher. He is the author of "Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong" (Regnery Publishing, 2000).

Wells' article is available from the journal's publisher in Italy: http://www.tilgher.it/(m0h1zb55der2y545b3unsq55)/index.aspx?lang=&tpr=4

Rivista di Biologia's editor is Giuseppe Sermonti, a known Italian anti-darwinist of the structuralist persuasion. He allows all sort of crap to be published there.

To give you an idea, our own JA Davison is a regular contributor, YEC Jerry Bergman has published there several times, and I think Rivista also has the distinct honor of being the last mainstream science journal to have published a paper from Jacques Benveniste, right before he died last year. In it, Benveniste claimed that the explanation for "water memory" and his own unique ability to send prescription medications over a phone line (you read right, he was not claiming to send medication prescriptions over the phone, but the actual medication's active principle) was - what else? - that last refuge of every self-respecting quack: quantum electrodynamics.

Another Biology Journal Publishes Article Applying Intelligent Design Theory to Scientific Research

Dr. Jonathan Wells earned two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley,

ouch. it always bothers me when i see such idiocy arising from my alma mater. I used to have quite a few MCB friends when i was a graduate student there, and none of them were creationists.

It's also worth noting that Rivista di Biologia also publishes from the likes of Mae Won Ho, who tries to claim that viruses like AIDs appeared from genetic engineering. Although I'm not sure if her and other cranks still maintain that AIDs was the result of CIA projects to bring down the 3rd world (keep it in permanent poverty).

It's also worth noting that Rivista di Biologia also publishes from the likes of Mae Won Ho, who tries to claim that viruses like AIDs appeared from genetic engineering

Yes, that would be one idea and it would in fact prove that ID has some sort of scientific worth. But they aren't interested in doing anything scientifically worth-while instead of peddling disguised creationism.

PaulP, that seems like an excellent test case.

If HIV was intelligently designed by humans, then they ought to be able to detect it - especially since they base their analogising on human designs. If HIV was instead intelligently designed by one or more sky-fairies, then they should be able to detect that (their main claim which they have so far failed to support). If they can't tell the difference between the CIA (for example) and their sky-fairy, then they are in even more theological difficulty than before. Otherwise they should be forced to concede:
(a) Their ideas/methods are vacuous.
(b) HIV (and a bunch of other stuff) evolved.

Excerpts from Wells' abstract:

"Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?
Abstract. . . . In the hypothesis proposed here a polar ejection
force is generated by centrioles, which are found in animals but not in
higher plants. . . . Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles
of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes
that they are holistically designed to be turbines. Orthogonally oriented
centriolar turbines could generate oscillations in spindle microtubules that
resemble the motion produced by a laboratory vortexer. The result would be
a microtubule-mediated ejection force tending to move chromosomes away
from the spindle axis and the poles. A rise in intracellular calcium at the
onset of anaphase could regulate the polar ejection force by shutting down
the centriolar turbines, but defective regulation could result in an excessive
force that contributes to the chromosomal instability characteristic of most
cancer cells."

Par for the id/creationist course, Wells claims that complexity requires design. He
posits no testable hypothesis that would allow one to distinguish between design
of centrioles and evolution of centrioles. He describes no actual research he or his
colleagues performed in the field or in the lab that would support his conjecture. He
simply describes a complex system, claims naturalistic explanations are inadequate to
explain that complexity, and suggests that only an intelligent designer is left to
account for the structure.

Congratulations to our own Dr. John Davison, whose 'Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis' appeared in the same volume of Rivisti di Biologia. There was also a fascinatinf piece titled, 'Darwinian Criminality Theory: A Tragic Chapter in History'. I haven't read it yet but, Oh, my!
his colleagues or him self in the lab or in the field.

Please go to, http://www.tilgher.it/chrCorrelati/upload/doc/Abs_Bergman.pdf
to read the abstract of the 'Darwinian Criminality Theory:...' I referred to
in my previous post. It will make your day.

By the way, sorry about the extra verbiage in the other post. Self-editing
is not my strong point.

The Adams quote is nothing to do with "Privileged Planet". To use it in relation to the book simply shows you haven't the first idea what's in it.

The Adams quote is nothing to do with “Privileged Planet”. To use it in relation to the book simply shows you haven’t the first idea what’s in it.

The Adams quote is nothing to do with "Privileged Planet". To use it in relation to the book simply shows you haven't the first idea what's in it.

— Creationist Troll

Yes. And seen the film. And they are right, and you are simple. :-P

Another quote from DNA:

"There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for evenhandedness at all."

Unfortunately, he had only spoke to biologists who - like the present company - were already convinced that there was no God, and would interpret everything they saw in the light of that presupposition. Another quote - talking about his vague atheism: "Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology ... particularly ... Richard Dawkins ... and suddenly it all fell into place."

He apparently knew nothing about cosmic fine-tuning, nor about the fact that fine-tuning is apparently so closely linked with our ability to observe the universe.

