Los Alamos: Science and Intelligent Design to be discussed Tuesday

Posted 11 October 2007 by PvM

The Los Alamos Monitor announces a presentation starting at 7PM in the Fuller Lodge, Los Alamos. The presentation will address intelligent design and the scientific method and has been sponsored by the New Mexico Academy of Science and the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education.

Efforts exist to make the scientific method evolve into something different, specifically in regards to the theory of evolution. During a presentation at 7 p.m. Tuesday in Fuller Lodge, Francis Slakey of Georgetown University will work to spread awareness about these efforts. The presentation is free to the public and the New Mexico Academy of Science and the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education are sponsoring the lecture. Slakey, in his presentation, will address Intelligent Design and its effect on the scientific method. Alan Hurd, director of the Lujan Neutron Scattering Center at Los Alamos National Laboratory, explained the scientific method involves creating a hypothesis and testing it. If something cannot be verified, then it is not covered by the scientific method, he said. Intelligent Design was created to circumvent the scientific method in order to resolve questions about humans' origins. If evolution is happening, Intelligent Design suggests that it is being guided by a supernatural intelligence.

In a press release, Slakey states, "Science is rarely a talent of kings and governments. When King Solomon built his temple, he declared that pi equals three. Three thousand years later, the Kansas Board of Education eliminated all reference to the Big Bang from the state's curriculum. And over the past five years more than 20 states have developed legislation that would dilute the teaching of science and promote intelligent design in public schools. This talk will examine the rise of the Intelligent Design movement and describe the response of a coalition of science societies." Hurd recommended that parents who have children enrolled in school should attend the presentation because Intelligent Design could affect the curriculum that students are taught. Additionally, he said people who on principle are concerned about "not so scientific" explanations of the universe attend the lecture. After the talk, coffee and cookies will be served and participants can meet with Slakey. Slakey will also bring his lecture to LANL at 10 a.m. Wednesday at the Lujan Center. Slakey holds an endowed position at Georgetown University where he is the Upjohn Lecturer in physics and biology and the co-director of the Program on Science in the Public Interest. He is also the Associate Director of Public Affairs for the American Physical Society (APS), the leading membership organization of physicists from national laboratories, universities and industry. He oversees all legislative affairs for the APS, specializing in the areas of defense and nuclear policy. Slakey's technical publications have received more than 400 citations. He has also written widely on science policy issues, publishing more than 50 articles for the popular press including The New York Times, Washington Post and Scientific American. He has served in advisory positions for a diverse set of organizations including the Council on Foreign Relations, the National Geographic and the Creative Coalition Society - the political advocacy organization of the entertainment industry. He is a Fellow of the APS, a MacArthur Scholar and a Lemelson Research Associate of the Smithsonian Institution. Slakey became the 28th American to summit Mt. Everest in an unguided expedition that was the subject of the movie "Beyond the Summit," narrated by Sharon Stone. After a climb in the jungles of Indonesia, he completed his ascents of the highest mountain on every continent. In recognition, he carried the Olympic torch from the steps of the U.S. Capitol as part of the 2002 Olympic Games.

48 Comments

Mats · 12 October 2007

Will there be any ID scientist to correctly portray ID, or,as usual, the Darwinist will "present" (= distort) the ID side of the "presentation" ?

Efforts exist to make the scientific method evolve into something different, specifically in regards to the theory of evolution.

Actually, what we would like is for Darwinism to start being subject to the scientific method. The scientific method is fine as it is.

Intelligent Design was created to circumvent the scientific method in order to resolve questions about humans’ origins.

hmmmm. No. ID doesn't "circumvent" the scientific method. ID circumvent the unscientific philosophical limits put on science by materialists.

And over the past five years more than 20 states have developed legislation that would dilute the teaching of science and promote intelligent design in public schools.

Dilute the teaching of science, or would try to present Darwinism as a scientific theory, and not as a religious dogma?

ben · 12 October 2007

Will there be any ID scientist to correctly portray ID

How about you "portray" it, right here, right now. What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, Mats? Why is that such a hard question for you and every other purveyor of IDiocy? If your idea is so scientific, why can't you or anyone else ever state it in scientific terms? You've wasted probably tens of thousands of words here, whining about how science won't take your superstitious ideas seriously, yet you refuse to tell us what those ideas actually are. Either your ID theory doesn't exist, in which case you're a liar, or you don't think it can stand up to scrutiny, so you're a coward. Which is it, Mats? I'm guessing both.

ID circumvent the unscientific philosophical limits put on science by materialists.

