Dembski Confirms it's Science Envy

Posted 30 July 2009 by Ian Musgrave

Over at Uncommon Descent Dr. Dembski has replied to commentators who pointed out he misrepresented climate science, especially his claim that in the 70's

The scare back then was global cooling!

In response, Dr. Dembski quotes an article which proves he did misrepresent climate science. If that's not enough, he goes on to make stuff up.

I draw your attention to the last clause: there was "a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s." One would think that this would constitute "scientific evidence" for global cooling. ..... But the Principle of Methodological Counterintuitiveness tells us that this just means that the earth is getting warmer.

Well, what did we expect (and he's probably doing it just to stir scientists up anyway). What caused people to conclude global warming was the relentless rise in temperature from the early 70's on. What is more interesting is the continued tone of science envy, carried over from his previous article.

What allows scientists to line their pockets with our tax dollars is that science must, perforce, tell us things that we can't figure out on our own.

Yes, yes, all those research grants go into our pockets weighs them down so much we can't move except to type our panic-inducing screeds (I've dealt with this before). But weirdly, he is also envious of the counter intuitiveness of science.

But the Principle of Methodological Counterintuitiveness tells us that this just means that the earth is getting warmer. .... (a corollary of the Principle of Methodological Counterintuitiveness is that the greatness of a scientist is in direct proportion to the counterintuitiveness of his/her theories). Note that this is a methodological principle -- we make it a method of science to look for the most counterintuitive theory and then baptize it as "science.

The findings of science are quite often counter-intuitive. That the Earth rotates around the Sun, that disease is caused by invisible living organisms, mass bends space (and so on and so on, don't get me started on Quantum Mechanics)). Even in the simplest things. Ask someone to imagine they are walking along carrying a ball, and ask where the ball would land when they dropped it, most people imagine the ball would fall behind them, instead of beside them. Most of what we intuitively believe about the world is wrong. But being counter-intuitive is not enough, these findings have to be supported by evidence. Earths rotation around the Sun is supported by the phases of Venus, Foucault's pendulum, Stellar parallax and a whole lot more beside. A funny theory by some fusty old gent with big whiskers is accepted because of the findings of genetics, biogeography, paleontology, molecular biology and so on. And Global Warming is accepted because the world is warming. And what about that flat bit in the warming record, from roughly 1940 to 1970? We were pumpimg out CO₂ then, whey did the warming pause? Surely that flat bit is counter-intuitive. But at the same time as we were pumping out CO₂, we were also pumping out a wide variety of aerosols, soot, sulfides and so on, which acted as cooling agents. In the 60's, clean air acts were passed which reduced the input of the cooling aerosols, and the existing aerosols slowly precipitated out. by the 70's warming started again. (actually, it's a little bit more complicated, but lets leave the detailed stuff to Real Climate see also here and here). The pause in warming may seem counter-intuitive, but there was a good reason for it, explained via painstakingly collected evidence. Dr. Dembski may envy us for our money (snort) and counter-intuitiveness, but the whole point of science comes back to evidence, the money we spend on experiments to produced data, and the counter-intuitiveness comes for that data of the real world confounding our expectations. Now if only the Discovery institute could get their minds around the data part of the equation. (PS really read "How to talk to a climate skeptic")

95 Comments

wright · 30 July 2009

I'm beginning to understand how worrisome people like Dembski are, in that their sneering, anti-science posturing is so accepted by so much of the public. I read his stuff, having only a layman's grasp of most subjects, see all the strawmen, ad hominems and outright lies, and wonder who can take this person seriously. He's a self-parody.

But clearly, people do. That's why it is so important to keep countering his potentially dangerous nonsense.