You can glibly regard this as an anthropic coincidence, if you like, but if you toss a coin 1000 times and it comes up heads every time, that isn't a coincidence. You look for a better explanation.

You can glibly regard this as an anthropic coincidence, if you like, but if you toss a coin 1000 times and it comes up heads every time, that isn't a coincidence. You look for a better explanation.

Yes. And seen the film. And they are right, and you are simple. :-P

Another quote from DNA:

"There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for evenhandedness at all."

Unfortunately, he had only spoken to biologists who - like the present company - were already convinced that there was no God, and would interpret everything they saw in the light of that presupposition. Another quote - talking about his vague atheism: "Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology ... particularly ... Richard Dawkins ... and suddenly it all fell into place."

He apparently knew nothing about cosmic fine-tuning, nor about the fact that fine-tuning is apparently so closely linked with our ability to observe the universe.

You can glibly regard this as an anthropic coincidence, if you like, but if you toss a coin 1000 times and it comes up heads every time, that isn't a coincidence. You look for a better explanation.

(Hmm. I can just tell that the other hit of "Post" really did work, and the copy of this is lurking around the IP-aether somewhere. Oh, well, I'm sure there's an editor out there somewhere)

Yes. And seen the film. And they are right, and you are simple. :-P

Another quote from DNA:

"There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for evenhandedness at all."

Unfortunately, he had only spoke to biologists who - like the present company - were already convinced that there was no God, and would interpret everything they saw in the light of that presupposition. Another quote - talking about his vague atheism: "Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology ... particularly ... Richard Dawkins ... and suddenly it all fell into place."

He apparently knew nothing about cosmic fine-tuning, nor about the fact that fine-tuning is apparently so closely linked with our ability to observe the universe.

You can glibly regard this as an anthropic coincidence, if you like, but if you toss a coin 1000 times and it comes up heads every time, that isn't a coincidence. You look for a better explanation.

Although the acta's triple post is porbably an error, it does graphically demonstrate the creationists' general means of "argument"....

Unfortunately, he had only spoke to biologists... He apparently knew nothing about cosmic fine-tuning,

neo-anti-luddite: Not really. It just graphically demonstrates evolutionists addressing technical issues with inadequate solutions. I haven't had that problem on any other bulletin board or blogsite I have used.

Flint: On my blogsite (trackback link which also didn't work below - this time because the dot html at the end of the permanent URL is considered to be questionable content by the pandasthumb server [hello??!] - should have been http://exilefromgroggs.blogspot.com/2005/06/douglas-adams-and-weak-anthropic dot html), I have tried to explain that it isn't simply a case of a puddle like what DNA says. Because the imagery of the metaphor is of just another puddle after a rainy night. But the puddle is remarkable, because there are no other puddles. And in fact, there are no other places where the puddles could form. And there was no rain.

DNA's failure to understand the significance of our cosmic location is reflected in his description of us as an "insignificant" planet orbiting a yellow star etc.... reminiscent of Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot". This completely fails to grasp just how unusual our cosmic environment is.

steve: The usual confusing of ID with creationism, and veiled slurs against the science credentials of ID proponents - yawn yawn. I've long past the point on PT where I would consider it even worthwhile rising to this. However, FWIW, I have still to see a convincing case made that either Behe or Dembski are fundamentally wrong. All I have seen is a range of challenges over trivia, ad hominem arguments and quote mining, as though this discredits everything they say. But in any case, that wasn't what I was getting at. Dawkins is a very persuasive communicator - you'd be pushed not to be convinced by him even starting with an open mind, and DNA was already pretty skeptical about the idea of a God before he read "The Blind Watchmaker". But there are lot more physicists/astronomers/cosmologists who are open to the possibility of external agency than biologists.

You look for a better explanation

The usual confusing of ID with creationism

But there are lot more physicists/astronomers/cosmologists who are open to the possibility of external agency than biologists.

"some people might think that the designer was a space alien" -- Michael Behe

"It could be space aliens. There are many possibilities." -- William Dembski

However, FWIW, I have still to see a convincing case made that either Behe or Dembski are fundamentally wrong.

— Troll

But there are lot more physicists/astronomers/cosmologists who are open to the possibility of external agency than biologists.

Sleeve: So 20-40% of physicists are theist? That sounds like quite a lot, to me - more than I thought - and would be consistent with my statement. Hardly a small dissenting minority - 22% of the electorate in the UK returned an overall majority in parliament. Do you have the percentage for biologists, for comparison?

Blink: Actually, it was 5% of an eye - and the argument still hasn't been refuted (yeah, 6% would be better - but only if it worked). What is the theory of ID? It is, in short, that naturalistic mechanisms aren't sufficient to explain life, the universe and everything. IC, CSI and PP are just different demonstrations of this.

Incidentally, why is PT so het up about a book that is nothing to do with evolution? Here is your mission statement: "The Panda's Thumb is the virtual pub of the University of Ediacara. The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation." What does this have to do with an analysis of cosmic fine tuning?