Again, ignorant troll, let's have it. You talk about the problems with "materialistic" science. Tell us how non-materialist science would work, Mats. We're all ears. Or are you just here for yet another drive-by, where you provide no information and answer no questions? Is that how your "science" works, Mats? Unsupported assertions, repeated over and over? A liar and a coward.

the pro from dover · 12 October 2007

perhaps I can help Mats articulate his "theory." At an unknowable time in the past and using an incomprehensible power that leaves no discernable trace an unknown entity or entities did everything for no apparrent purpose. Not exactly a useful research tool.

Nigel D · 12 October 2007

Will there be any ID scientist to correctly portray ID, or,as usual, the Darwinist will “present” (= distort) the ID side of the “presentation” ?
— Mats

Irrelevant, Mats. ID is utterly empty. It contains nothing. Therefore, it is only ever misrepresented by its proponents, when they claim that it has some value in science. If you disagree with me, all you have to do is tell us exactly what the scientific theory of ID is. That would prove me wrong. What could be simpler?

Actually, what we would like is for Darwinism to start being subject to the scientific method.
— Mats

You know this to be wrong. You have had it pointed out many times. You are a liar, Mats.

The scientific method is fine as it is.

What do you know of the scientific method, Mats, when you continually avoid presenting any kind of hypothesis that could be called ID? When you continually ignore all of the evidence that supports MET? When you actively refuse to educate yourself as to the nature and import of that evidence?

ID doesn’t “circumvent” the scientific method.

Again, wrongo! ID was specifically designed to circumvent scientific peer-review. It was designed as a tool to get creationism taught in science classes. Haven't you read the Wedge document?

ID circumvent the unscientific philosophical limits put on science by materialists.

This is just nonsense.

Dilute the teaching of science, or would try to present Darwinism as a scientific theory, and not as a religious dogma?

Again, you lie. MET is science. Hard, analytical, rigorous science. Which obviously you would not recognise if it bit you. You have had pointed out to you before, Mats, that you are wrong to describe MET (or "Darwinism") as a religion. I shan't revisit the arguments, since you obviously ignored them the last time.

Popper's Ghost · 12 October 2007

Ban Mats.

Mats · 12 October 2007

Darwinist Ben asks:

What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, Mats? Why is that such a hard question for you and every other purveyor of IDiocy?

Patterns in Nature that are best explained as the result of an inteligent cause, as oposed to a purely undirected (mindless/impersonal) cause. Ben, I don't think you ask this bkz you didn't know how ID scientists defined. I think you ask this as a way to shift the focus of discussion away from mindless darwinism to ID. Am I correct?

Tell us how non-materialist science would work, Mats.

Hw did science work in the time of Newton, Kepler, Pascal, PAsteur and other great Christian scientists of the past? THey were not materialists, but science worked well back then. What makes you think that if we discard materialism/naturalism, science will go bad? What evidence made you conclude that? "The Pro From Dover" said

At an unknowable time in the past and using an incomprehensible power that leaves no discernable trace an unknown entity or entities did everything for no apparrent purpose. Not exactly a useful research tool.

I agree. THat is not exacly a good research tool. What about this one: At an unknowable time in the past and using an incomprehensible process, that leaves no discernable trace, an impersonal force (or forces) of nature did everything for no apparrent purpose. How's that for a research tool? Nigel said:

Will there be any ID scientist to correctly portray ID, or,as usual, the Darwinist will “present” (= distort) the ID side of the “presentation” ?
Irrelevant, Mats. ID is utterly empty. It contains nothing. Therefore, it is only ever misrepresented by its proponents, when they claim that it has some value in science.

In other words, ID scientists don't have the chance to present their theory in this kind of "presentations"/distortions. That hardly seems fair.

Actually, what we would like is for Darwinism to start being subject to the scientific method.
You know this to be wrong. You have had it pointed out many times.

I know that such is not wrong. If Darwinism used the same standard of evidence as any other theory, it would have been discard decades ago.

You are a liar, Mats.

Even if I was, what's wrong with lying, in your worldview? Is lying morally and absolutly wrong, or is just a feeling that you have ?

When you continually ignore all of the evidence that supports MET?

Such as what? Moths turning into moths? Dogs turning into dogs?

ID was specifically designed to circumvent scientific peer-review.

Scientific peer review or Darwinian peer review?

MET is science. Hard, analytical, rigorous science. Which obviously you would not recognise if it bit you.

Your definition of "rigorous" and "science" needs some serious revisioning, mate. MET is tax-suported, evidence-free atheistic nonsense posing as science.