Mike Elzinga · 30 July 2009

Well, what did we expect (and he’s probably doing it just to stir scientists up anyway).
— Ian Musgrave

I wonder if this might be the same political tactic being used by some Republican congressmen who apparently agree with the “birthers” about Obama’s citizenship in public but can’t bring themselves to put it down in the permanent record in Congress. There are a lot of tactical similarities between the ID/creationists and the broader culture war instigators. Stirring up hatreds and rabble-rousing seems to be one of the major tactics. On the other hand, what a dismal life Dembski is living as a scholar wannabe. A real scientist and scholar learns from his colleagues; Dembski is spending the rest of his miserable existence fuming because he isn’t the revered “Isaac Newton of Information Theory” he expected he would be. He blames the science community for that; and as long as it gets him points with his rube followers, he apparently finds a worshipful following of groveling rubes preferable to the hard work of swallowing his ego and actually going out and learning something real. The findings of science may often be counterintuitive, but we have learned that intuition is very often wrong; and the science turns out to be more interesting and makes more sense once we catch on.

rimpal · 30 July 2009

Most of what we intuitively believe about the world is wrong.
Growing up in India, I got almost all my popular science education from English translations of books published in the Soviet Union - the publishing powerhouse Mir Publishers. Their titles were simply illustrated, very, I mean very, well written, and free of any attempt to be politically correct about the material world. Common sense and intuition were given the short shrift, mercilessly if necessary. While the titles at the British Council Library and the USIS Library were better in gorgeous colour, glossy, and racy, Mir Publisher titles - books actually - were informative and educational, with the advanced level books good enough to be used as textbooks. And of course the British Council and USIS libraries had long waiting lists and after the arrival of the failed school marm in the UK and the fake cowboy across the pond their budgets were cut drastically and the libraries became less cheerful places. Even after the breakup of the USSR Mir Publishers titles were available for some time. Only now, thanks to the manufactured controversies over evolutionary biology have scientists in the US started reading out the riot act on scientific writing. Hope they continue to do so.

Wheels · 30 July 2009

It wasn't just the rise in temperatures from the 70s onward, warming was predicted to occur based on human introduction of greenhouse gases way back at the turn of the century by Arrhenius.
By the time most of the "global cooling" papers were published, they were already outnumbered by the body of papers predicting a warming trend and rather consistently outpaced by them year after year. (PDF) But given Dembski's Methodology of Counterintuitiveness, that must mean that science really did predict global cooling over global warming!

eric · 30 July 2009

Dembski's just leading us on a wild goose chase. Let's try and remember the big picture:

1. Dembski falls for a math blunder in support of his non-AGW stance.

2. People challenge him on the math blunder.

3. He responds by quoting another article in support of no-AGW. But (tricky tricky D), he misquotes it so badly that he successfully shifts people's attention away from the original blunder on to the new blunder (which is probably a lot less personally embarrasing, considering he's a mathematician).

Do not be distracted. Continue to ask him why he thinks the McLean et al. paper (not some other paper) refutes global warming.

KP · 30 July 2009

Wheels said: It wasn't just the rise in temperatures from the 70s onward, warming was predicted to occur based on human introduction of greenhouse gases way back at the turn of the century by Arrhenius.
By the time most of the "global cooling" papers were published, they were already outnumbered by the body of papers predicting a warming trend and rather consistently outpaced by them year after year. (PDF) But given Dembski's Methodology of Counterintuitiveness, that must mean that science really did predict global cooling over global warming!

A quick glance at the PDF shows that by the early 80s most people realized this was a myth. Like the Haeckel's embryos canard, it looks like the DI is using Yesterday's Science^TM to make idiotic arguments.

fnxtr · 30 July 2009

DM: you can just put brackets around TM and it comes out as the trademark superscript, thus(TM). Kewl, huh?

fnxtr · 30 July 2009

Though the carat/exponent thing sends the message clearly, too.

fnxtr · 30 July 2009

caret. Jeez.

KP · 30 July 2009

fnxtr said: DM: you can just put brackets around TM and it comes out as the trademark superscript, thus(TM). Kewl, huh?

Yesterday's Science(TM) I am an htm illiterate. All that I know how to do I learned here at the Thumb...

DavidK · 30 July 2009

For Dembski's term "methodological counterintuitiveness,' the closest I could come was this reference in the wikipedia, which in Dembski's case seems appropriate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

And Ian, please, I'm being picky here, but you said "...the Earth [rotates] around the Sun?" No, the earth [revolves] around the sun in its orbit and [rotates] around it's axis on a 24 hr cycle. Also, Foucault’s pendulum does not support the Earth revolving around the sun, but does demonstrate the Earth rotating on its axis.