Why oh why why why don't IDers ever answer my simple questions to them?

...I have tried to explain that it isn't simply a case of a puddle like what DNA says. Because the imagery of the metaphor is of just another puddle after a rainy night. But the puddle is remarkable, because there are no other puddles. And in fact, there are no other places where the puddles could form. And there was no rain.

— aCT,a

Sleeve: So 20-40% of physicists are theist? That sounds like quite a lot, to me - more than I thought - and would be consistent with my statement. Hardly a small dissenting minority - 22% of the electorate in the UK returned an overall majority in parliament. Do you have the percentage for biologists, for comparison?

Blink: Actually, it was 5% of an eye - and the argument still hasn't been refuted (yeah, 6% would be better - but only if it worked).

What is the theory of ID? It is, in short, that naturalistic mechanisms aren't sufficient to explain life, the universe and everything. IC, CSI and PP are just different demonstrations of this.

Incidentally, why is PT so het up about a book that is nothing to do with evolution? Here is your mission statement: "The Panda's Thumb is the virtual pub of the University of Ediacara. The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation." What does this have to do with an analysis of cosmic fine tuning?

This completely fails to grasp just how unusual our cosmic environment is.

— aCTa

What is the theory of ID? It is, in short, that naturalistic mechanisms aren't sufficient to explain life, the universe and everything.

What is the theory of ID? It is, in short, that naturalistic mechanisms aren't sufficient to explain life

It is, in short, that naturalistic mechanisms aren't sufficient to explain life

What is the theory of ID? It is, in short, that naturalistic mechanisms aren't sufficient to explain life

according to behe it is only about natural selection being unable to explain particular aspects of life. It's a typical argument from ignorance and in case of behe a meaningless strawman.

Mr. Behe, may I get your comment or opinion on the theistic verses atheistic nature of intelligent design theory? It seems to me that ID proposes that all life requires an intelligence to design it. So, if God did not design life on Earth, then some other intelligent creatures (space aliens presumably) must have. These creatures would then require an intelligence to their design, and so on for as many level of regression as one my choose to suggest. Since life could not have existed at the first instant of the Big Bang, there must be a terminal point to this regression, requiring that the original intelligent designer must have been God. Thus, ID theory is inherently theistic. Or would you and other ID proponents suggest that only life on Earth would require an intelligent designer, but life elsewhere would not require an intelligent designer? Would you suggest that a Godless abiogenesis could occur elsewhere giving rise to extraterrestrial intelligence, which in turn designed life on Earth, thus making ID theory potentially atheistic? Neil Habermehl

Hi, Mr. Habermehl. Yes, perhaps life elsewhere doesn't require irreducibly complex structures. So maybe it arose naturally by chance and then designed us, as I speculated in Darwin's Black Box ("Aliens and Time Travelers", pp. 248-250). I don't think that's the case, but it isn't logically impossible. Best wishes. Mike Behe

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationevolutiondebate/message/37191

How the evolutionists refused to be taken in.

The dwarfs had a very odd look. They weren't strolling about or enjoying themselves (although the cords with which they had been tied seemed to have vanished) nor were they lying down and having a rest. They were sitting very close together in a little circle facing one another. They never looked round or took any notice of the humans till Lucy and Tirian were almost near enough to touch them. The the dwarfs all cocked their heads as if they couldn't see anyone but were listening hard and trying to guess by the sound what was happening.

"Look out!" said one of them in a surly voice. "Mind where you're going. Don't walk into our faces!"

"All right!" said Eustace indignantly. "We're not blind. We've got eyes in our heads."

"They must be darn good ones if you can see in here," said the same dwarf whose name was Diggle. ...

"Are you blind?" said Tirian.

"Ain't we all blind in the dark!" said Diggle.

"But it isn't dark, you poor stupid dwarfs," said Lucy. "Can't you see? Look up! Look round! Can't you see the sky and the trees and the flowers? Can't you see me?"

"How in the name of all Humbug can I see what ain't there? And how can I see you any more than you can see me in this pitch darkness?"

"But I can see you," said Lucy. "I'll prove I can see you. You've got a pipe in your mouth."

"Anyone that knows the smell of baccy could tell that," said Diggle. ... "Who are you anyway?"

"Earth-man," said Tirian, "she is the Queen Lucy, sent hither by Aslan out of the deep past."

"Well if that doesn't beat everything!" exclaimed Diggle. "How can you go on talking all that rot? Your wonderful lion didn't come and help you, did he? Thought not. And now -- even now -- when you've been beaten and shoved into this black hole, just the same as the rest of us, you're still at your old game. Starting a new lie! Trying to make us believe we're none of us shut up, and it ain't dark, and heaven knows what. ... Well, at any rate there's no humbug here. We haven't let anyone take us in. The dwarfs are for the dwarfs."

"You see," said Aslan. "They will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out."

From "The Last Battle", C.S.Lewis

Got a bit too much time on your hands aCTa?