Popper's Ghost · 12 October 2007

Patterns in Nature that are best explained as the result of an inteligent cause, as oposed to a purely undirected (mindless/impersonal) cause.

That isn't even a sentence, moron, let alone a theory.

I think you ask this as a way to shift the focus of discussion away from mindless darwinism to ID.

The title of this thread is "Los Alamos: Science and Intelligent Design to be discussed Tuesday", asswipe. Ban Mats.

secondclass · 12 October 2007

Patterns in Nature that are best explained as the result of an inteligent cause, as oposed to a purely undirected (mindless/impersonal) cause.
— Mats

Mats, in order to convert that into a scientific hypothesis, you would need to expunge all metaphysical terms and operationalize all nebulous terms.

At an unknowable time in the past and using an incomprehensible process, that leaves no discernable trace, an impersonal force (or forces) of nature did everything for no apparrent purpose. How’s that for a research tool?
— Mats

Pretty lousy, as far as science goes. Whose hypothesis is that?

MET is tax-suported, evidence-free atheistic nonsense posing as science.
— Mats

Which is, of course, why it's taught and researched at non-tax-supported religious universities.

Popper's Ghost · 12 October 2007

Even if I was, what’s wrong with lying, in your worldview? Is lying morally and absolutly wrong, or is just a feeling that you have ?

Lying is bad for the social welfare, cretin. Ban liar Mats.

Venus Mousetrap · 12 October 2007

Mats: Darwinist Ben asks:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, Mats? Why is that such a hard question for you and every other purveyor of IDiocy?
Patterns in Nature that are best explained as the result of an inteligent cause, as oposed to a purely undirected (mindless/impersonal) cause.

That's what Dembski says it is, but don't you feel it's a little dishonest, as he has produced no firm evidence for this claim ever (and seems not to hear when his work is patiently corrected by real scientists?). Currently it's no more scientific than 'Patterns in Nature that are best explained as the result of cheese biscuits, as oposed to a purely undirected (mindless/impersonal) cause.' For comparison, try one of the definitions of simple evolution: 'Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time' or of Darwinistic evolution: 'The inheritance of naturally selected variations'

Ben, I don't think you ask this bkz you didn't know how ID scientists defined. I think you ask this as a way to shift the focus of discussion away from mindless darwinism to ID. Am I correct?
Tell us how non-materialist science would work, Mats.
Hw did science work in the time of Newton, Kepler, Pascal, PAsteur and other great Christian scientists of the past? THey were not materialists, but science worked well back then.

Are you so dumb that you can't see the difference between a person's belief and a person's methodology? No, I doubt it. You're that dishonest, perhaps. But you illustrate perfectly the dishonest conflation of philosophical and methodological naturalism that creationist love to lie with. Here's a clue: I'm an atheist, but that doesn't stop me reading the Bible, and the Bible does not 'become atheistic' when I read it. Newton was a Christian, but that did not stop him doing science on the material world, and science did not 'become Christian' when he did it. Why do I always feel like I'm talking to a six year old when explaining stuff to creationists?

What makes you think that if we discard materialism/naturalism, science will go bad? What evidence made you conclude that?

In the UK, we had this little bit of history called 'The Middle Ages', when innocent women were tortured and killed because people believed fairies and witches were a perfectly good explanation for stuff.

"The Pro From Dover" said
At an unknowable time in the past and using an incomprehensible power that leaves no discernable trace an unknown entity or entities did everything for no apparrent purpose. Not exactly a useful research tool.
I agree. THat is not exacly a good research tool. What about this one: At an unknowable time in the past and using an incomprehensible process, that leaves no discernable trace, an impersonal force (or forces) of nature did everything for no apparrent purpose. How's that for a research tool?

Twit. When attempting a parodic analogy, try to make sure the two are analogous first. The time is knowable (and measured in billions of years by various methods); the process is, although difficult, comprehensible (it's called evolution); the traces are clearly left in fossils and DNA; no one said evolution explains everything; and finally, the purpose is for religion to decide, not science. Science describes. Religion makes up the purposes.

Nigel said:

Will there be any ID scientist to correctly portray ID, or,as usual, the Darwinist will “present” (= distort) the ID side of the “presentation” ?
Irrelevant, Mats. ID is utterly empty. It contains nothing. Therefore, it is only ever misrepresented by its proponents, when they claim that it has some value in science.
In other words, ID scientists don't have the chance to present their theory in this kind of "presentations"/distortions. That hardly seems fair.