Though they are frequently confusted, there is a marked difference between the two.

Henry J · 30 July 2009

Though they are frequently confusted, there is a marked difference between the two.

Yeah, but both are circular arguments!!1111!!!one!

truthspeaker · 30 July 2009

I don't think it's science envy so much as science resentment. The natural world is hard to understand, and he blames scientists for that.

Joe Shelby · 30 July 2009

About the 1940-1970 and "the many variables involved", one could also point out that from 1938 to 1945, conventional weaponry was pumping more dust into the air than had ever been done by that source before or since.

And to make matters worse, above-ground nuclear testing was kicking up almost as much in a matter of seconds and was happening all over the world throughout that era (in islands in the pacific, mountain ranges in china, deserts in America and Australia, and who knows where the Soviets were doing their bit...).

Above ground nuclear testing slowed considerably by choice and by treaty by the 1970s.

So you had major sources of planet-cooling dust that aren't kicking up dust anymore.

waynef · 30 July 2009

Dembski said, "What allows scientists to line their pockets with our tax dollars is that science must, perforce, tell us things that we can’t figure out on our own."

I'm am engineer and, I assume, am considered a scientist. I personally feel that mine is a noble profession where I have the great fortune of working with the laws of science on a daily basis in the pursuit of designing great structures and processes that have taken mankind on a grand and wonderful journey.

Yes, every day Mr. Dembski I work on wonderous concepts that neither you, nor the general population could even begin to "figure out on [your] own".

You don't agree? Fine. You sit at my desk for one day and design a plane or a bridge or a spaceship or a chemical plant or a pollution control system and we'll see.

truthspeaker · 30 July 2009

The thing is, Demski could, if he wanted, go to school for a long time and learn the skills and background knowledge required to understand it himself. Scientists are not hoarding this knowledge, nor are they dissuading people from becoming educating themselves about science. Quite the opposite.

DavidK · 30 July 2009

truthspeaker said: The thing is, Demski could, if he wanted, go to school for a long time and learn the skills and background knowledge required to understand it himself. Scientists are not hoarding this knowledge, nor are they dissuading people from becoming educating themselves about science. Quite the opposite.

Yes, but that would be contrary to Dembski's self-imposed world view. He's supposedly been there already and has rejected such explanations in favor of his garden of eden perspective.

eric · 30 July 2009

Joe Shelby said: About the 1940-1970 and "the many variables involved", one could also point out that from 1938 to 1945, conventional weaponry was pumping more dust into the air than had ever been done by that source before or since. And to make matters worse, above-ground nuclear testing was kicking up almost as much in a matter of seconds and was happening all over the world throughout that era (in islands in the pacific, mountain ranges in china, deserts in America and Australia, and who knows where the Soviets were doing their bit...).

Joe, Keep in mind that the size of a large volcanic eruption, such as Mount St. Helens, is measured in hundreds of megatons. While we and the Soviets shot off a few whoppers of 20-50 megatons, most of the testing was in the 0.01-1 megaton range. Now, I'm not claiming nuclear testing had no effect. And we humans are very good at putting a lot of other crap into the atmosphere that has caused global warming. But when it comes to big dust-kicking explosions, our total contribution this century is probably the equivalent of about one or two "bonus" middling-sized volcanos. Not even an extra Pinatubo.

Brian · 30 July 2009

At it's simplest, he blithely ignored his own article: "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s."

Reread that first bit about "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support." Also, this whole discussion and analysis of the graph, shows again how the term global climate change is a better term then global warming. Some of our pollutants do cool the planet. We should limit them, but that does make CO^2 emissions more potent.

DS · 30 July 2009

Dembski said, “What allows scientists to line their pockets with our tax dollars is that science must, perforce, tell us things that we can’t figure out on our own.”

So, Dembski admits he is no scientist. Good to know. Well I recently received a copy of "The Evolution Wars" which described him as "a scientist". I sent the book back.

What allows Dembski to line his pockets is lying about science to those too ignorant to know better. Which do you think would be greater sin?