ACT - your remarks appear to be informed by misconceptions . . . . Consider ... The percentage for scientists in general is around 40% - the percentage among biologists is much lower - less than 5%, I believe. But the actual numbers are irrelevant: the question is whether these 'theist' scientists use 'theistic explanations' in their work. And THAT percentage is vanishingly small.

— Rilke's Granddaughter

But there are lot more physicists/astronomers/cosmologists who are open to the possibility of external agency than biologists.

— aCTa

You see, fairy tales is all the creationists have to offer ... and not even new fairy tales at that - just stolen ones, mangled a bit. How about a line from Aladdin instead: "New lies for old. Get your new religious enlightenment here." - except they never had a magic lamp of enlightenment in the first place ... just those lies of theirs.

If ignoring the possibility of the supernatural because it is unlikely in the extreme, completely unevidenced and always going to cheat means that scientific explanations are atheistic by your personal definition, then yes, all genuine scientists (atheistic or theistic) rely on atheistic explanations. If you don't label scientific explanations as inherently atheistic, then obviously not. Most creationists do label natural explanations this way however - which is why creationists are so anti-science, including biology.

No - not enough. That's why I haven't responded to everybody individually.

What, precisely, about "evolution" is any more "materialistic" than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine. Please be as specific as possible. I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic (oops, I mean, "materialistic" and "naturalistic" ---- we don't want any judges to think ID's railing against "materialism" has any RELIGIOUS purpose, do we)? I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accifdent investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, "We can't explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit." I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that "this crash has no materialistic causes --- it must have been the Will of Allah". Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic (oops, sorry, I meant to say "materialistic" and "naturalistic" --- we don't want any judges to know that it is "atheism" we are actually waging a religious crusade against, do we)? How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his "materialistic biases" and to investigate possible "supernatural" or "non-materialistic" causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs? Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation? Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, "renewing our culture" . . . . . ?

Um, how many, again, of the 23 champions of ID selected to testify in Kansas, were YECs and denied the common ancestry of humans and apes . . . .? Can you name just ONE argument used by IDers today that wasn't already used twenty years ago by creation "scientists"? Just one? ONE????

What is the "better explanation" that ID, uh, "theory" offers. What the heck IS this scientific theory of ID that I keep hearing so much about. Why won't any IDer every produce it for me. Why won't any IDer ever apply it for me ---- show me what the designer does, what mechanisms it uses to do whatever the heck it does, and where we can see these mechanisms in action today. For the past ten years, every time I've asked any IDer to simply tell me what the scientific theory of ID is, the only "answers" I ever get are various versions of (1) "Jesus saves!!!!" or (2) "I don't have to tell you". Why is that?

Sir_Toejam wrote:

"the only other places where religion essentially trumps science are in the middle east and South Africa"

I know there was a bit of discussion about this, but I'd just like to confirm that neither Evolution nor creationism were taught as science when I was at school in SA, and there was no official policy endorsing either.

Biolgy is taught in a very rote way. Things like the circulatory and digestive systems for instance. Just know the names of everything is about 60-75% of the work, on stadard grade at least.

My one Biology teacher was also the Bible Education teacher(standard fare when I was at school, not sure about these days) but he did not feed us anything on creationism, though there were some off-hand debates in which he expressed some rather interesting opinions. I remembering him once telling us to read "Bone of Contention" (which was in the school library, I think) after one of the off-hand discussions.

He mentioned something about dinosaurs' body mass and something to with respiration, but I can't recall exactly what he was alluding to. When somebody questioned him abou dinosaurs he told us something like they were part of a previous creation which had died-out and were therefore not saved on the ark. We also had guy who came to talk to us in bible education who I would now call a OEC/theastic evolutionist. His basic premise was that the relativety could explain how the 6-day creation took 4 billion years.

I learnt about Evolution from watching documentaries on state-run television and books that were freely available. It's true that the Afrikaans population is somewhat conservative, but they display very little of the Evolution/creationism-related fanfare I've read about in the US.

I do know that there is currently some debate now about inculding Evolution in the Sa schools curriculum.

In conclusion, SA is certainly nothing like I've heard of what goes on in Turkey for instance. The country has some backwards elements, but is generally regarded as advanced in many scientific fields (we even had a space program at one stage, I've seen the launch platforms). Medicine, arms and conservation are just a few areas I can think of off the top of my head. Bet you didn't know they made Hum-vees in SA? (for export at least).

Flank: "Can you name just one?" No, probably not. However, can you name just one of the objections from ID that has been satisfactorily answered? If you expect answers to your questions when you keep on asking them, don't you think that might be the basis upon which non-believers in darwinism operate as well?