I'll tell you what's not fair. A group of well funded creationists pretending to have a science, then doing no research; insulting real, working scientists while hiding behind this phoney science; making grand claims about their science but not actually showing it to anyone; trying to put this phoney science into school on an equal footing with real science that has had decades of hard work put into it; totally brushing off criticisms and repeating their refuted mistakes whenever they actually let any of their 'theory' slip; and finally, the crowning hypocrisy, COMPLAINING THAT THEY ARE BEING CENSORED by the people who repeatedly, insistently, REQUEST DETAILS OF THEIR WORK!

Actually, what we would like is for Darwinism to start being subject to the scientific method.
You know this to be wrong. You have had it pointed out many times.
I know that such is not wrong. If Darwinism used the same standard of evidence as any other theory, it would have been discard decades ago.

Ever seen an atom? No? Then you don't exist.

You are a liar, Mats.
Even if I was, what's wrong with lying, in your worldview? Is lying morally and absolutly wrong, or is just a feeling that you have ?

Are you saying, without a fairy in the sky to punish you, you wouldn't know the difference between good and bad behaviour, and that you'd lie, cheat, steal, murder, and rape? That worries me.

When you continually ignore all of the evidence that supports MET?
Such as what? Moths turning into moths? Dogs turning into dogs?

The 29+ Evidences is always available to read.

ID was specifically designed to circumvent scientific peer-review.
Scientific peer review or Darwinian peer review?
MET is science. Hard, analytical, rigorous science. Which obviously you would not recognise if it bit you.
Your definition of "rigorous" and "science" needs some serious revisioning, mate. MET is tax-suported, evidence-free atheistic nonsense posing as science.

I can provide some of that evidence, but can you provide any for this claim?

Mr_Christopher · 12 October 2007

Nobody likes whining little pussy, Mats. Nobody.

Get a clue, borrow one if you have to.

Bill Gascoyne · 12 October 2007

Will there be any ID scientist to correctly portray ID

Five days later at a nearby church, no doubt.

GuyeFaux · 12 October 2007

Brilliant. When asked what the Theory of ID is, Mats opined:

Patterns in Nature that are best explained as the result of an inteligent (sic) cause, as oposed (sic) to a purely undirected (mindless/impersonal) cause.

Which isn't even a freakin' sentence, it's some kind of subject clause. ...so Mats still didn't tell us what the theory of ID actually is.

Raging Bee · 12 October 2007

Mats once again proves his dishonesty, hypocricy, and uneducability...

In other words, ID scientists don’t have the chance to present their theory in this kind of “presentations”/distortions. That hardly seems fair.

They've had PLENTY of such opportunities, and you know it. They've utterly failed to present a convincing case (if they show up at all), and your robotic denial of documented fact proves you know this already. Stop being such a crybaby.

Even if I was, what’s wrong with lying, in your worldview? Is lying morally and absolutly wrong, or is just a feeling that you have?

So now you admit you're lying, and pretend there's nothing wrong with it. Who's the moral relativist now?

ben · 12 October 2007

Patterns in Nature that are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause, as opposed to a purely undirected (mindless/impersonal) cause.

Which proves my point elegantly. Nothing is "best explained" until you provide a hypothetical explanation, which ID steadfastly refuses to do (in fact it explicitly rules out ever exploring explanations, that "pathetic level of detail" science is so obsessed with. "Poof" is not an explanation, it's a cop-out). And what you provided doesn't even look anything like a hypothesis anyway; if you think so you're just an ignorant twit. But we knew that already.

How did science work in the time of Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Pasteur and other great Christian scientists of the past? They were not materialists, but science worked well back then

Again you prove my point and make yourself look foolish. To whatever extent those people--and every other scientist through history--had non-material hypotheses, and to whatever extent they attempted to explore them scientifically, they were able to substantiate exactly zero non-material causes for any phenomena. Can you point to any enduring elements of the work of "Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Pasteur and other great Christian scientists" which contain any useful, verifiable non-material components of any kind? No, of course not, but your whine will doubtless resume tomorrow as if this exchange never occurred. Waaaaa, your science doesn't prove my god so it must be wrong, waaaaa, change the rules to suit my bogus superstitions, waaaaa. It might comfort you to believe that there is some substantial difference between that which is utterly undetectable and ineffectual and that which does not exist at all, but those beliefs aren't useful to science and as such are ignored.

PvM · 12 October 2007

Mats inability to address questions about how ID defines complexity and how ID defines Design shows the level of vacuity of Intelligent Design.

He could certainly benefit from attending this meeting where they not only explain the scientific method but also why ID fails.