Oh and of course Dembski is dead wrong again. There is absolutely nothing preventing scientists from telling us things that we can figure out on our own. Would Dembski prefer that scientists do that instead?

JohnW · 30 July 2009

Dembski's playing to his audience.

Based on his behaviour since Dover, he's given up on getting anywhere politically, legally or scientifically with his ID cargo cult. All that's left is to take what he can from his base: poorly-educated religious conservatives. And which sector of society is most likely to beleive there's an evil cabal of pointy-headed intellectuals conspiring to obtain money and power by spouting stuff which is obviously untrue? Poorly-educated religious conservatives.

Alternatively, I suppose it's possible that some other scientist is sitting on his yacht with his pockets lined with my share of the tax dollars...

jackstraw · 30 July 2009

waynef to Dembski

"You don’t agree? Fine. You sit at my desk for one day and design a plane or a bridge or a spaceship or a chemical plant or a pollution control system and we’ll see."

Great. I already suffer from the "bad guys chasing me" nightmares, and the "I can't stop falling" nightmares.

Now I'm going to get the "Dembski engineered that bridge/plane" nightmares.

I may never sleep again.

SteveF · 30 July 2009

Off topic, but I seem to recall a discussion on comets here at PT. Here's an upcoming paper on Science on this issue, thought I'd mention it:

"Reassessing the Source of Long-Period Comets "

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1172676

RBH · 30 July 2009

What I find interesting is the increasingly bitter tone of Dembski's writing. He is becoming the sad old curmudgeon of the ID movement.

Matt G · 30 July 2009

DavidK said: And Ian, please, I'm being picky here, but you said "...the Earth [rotates] around the Sun?" No, the earth [revolves] around the sun in its orbit and [rotates] around it's axis on a 24 hr cycle.

Not to be picky or anything, but "rotates on its axis" is redundant....

Freelurker · 30 July 2009

waynef said: Yes, every day Mr. Dembski I work on wonderous concepts that neither you, nor the general population could even begin to "figure out on [your] own".

This topic is apparently new to you. When you look closer, you will see that IDists don't do what engineers do (produce patterns/models) and engineers don't do what IDists do (detect purposefulness.) In other words, the term "design" is used differently in ID than it is used in engineering.

Mike Elzinga · 30 July 2009

RBH said: What I find interesting is the increasingly bitter tone of Dembski's writing. He is becoming the sad old curmudgeon of the ID movement.

It wouldn’t surprise me that the bitterness stems from the fact that he could change if he listened to the evidence and his critics. However, he is apparently locked in; he sold his soul to the ID community looking for high-profile fame. What he got instead is high-profile derision from the science community, but his paycheck must now forever come from his employers whom he can no longer ignore or cross. That could certainly make one bitter.

Paul Burnett · 30 July 2009

JohnW said: Dembski's playing to his audience. ...his base: poorly-educated religious conservatives.

I've been spending some time over at Uncommon Descent recently, being a troll but not quite enough to get kicked off (all of you should visit...). It's interesting...the religious fervor of some of the commentors, combined with their scientific illiteracy and foaming-at-the-mouth rightwingnuttery is sometimes downright astounding.

Dan · 30 July 2009

RBH said: What I find interesting is the increasingly bitter tone of Dembski's writing. He is becoming the sad old curmudgeon of the ID movement.

I'm afraid I have to agree. Dembski was the student of Leo Kadanoff. Kadanoff has the most funny, humane, playful, yet powerful intellect anyone could ever want to meet -- he's an all-round nice guy as well as a great scientist. Back in 1998, Dembski acknowledged Kadanoff graciously in "The Design Inference". Today, Dembski can only spout that scientists like Kadanoff should "have their feet put to the fire" because they're in business only to "line their pockets with our tax dollars."

waynef · 30 July 2009

Freelurker said:
waynef said: Yes, every day Mr. Dembski I work on wonderous concepts that neither you, nor the general population could even begin to "figure out on [your] own".
This topic is apparently new to you. When you look closer, you will see that IDists don't do what engineers do (produce patterns/models) and engineers don't do what IDists do (detect purposefulness.) In other words, the term "design" is used differently in ID than it is used in engineering.