"What precisely about evolution ... is more materialistic?" The fact that it allows one to become an "intellectually fulfilled atheist". You can believe in a philosophically "closed" or "open" system and this won't have an effect on how the weather works (except on the very unusual occasions that God intervenes), on whether and how people get diseases (except on the very unusual [and generally difficult to verify] occasions that healings occur), and on how air crashes happened. However, the whole point about evolution is that it is designed to provide a mechanism to explain how life came about without having an "open" system. Yes, I know there are theistic evolutionists - in the weak sense, this basically means "evolution happened, but I still want to believe in God." Personally, I agree with those who say that this "liberal" analysis is scientifically not even wrong. A god who is incapable of acting within creation is not a god at all, it might as well be a figment of somebody's imagination.

How many of the 23 were YEC's? Dunno - you tell me. What does that have to do with the value of x?

Flank: "Can you name just one?" No, probably not

However, can you name just one of the objections from ID that has been satisfactorily answered?

How many of the 23 were YEC's? Dunno - you tell me. What does that have to do with the value of x?

The usual confusing of ID with creationism

What is the "better explanation" that ID, uh, "theory" offers. What the heck IS this scientific theory of ID that I keep hearing so much about. Why won't any IDer every produce it for me. Why won't any IDer ever apply it for me ---- show me what the designer does, what mechanisms it uses to do whatever the heck it does, and where we can see these mechanisms in action today. For the past ten years, every time I've asked any IDer to simply tell me what the scientific theory of ID is, the only "answers" I ever get are various versions of (1) "Jesus saves!!!!" or (2) "I don't have to tell you". Why is that?

Yes, I know there are theistic evolutionists - in the weak sense, this basically means "evolution happened, but I still want to believe in God." Personally, I agree with those who say that this "liberal" analysis is scientifically not even wrong. A god who is incapable of acting within creation is not a god at all, it might as well be a figment of somebody's imagination.

Flank: FYI evolution is just as much a religious/philosophical opinion as ID or creationism. Because it is fundamentally a denial that there could be a God. That is a religious statement. Dennett quoting Sterelny: "I do think this objection [that current explanations of evolution of stick insects] is something of a quibble because essentially I agree that natural selection is the only possible explanation of complex adaptation. So something like Dawkins' stories have got to be right." O'Leary's commentary: "Essentially, Dennett is saying that we must accept the Darwinist explanation for the evolution of a stick insect not because it is an especially good explanation, but we must consider other explanations impossible."

She goes on: "In the same way, Franklin Harold ... admits that Darwinism is not producing answers, but nonetheless argues: 'We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.' [They are saying, in effect] We must soldier on with the improbable in order to protect Darwinism."

Can't you see what's happening here? Regardless of where the evidence leads (and THAT is what ID is seeking to show: it has no prior to commitment to any religious revelation), REGARDLESS of that, there MUST be a darwinian explanation. Remember that the initial challenges to evolution came from within the evolutionary community. Denton is an agnostic. Most of the ID community don't believe in a young earth.

So whose operating on the basis of a faith position? The ID'ers who are looking at the evidence? Or the darwinists who insist that, regardless of the evidence, darwinism must be right?

But I know it's a waste of time telling you all this. Because you are just like those dwarfs sitting in a small circle in the darkness, looking at each other. Nothing can make you see - you are imprisoned by your own minds. Personally, I found the passage from the Last Battle really helpful, and I am a lot more sympathetic to you poor things now I understand how much you have to lean on your faith, regardless of how shaky the stick is.

evolution is just as much a religious/philosophical opinion as ID or creationism. Because it is fundamentally a denial that there could be a God

SEF: "Rubbish" Sorry, I meant darwinism. But in any case, your answer doesn't bear any relevance on my statement that it is a religious/philosophical opinion.

"Postulating ... when trying to do science is counter-productive". Now whose talking rubbish? Or are you just completely ignorant? Or are you just spouting the nonsense you've heard people say on this website without thinking about it? This assumes a closed system, and methodological naturalist, which isn't the only way to do science. See also O'Leary "By Design or by Chance" - it didn't stop Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin or Maxwell.

naturalist => naturalism.

Science doesn't assume there is no design, only darwinism. If a system is (really) irreducibly complex, it is just as much of a science stopper to say "evolution did it somehow" as to say "God did it somehow". Also, note that your argument is reflexive. If there is design, darwinism is a science stopper. "Only research in both directions will determine which is true."

Science doesn't assume there is no design

Science doesn't assume there is no design, only darwinism. If a system is (really) irreducibly complex, it is just as much of a science stopper to say "evolution did it somehow" as to say "God did it somehow". Also, note that your argument is reflexive. If there is design, darwinism is a science stopper. "Only research in both directions will determine which is true."

"Postulating . . . when trying to do science is counter-productive".Now whose talking rubbish?

— a Creationist Troll, apparently

SEF: Sorry. I thought you would realise that I was taking the middle out for conciseness. I didn't think you were so paranoid about creationist trolls as to think I was trying to distort what you were saying, or that I didn't understand what you were saying. I thought that if you read my answer you would understand what I was getting at. I underestimated your blindness.

"However, postulating and accounting for the existence and thus potential interference of all these gods when trying to do science is counter-productive." There you go, it's all back again. Rubbish. The existence of God was assumed by scientists, including those I listed (and still is by, apparently, 40% of non-biologist scientists) without getting in the way of their ability to do science. It only affects people's ability to do darwinism.