PvM · 12 October 2007

Hw did science work in the time of Newton, Kepler, Pascal, PAsteur and other great Christian scientists of the past? THey were not materialists, but science worked well back then. What makes you think that if we discard materialism/naturalism, science will go bad? What evidence made you conclude that?

Newton did not place god in his mathematics and physics, although he did make the mistake once and certainly would have regretted it. In true ID fashion he assigned God as regulating and correcting the orbits of planets, and it took a few decades before a scientist solved this minor 'puzzle'. Science can work without being a materialist because science only uses methodological materialism

fnxtr · 12 October 2007

Get in the ring, Mats.

Prove your so-called theory.

Spend 150+ years in the field and in the lab with thousands of other researchers, and give us the 'pathetic level of detail' that we like to call evidence.

Show how what looks like fused ape-ancestor chromosomes in humans, and the common broken vitamin C gene, are proof of your Intelligent Designer (which by the way you're not allowed to investigate itself, ask Willy).

That's two of millions of bits of evidence that you need to explain, and explain better than has already been done.

"Poof", and "this looks designed" and "it says so in the book" are not evidence.

Or shut the hell up.

Henry Berry · 12 October 2007

Mats asked,"Will there be any ID scientist to correctly portray ID . . .?"

For several years now I've followed the efforts of the DI and its fellow travelers as they've tried to piece together the emperor's cloths from wisps of nonsense, and the most cogent comment any have made on ID "science" was that made by Michael Behe while he was under oath during the Kitzmiller trial, when he affirmed that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." I am unaware of any such that have appeared since Kitzmiller: the DI's oft-trumpeted list of alleged peer-reviewed publications doesn't mention any.

Therefore, if there are no "peer-reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred," then it follows that no one has actually done any ID "science" and thus there are no actual ID scientists available to make the presentation. Behe, for example, has admitted (also during Kitzmiller) that he has himself done no experimental work in support of ID, but rather has devoted his efforts to criticizing evolution. And Behe is, as scientists go, the superstar of the ID crowd. The rest of them seem to be more generally of the ilk of Jonathan Wells or Dembski, who are clearly more theologians and polemicists than scientists or mathematicians.

By their own admissions, in terms of being actual scientists doing work in ID, these guys are just kidding. So in answer to Mats' question, there will be no ID scientist to correctly portray ID, since no such animal exists.

Hamlet · 12 October 2007

When King Solomon built his temple, he declared that pi equals three.

Oh, come on. I mean, I don't agree with much of the evangelical community, but this idea has always seemed to be one of the ideas that non-Christians hold because then they can point and laugh at Christians.

As long as you don't measure the circumference and the radius in the same way (i.e. the bowl has some sort of thickness), you aren't saying anything about pi.

Aside from that, sounds interesting.

GuyeFaux · 12 October 2007

When King Solomon built his temple, he declared that pi equals three.

Oh, come on. I mean, I don’t agree with much of the evangelical community, but this idea has always seemed to be one of the ideas that non-Christians hold because then they can point and laugh at Christians. A stupid thing to whine about for several reasons. Firstly, pi=3 is only an indictment of Biblical Literalism. Secondly, Christians aren't the only ones in whose Holly book this "fact" is mentioned. Thirdly, in the present context, it supports what it is purported to support: that

Science is rarely a talent of kings and governments.

Fourthly, the only thing the author is mocking is ID.

Raging Bee · 12 October 2007

When King Solomon built his temple, he declared that pi equals three.

And in all likelihood the actual builders -- the people who did the work, got the results, and had to answer for same -- quietly ignored all such declarations, and got away with it by doing good work.

MememicBottleneck · 12 October 2007

And in all likelihood the actual builders – the people who did the work, got the results, and had to answer for same – quietly ignored all such declarations, and got away with it by doing good work.

Or they just built rectangular buildings:)

SLC · 12 October 2007

Re MATS

Mr. MATS is seriously in error in describing Issac Newton as a Christian. Mr. Newton rejected the concept of the trinity which is one of the foundations of Christian theology. Mr. Newton would be better described as a Unitarian.

David B. Benson · 12 October 2007

Pi for engineers: The Greeks and Romans used the approximation of 22/7, good enough for their constructions. The Egyptians had a slightly different approximation. I opine that if having such an approximation was important in the building of Solomon's Temple (or any other Hebrew structure), the engineers used a similar approximation which was better than just 3.

John Marley · 12 October 2007

SLC:

What do Newton's actual religious beliefs have to do with it?

If a historical figure did something that Xianity wants to claim credit for, then that person was a Xian.

If a historical figure did something that Xianity wants to denounce, then not only was that person not a Xian, s/he specifically belongs to the evil-du-jour.

Bill Gascoyne · 12 October 2007

"If my theory of relativity is proven correct, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Popper's Ghost · 12 October 2007

Patterns in Nature that are best explained as the result of an inteligent cause, as oposed to a purely undirected (mindless/impersonal) cause. That’s what Dembski says it is, but don’t you feel it’s a little dishonest, as he has produced no firm evidence for this claim ever (and seems not to hear when his work is patiently corrected by real scientists?).

It's not the sort of thing amenable to evidence. Even if we stick "There are" in front to make this a sentence, it is not a theory; it predicts nothing. It isn't even empirical -- it's normative. Even if we make it nonnormative, say "There are patterns in nature that were intelligently caused", it isn't a theory, offers no predictions, no guidance as to how to verify it. And it begs the question by using a concept, "intelligently", that itself lacks a theory. But "intelligent" is overspecific; "intentionally" would do. A charitable rephrasing would be "There are patterns in nature that are the result of goal-directed processes". But this isn't a theory, it's a conclusion. What one needs is a theory of goal-directed processes in nature. Like, say, animal behavior theory. Nests, dams, webs, these are patterns in nature resulting from goal-directed processes. QED. Can we move on now?

Nigel D · 12 October 2007

Well, I hope all readers can see the kind of support that ID actually has. Liar Mats continues to:
(1) Refuse to answer direct questions about his comments;
(2) Fail to provide a clear and unambiguous definition of "ID theory";
(3) Refuse to make any effort to learn any real biology;
(4) Make unsupported claims;
(5) Fail to support his claims when asked;
(6) Repeat claims that have been pointed out as wrong, but with no attempt to address the genuine criticisms;
(7) Dodge the issues.

I could go on, but I can't be bothered.

Popper's Ghost · 12 October 2007

Patterns in Nature that are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause, as opposed to a purely undirected (mindless/impersonal) cause.

Which proves my point elegantly. Nothing is “best explained” until you provide a hypothetical explanation, which ID steadfastly refuses to do (in fact it explicitly rules out ever exploring explanations, that “pathetic level of detail” science is so obsessed with. Note the "explained as". The IDiots, as well as most laypeople, just don't seem to have a clue as to what scientific explanation is about. We want things explained, not "explained as". Sure, conservative Christian pastor Gary Aldridge's death is "explained as" auto-erotic self-asphyxiation, but that doesn't explain it. Sure, a rainbow is "explained as" a refractive phenomenon, but that doesn't explain it. It's not enough to tell us that biodiversity is "explained as the result" of God's great plan, we want it explained. I think this is an important point to make in the public "debate"; science provides explanations, "pathetic level of detail", not just labeling, which is all "explained as" is. The theory of evolution doesn't just explain man as a descendent of apes, it strives to explain how that came about, but most people only hear about the former.

Popper's Ghost · 12 October 2007

When King Solomon built his temple, he declared that pi equals three. Oh, come on. I mean, I don’t agree with much of the evangelical community, but this idea has always seemed to be one of the ideas that non-Christians hold because then they can point and laugh at Christians.

Nice job of quote mining. The point wasn't about biblical literalists, it was about the "talent of kings and governments".

The Greeks and Romans used the approximation of 22/7, good enough for their constructions. The Egyptians had a slightly different approximation.

Namely, (4/3)**4, which is considerably less accurate. I'm partial to 355/113, which differs from pi by ~ .0000003

Popper's Ghost · 12 October 2007

P.S. Shouldn't Hamlet be complaining about pointing and laughing at Jews, not Christians?

Popper's Ghost · 12 October 2007

P.P.S.

As long as you don’t measure the circumference and the radius in the same way (i.e. the bowl has some sort of thickness), you aren’t saying anything about pi.

You're right. And you're also right that this canard shouldn't be repeated. But I believe Slakey used it because he believes it's valid, unaware of its flaws, and did not use it simply to laugh at Christians (he may be one, for all we know).

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 12 October 2007

Great initiative. Though I wonder how long it will take before the creationists latch on to Slakey's record as a high mountain climber and use that some recent results points to irreversible brain damage with or without altitude sickness, poisoning the well. It wouldn't exactly be beyond them. (Nor us, I think Dembski's poor taste in sweaters have been helpful for more discerning minds. :-P) [And there may my own plan to climb the continents highest peaks disappear into thin air. :-( ]

Will there be any ID scientist to correctly portray ID, or,as usual, the Darwinist will “present” (= distort) the ID side of the “presentation” ?