I'll say it again. YOU ONLY NEED TO GET RID OF GOD FOR DARWINISM TO WORK, NOT FOR SCIENCE TO WORK.

PvM: Darwin proposed a theory - he didn't prove it. There is still no evidence that it works as a "theory of everything".

PaulP: Your comment is laughable. Not only is it ignorant of how science works, it is a perfect description of where darwinists go wrong. They are totally closeminded, convinced without reason that their interpretation of one religion among many is the truth no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. See? It works both ways.

aCTa:
I have shown wherwe scientists changed their minds when evidence came in. Can you show me the same for creationists?
See? It does not work both ways.

I did read your answer, aCTa. You are wrong though. The only way the statement is rubbish is with the middle removed.

Scientists did assume the existence of gods (depending on where they were) but only as part of their cultural indoctrination and not as part of or relevant to science. I would say it was very much against them that they failed to apply good standards of investigation to their gods more than they did. The only good science ever done has been by ignoring more and more the possible intervention of gods - and has tended to get the scientists into trouble with their more religiously bigoted contemporaries. Very few manage to reject the whole lot in one go. Usually just little bits of superstition get eliminated each time.

Newton is rather a good example and one I would cite myself because he did reject part of his indoctrination. He was brought up with a trinity. He rejected that view on the grounds of lack of evidence for it even when dodgy things like scriptures are counted as evidence. He was one of the earliest unitarians (hence the name uni in contrast with trinity). But he valued power more than honesty in that instance. So he kept fairly quiet about his faith to keep his position at Trinity etc. If Newton had still been alive while the rest of the intervening evidence came to light, he might well have been one of those to reject the rest of the lies about his god's properties and become one of the modern fluffy unitarians who barely remember their authoritarian christian roots.

But I know it's a waste of time telling you all this. Because you are just like those dwarfs sitting in a small circle in the darkness, looking at each other. Nothing can make you see - you are imprisoned by your own minds. Personally, I found the passage from the Last Battle really helpful, and I am a lot more sympathetic to you poor things now I understand how much you have to lean on your faith, regardless of how shaky the stick is.

— aCTa

Flank: FYI evolution is just as much a religious/philosophical opinion as ID or creationism. Because it is fundamentally a denial that there could be a God.

PaulP: Not necessarily for creationists in the public gaze. Because regardless of the repetitive, thoughtless protestations on here that creationism=ID, creationists aren't working on evidence, unlike the ID proponents, but on revelation. However, I can point to a good few people I know who started out by believing in evolution but were convinced on the basis of the evidence to abandon that belief.

However, some of the people in ID were taught evolution as they grew up, and only came to see that darwinism didn't work as they started to look at the evidence for themselves. In fact, they believed in darwinism ... now how did you put it? ... "as part of their cultural indoctrination and not as part of or relevant to science. I would say it was very much against them that they failed to apply good standards of investigation to their gods more than they did."

creationists aren't working on evidence, unlike the ID proponents, but on revelation

I can point to a good few people I know who started out by believing in evolution but were convinced on the basis of the evidence

aCTA:
Your last post makes no sense.
1) Scientists do not "believe in " Darwinism, they accept it pro tem, like all scientific theories.
2) I did not post the quote you cited. That's a small issue because despite your repeated statments, no scientific theory is treated as a "god" by scientists.
3) Creationism is not ID but ID is (a form of) creationism.
4) ID is a failed attempt to produce a scientific theory that shows the Judeo-Christian God intervening in the evolution of life forms on this planet. It failed on purely scientific grounds, using the same criteria that all scientific theories must be judged by. Your claim that IDers are working on evidence not revelation misses the rather basic point that they start with their own revelation and then try to justify it scientifically. The problem is that nothing at all will convince them of the incorrectness of that revelation.

Flank: "Uh, then why are so many evolutionary biologists, Christians."

Oh, gee, sorry. I thought that we were arguing in this thread that so few evolutionary biologists were Christians? Which way do you want it? You can't have it both ways. Fish or cut bait.

Flank: "And why do the vast majority of Christians worldwide accept all of evolution and think creationists are nutters who do tremendous harm to Christianity by making it look silly, stupid, medieval, backwards and pig-ignorant?"

The vast majority of Christians worldwide, eh? Know them and their opinions, do you? The 50 million or so in China? It was a professor from China who was surprised that in the US you could criticise the government, but couldn't criticise Darwin.

And do they accept all of evolution? I don't think so. Opinion surveys in the US show that a majority of people believe in a young earth. However, if lots of people do believe in darwinism, it's probably something to do with the fact that it's the only thing that's taught, and evidence that might challenge it is airbrushed out. By organisations like NCSE, with its stupid statements about pictures of peppered moths being "historical reenactments".

And why do you continue to obfuscate the argument by talking about reaction to Young Earth creationists, but using a term that you will then blithely apply to both OEC's and ID's? You don't need to answer that, I will interpret your right to withhold an answer under the fifth amendment appropriately.

What is the theory of ID? Well, according to ID people, it isn't a "scientific theory" at the moment, so much as a proposition. And the proposition is that evolutionary mechanisms are not sufficient to explain the existence of life.

I've told you why "atheism is acceptable in some areas and not in others". However, let me try again. A good atheist weather forecaster doesn't say, "and the fact that I can predict what the weather will be like in 24 hours demonstrates that there is no need for a God." A good darwinist biologist says ... well, of course, he can't predict anything, because darwinism is such a plastic theory ... but he does say, "because I have this mechanism, I don't need a designer."

Why should anybody pay any attentions to my opinions? No reason at all. And no, my opinions and interpretations aren't infallible. I don't give a hoot what you think of me or my opinions. I only spend time here because I'm sorry for you all. However, if there actually is a God, then it might be important to find out what his (or her) opinions are.

PaulP: In what sense is ID a form of creationism?

You're right about the quote - but I was using "you" in the plural; I am trying to respond to (at least) three people at once. As to people's religious attitude to darwinism, I beg to differ. Unfortunately, you (pl) are too captive by its doctrines to be in a good position to make an objective judgement about your (pl) behaviour.

PaulP: "Pro Tem" - tell me, what evidence would convince you that darwinism was wrong? What would falsify it? For Darwin, it was if it were possible to show that any organ could not arise through a gradual process - something that irreducible complexity should demonstrate. Do you believe that it is possible to show that something could be irreducibly complex? Or do you believe that, even though we have no actual mechanism to show how (eg) the genetic code came about, only some vague stories, with no mathematical assessment of their possible validity, historical justification or other basis, there must be a darwinian explanation? If the latter, then I repeat the question, what would falsify darwinism for you?

Dawkins said that, if he saw the arm of a statue of Mary suddenly move, he (in effect) wouldn't believe it was supernatural. If you think this way, then you simply aren't going to accept the possibility that there might need to be a supernatural explanation for anything - so you have to look for a natural explanation, regardless of how unfeasible it is. Are you in that position? If so, and if you claim that you only hold darwinism as "a scientific theory pro tem", then what could possibly make you change your mind? You don't think you are adhering to this theory religiously - but I would say from your commitment to it, this is a religious/philosophical position, not a scientific one.

At Hillsdale, after his public lecture, I challenged Behe in a small-group discussion to give us a positive statement of exactly how the "Intelligent Designer" creates bacterial flagella. As usual, he was evasive. But I didn't let him get away. And finally, he answered: "In a puff of smoke!" A physicist in our group asked, "Do you mean that the Intelligent Designer suspends the laws of physics through working a miracle?" And Behe answered: "Yes."

In what sense is ID a form of creationism?

what evidence would convince you that darwinism was wrong?

Dawkins said that, if he saw the arm of a statue of Mary suddenly move, he (in effect) wouldn't believe it was supernatural.

PaulP: That isn't an answer. You need to define ID, and then define creationism, and then show how ID is a subset of creationism.

Steve: Behe's opinion as to how ID happened is not the same as ID. The opinion Behe expressed there may have been a creationist opinion (albeit not necessarily a YEC opinion), but that doesn't mean that it is the only possible creationist opinion, or only possible ID opinion. In fact, the conclusion I would draw from that is the other way round - creationism is a special case of ID. Bear in mind that dissent from darwinism isn't confined to creationists and proponents of ID. If you want to show that ID is creationism, you have to do what I told PaulP just now - tell me what ID is, and what creationism is, and then show that one is a subset of the other.

aCTa wants me to show that ID is a form of creationism:
From the home page of the ID movement, http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection".

Intelligent cause = creator

Unfortunately, you (pl) are too captive by its doctrines to be in a good position to make an objective judgement about your (pl) behaviour.

Behe says god did it. Dembski says all scientific theories have to include jesus. Until you can provide us some reason to think otherwise, we will continue to see ID for what it is--Creationism with the religious parts intentionally obscured.

Of course, what I'm discussing is the political/social movement known as ID. there is no scientific theory called ID. It just dresses in scientific jargon, kind of like Eddie Izzard wears high heels.

I thought that we were arguing in this thread that so few evolutionary biologists were Christians?

A good atheist weather forecaster doesn't say, "and the fact that I can predict what the weather will be like in 24 hours demonstrates that there is no need for a God." A good darwinist biologist says . . . well, of course, he can't predict anything, because darwinism is such a plastic theory . . . but he does say, "because I have this mechanism, I don't need a designer."

PaulP: OK. So you are using "creationism" in the sense of saying that the universe has an intelligent cause. You are not using it in the sense of saying that the first three chapters of Genesis are a scientific description of how the universe came about, which is more widely considered to be what "creationism" is. You are also not using it in the sense of saying that the universe is therefore less than 10000 years old, which is what Young Earth Creationism is - and is generally considered to be the least scientific, most revelation based version of creationism. You are also not using it in the sense that most creationists would recognise it. In fact, the way you are using it is so far removed from the conventional understanding of the word, that you really need a different, more descriptive term. Which, I guess, is why they came up with "Intelligent Design".