You can always rely on trolls to confirm that there is a serious need for presentations of creationism's effects on science. But aside from the (knee)jerk trolling, it seems there is a deep insecurity about the correctness of creationism here. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

rog · 12 October 2007

Perhaps it is Dhaulagiri, K2-camp4, The Aconcogua, Denali, Orizba, and Popocateptl that make MET so clear for me.

Hamlet · 12 October 2007

But I believe Slakey used it because he believes it’s valid, unaware of its flaws, and did not use it simply to laugh at Christians (he may be one, for all we know).

Maybe. I think I just overreacted.

Although I have to admit what's more annoying than someone who brings that up to try and "disprove" Christianity, is the one individual trying to defend it by saying that Pi maybe is 3.

I have always hoped it was a joke.

Popper's Ghost · 13 October 2007

Hamlet: please put quoted material within <quote> ... </quote>

Alan R · 13 October 2007

Rog, Subtract Aconcogua & Denali. Been there, and MET is not clear to me.
As a guess, I would think K2-C4 - Congrats on all.
-Alan

Alan R · 13 October 2007

Dam, Miss read... Thought said MATS then copied your text...
We need short term editing.
Still, Congrats on all.
-Alan

stevaroni · 13 October 2007

How did science work in the time of Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Pasteur and other great Christian scientists of the past? They were not materialists, but science worked well back then. What makes you think that if we discard materialism/naturalism, science will go bad?

Um... I don't mean to be overly picky Mats, but Newton, Pascal, Pasteur and especially, Kepler, were renowned for their methodical observations of the natural world, and their habit of painfully and exactingly adjusting their theories to actual experimentally confirmed data, at the time still a radical concept. A for "great Christian scientists of the past" thanks for the obvious nod to Charles Darwin, a trained minister.

Nigel D · 13 October 2007

One other thing has just occurred to me. In comment #131459, Mats quotes several sentences from my preceding comment. However, here is one he "overlooked"

If you disagree with me, all you have to do is tell us exactly what the scientific theory of ID is. That would prove me wrong. What could be simpler?

Mats, since I addressed that comment directly to you, perhaps you'd care to share with the PT readership why you ignored it. By the way, Mats, this

Patterns in Nature that are best explained as the result of an inteligent cause

is not a theory. It is a speculative idea, that may have the potential to be turned into a hypothesis. For a start, it would need to encompass strict and rigorous definitions of the terms. In your sentence above, I see that the following would need to be defined for any useful hypothesis to be formulated: (1) Pattern (2) Intelligent Your hypothesis would need to be affirmative, not eliminative. In other words,

, as oposed to a purely undirected (mindless/impersonal) cause

is not a part of a valid hypothesis. You formulate a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon or phenomena. Once you have a hypothesis, you can start to test it against other hypotheses, but not before. Your hypothesis should also propose mechanisms by which: (1) An intelligence may exist in the world without leaving any evidence behind, i.e. how come we don't already know about this other intelligence?; and (2) The "intelligence" could influence the develoment of living organisms, and what evidence may exist to support your proposed mechanism. Your hypothesis should also include some indication of why the "intelligence" has caused all things we observe in nature to be the way they are, i.e. the intent of the designer. Without all of the above, your hypothesis would be weaker than MET as a hypothesis alone. To turn your hypothesis into a theory, you would then need to address all of the evidence that supports MET, and that would contradict "intelligence" in the "design" of organisms (such as the human retina, the existence of eyes in blind cave-dwelling creatures and so on and on and on). You would need to propose evidence that supports your hypothesis ahead of all competing hypotheses (not just MET), and propose predictions that can be tested.

Popper's Ghost · 13 October 2007

You formulate a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon or phenomena.

Notably, Mats's formulation of ID (which is as good as any other -- that is, very bad) doesn't offer an explanation for anything. Rather, it simply asserts that it is better to label certain phenomena as "the result of an intelligent cause" rather than to label them as "the result of a purely undirected (mindless/impersonal) cause". Even if we followed his prescription, what then? Go off and read our bibles? One of the things we need to stress in science education is that science isn't about labeling. We do categorize things, but only so as to predict how they will behave. But labeling something as "was intelligently designed" gives us no insight into what else we might expect of it. There is, of course, only one reason why the creationists want so badly for things to be labeled as "intelligently designed", and that is so as to assert that there is an intelligent designer, to shore up their "faith" that God exists.

James McGrath · 13 October 2007

During breaks from the conference, they can play the brand new online video game, Michael Behe vs. The Mousetraps. Here's the link:

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/10/michael-behe-vs-mousetraps-video-game.html

I'd love to know whether anyone else finds it amusing, or if it is just me! :-)

Rolf Aalberg · 14 October 2007

I don't see any reason why Mats should be banned; he actually is quite funny. And, as it appears, follows the standard creationist practice of dropping out from the debate when the resistance gets to tough. Among other things, he also said:

In other words, ID scientists don’t have the chance to present their theory in this kind of “presentations”/distortions. That hardly seems fair. If Darwinism used the same standard of evidence as any other theory, it would have been discard decades ago.

What "ID scientists" are prevented from presenting their "theory"? I have wanted to learn what the theory of ID is for the past ten years, but IIRC, the official ID position on that is that there is not (at present) anything to teach. And Mats hismelf is quite unable to tell us anything at all - he just stabs at science for being "materialistic" and applying sub-standard standards of evidence. And that is what we all know is all that ID is: The claim that some things in biology are too complex to be the result of natural processes. "Someone must have been tampering with DNA sometimes in the past. We just don't know who, how, when or where. And we don't care." That tells us that he simply doesn't know anything about what he is talking about. The ToE is not just a theory - it is a vast complex with a wide, well researched wealth of theoretical and factual content. Without the application of established sciences from more fields than I can reference, we would not have had a theory of evolution. Instead, we would have been limited to what Mats builds his case upon: Wishful thinking. If I should sum up what I have learned about ID - from the ID-ers themselves, it is this: The ToE explains the evolutionary steps involved in getting from early life forms up until our time. But it has its limits - natural processes alone are insufficient. Somebody must have tampered with DNA to create what Behe calls "irreducibly complex" features. (Let's pretend that IC has not been refuted and shown to be a dead idea.) According to Dembski, he has mathematical proof that evolution by purely natural processes is impossible. That, folks, is about all there is. And, as we have learned from Behe and Dembski, they are not interested in the details, and don't see no reason to do further resarch. While Dembski holds that ID is 'promising', and Behe thinks God did it; I think that is why he doesn't see any purpose in further research, since God is beyond the reach of the scientific method. Or do Mats think otherwise?

Cedric Katesby · 14 October 2007

"Patterns in Nature that are best explained as the result of an inteligent (sic) cause, as oposed (sic) to a purely undirected (mindless/impersonal) cause."

That's it?

THIS IS YOUR SCIENCE?

Mats, you are pig-ignorance personified.

David Stanton · 14 October 2007

Mats wrote:

“Patterns in Nature that are best explained as the result of an inteligent (sic) cause, as oposed (sic) to a purely undirected (mindless/impersonal)"

Only a truly foolish person would continue to post this crap after it has been refuted so many times. Mats just keeps spouting the same nonsense without ever responding to questions or criticism. Well Mats, got any evidence for that intelligent, personal force yet?

The fact is that when one really examines nature closely, one does not see any evidence of intelligence, foresight or planning whatsoever. If such were the case, nature would look much different. For example, marine mammals would not have had to evolve from terrestrial ancestors, wings would not have had to evolve three separate times, etc. So Mats, if there is an intelligent, personal, guiding force in nature, why have nearly 90% of all of the species that have ever lived already gone extinct? And by the way, this would have been particularly bad planning if it all happened in the last 6,000 years. If you run away without answering again, then everyone will be able to see the intellectual dishonesty that you display once again.

Nigel D · 15 October 2007

The fact is that when one really examines nature closely, one does not see any evidence of intelligence, foresight or planning whatsoever.
— David Stanton

I agree, David. In fact, I might even go further. ID no longer stands for intelligent design, for I have a new theory of ID: Incompetent Design. This states simply that, rather than evolving purely by chance, all of the sub-optimal and downright rubbish design we find in Nature is the result of one or more incompetent designers. Thus, we can blame the designer(s) for the inefficiency of the human knee joint, for the female human pelvis, for the human retina and for the human appendix. We can blame them for the inconsistencies we find in terms of protein sequences:- after all, once a competent designer found something that worked, they would stop tinkering with it, right? And so on . . . Popper's Ghost, before you start tearing the new ID to shreds, please bear in mind that this entire post is intended to be satirical.

Popper's Ghost · 16 October 2007

Popper’s Ghost, before you start tearing the new ID to shreds, please bear in mind that this entire post is intended to be satirical.

All except that last line, eh?