For the sake of clarity in argument (which in actual fact most darwinists are quite happy to obscure) it would be helpful to make those things clear.

What is the theory of ID? Well, according to ID people, it isn't a "scientific theory" at the moment, so much as a proposition. And the proposition is that evolutionary mechanisms are not sufficient to explain the existence of life.

— aCTa

Sleeve: So 20-40% of physicists are theist? That sounds like quite a lot, to me - more than I thought - and would be consistent with my statement. Hardly a small dissenting minority - 22% of the electorate in the UK returned an overall majority in parliament. Do you have the percentage for biologists, for comparison? The percentage for scientists in general is around 40% - the percentage among biologists is much lower - less than 5%, I believe.

Uh, then why are so many evolutionary biologists, Christians.

Dembski says all scientific theories have to include jesus

The world is a mirror representing the divine life . . . Intelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

Why should anybody pay any attentions to my opinions? No reason at all. And no, my opinions and interpretations aren't infallible. I don't give a hoot what you think of me or my opinions. I only spend time here because I'm sorry for you all. However, if there actually is a God, then it might be important to find out what his (or her) opinions are.

— aCTa

...the puddle is remarkable, because there are no other puddles. And in fact, there are no other places where the puddles could form.

— aCTa

The percentage for scientists in general is around 40% - the percentage among biologists is much lower - less than 5%, I believe.

— Rilke's granddaughter

PvM: Darwin proposed a theory - he didn't prove it. There is still no evidence that it works as a "theory of everything".

Perhaps you subscribe to the Gouldian NOMA perspective on science and religion? That religion can say whatever it likes as long as it makes no truth claims, or has no bearing on anything other than people's private opinions? But if that's what religion is like, then it could be done away with entirely - it's only left as a post-modern concession to try and avoid alienating everybody who might believe in something.

Vague memory of Larson and Witham, btw, is where I got my number, though it was a little high.

Of course, what I'm discussing is the political/social movement known as ID. there is no scientific theory called ID. It just dresses in scientific jargon, kind of like Eddie Izzard wears high heels.

YOU ONLY NEED TO GET RID OF GOD FOR DARWINISM TO WORK, NOT FOR SCIENCE TO WORK

But I know it's a waste of time telling you all this. Because you are just like those dwarfs sitting in a small circle in the darkness, looking at each other. Nothing can make you see - you are imprisoned by your own minds. Personally, I found the passage from the Last Battle really helpful, and I am a lot more sympathetic to you poor things now I understand how much you have to lean on your faith, regardless of how shaky the stick is.

"What about the scientists who, despite your 'edicts', operate on the assumption that Darwin was right?" In what sense is this the real question? What about them? Actually, for the most part, whether Darwin was right or wrong is completely irrelevant - because darwinism has hardly any impact on science. What I am taking issue with is the impact it has on "religion".

The reference to dwarfs was a reference back to an earlier post (#33777). You're right it isn't poetry - it's a children's story that is a useful if obvious metaphor.

I am not here to evangelise. If I tried, the post would be deleted or bathroom-walled before I refreshed the page.

I don't make converts to Jesus. That's God's job. I'm just trying to show you that darwinism doesn't work. But if there is a designer, and you do end up giving an account to it of your life, you won't be able to say that nobody told you. Of course, if there isn't one, I'll look stupid. But I'll be dead, so it won't matter.

Well, who would have guessed: today's menu includes frozen Pascal's Wager, microwaved. Mmmmmm... tasty!

But if there is a designer, and you do end up giving an account to it of your life, you won't be able to say that nobody told you.

— CTa

What I am taking issue with is the impact it (darwinism) has on "religion".

— aCTa

But if there is a designer, and you do end up giving an account to it of your life...

— a Creationist Troll, apparently

The reference to dwarfs was a reference back to an earlier post (#33777). You're right it isn't poetry - it's a children's story that is a useful if obvious metaphor.

Why should anyone take your opinions about evolution more seriously than, say, those of people who actually do work in the field?  You claim that "darwinism" is anti-religion; evolutionary biologists, many members of the clergy, and bunches of regular citizens, all from many different countries, don't agree.  Furthermore, you keep saying things that are quite blatantly false, and yet you seem to keep expecting us to take you seriously.  Why do you think you have any credibility on this subject?  Are you insane?

What I am taking issue with is the impact it (darwinism) has on "religion".

"What about the scientists who, despite your 'edicts', operate on the assumption that Darwin was right?" In what sense is this the real question? What about them?

YOU ONLY NEED TO GET RID OF GOD FOR DARWINISM TO WORK

YOU ONLY NEED TO GET RID OF GOD FOR DARWINISM TO WORK, NOT FOR SCIENCE TO WORK