What in the world does it mean to "detect purposefulness"? Is this a science term I've never heard of?

Freelurker · 30 July 2009

waynef said: What in the world does it mean to "detect purposefulness"? Is this a science term I've never heard of?

You don't really understand the ID argument yet. Dembski defines "design" as the "complement of chance and regularity". That's what he is trying to detect by analyzing a pattern: simply whether or not the pattern was produced purposefully. IDists aren't doing anything like engineering.

waynef · 30 July 2009

Freelurker said:
waynef said: What in the world does it mean to "detect purposefulness"? Is this a science term I've never heard of?
You don't really understand the ID argument yet. Dembski defines "design" as the "complement of chance and regularity". That's what he is trying to detect by analyzing a pattern: simply whether or not the pattern was produced purposefully. IDists aren't doing anything like engineering.

Or anything like science.

Invigilator · 30 July 2009

well that's it then! All we have to do to deal with climate change is abandon all antipollution efforts and set off our remaining nuclear arsenals in regular surface blasts. Problem solved!

raven · 30 July 2009

Paul: It’s interesting…the religious fervor of some of the commentors, combined with their scientific illiteracy and foaming-at-the-mouth rightwingnuttery is sometimes downright astounding.

What!!! How can that be???? ID is science and has nothing to do with religion!!! Sarcasm off. They aren't even pretending that ID is anything more that creationism with a mask on anymore. Odd factoid from wikipedia. Dembski's father was a college biology professor who taught evolution and he is a convert from Catholism.

Ian Musgrave · 30 July 2009

eric said: Dembski's just leading us on a wild goose chase. [snip] Do not be distracted. Continue to ask him why he thinks the McLean et al. paper (not some other paper) refutes global warming.

Certainly, he's made a claim which he, as a matehmatican should be able to back up with clear rasoning. But given he couldn't even do a "whoops, sorry" in responce to the non-existent "global cooling" panic (nor has responded substantially to his critics over anything), I do not hold out too much hope. However, the main point of this post was not so much Dr. Dembskis refusal to acknowledge his error, but how he has used this to re-enforce his envy of the "power" of science and scientists.

Paul Burnett · 30 July 2009

raven said:
Paul said: It’s interesting…the religious fervor of some of the commentors, combined with their scientific illiteracy and foaming-at-the-mouth rightwingnuttery is sometimes downright astounding.
What!!! How can that be???? ID is science and has nothing to do with religion!!! Sarcasm off. They aren't even pretending that ID is anything more that creationism with a mask on anymore.

Keep in mind, Dembski's latest book is titled The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World. Doesn't that sound like something that would be popular with his base? (Or does it sound like it's about science?) And the other leading light of intelligent design creationism, Stephen Meyer, has a new book, Signature In The Cell which is published by a religious publishing house, and is carried by Amazon in its Religious Books section. And then they complain when we point out the similarity between intelligent design creationism and religion.

Freelurker · 30 July 2009

waynef said:
Freelurker said:
waynef said: What in the world does it mean to "detect purposefulness"? Is this a science term I've never heard of?
You don't really understand the ID argument yet. Dembski defines "design" as the "complement of chance and regularity". That's what he is trying to detect by analyzing a pattern: simply whether or not the pattern was produced purposefully. IDists aren't doing anything like engineering.
Or anything like science.

Poe's Law in action, I guess. As you may know, Dembski and Marks have actually floated the idea that ID is engineering science. Meanwhile, the National Academy of Engineering is Celebrating the Achievements of Charles Darwin

Wheels · 30 July 2009

Carl Sagan was a good astronomer who was at his best when popularizing science, making the processes of the cosmos wonderful to behold and championing the power of clear, rational science while also projecting a deep respect for a humanity that he hoped could reconcile itself with itself.

Dembski is like an anti-Sagan. He's lousy at mathematics and at his worst when demonizing science, painting the processes of the world as so inferior that they need constant meddling to do anything, and causing a divisive rift between scientists and non-scientists while also fomenting ignorance and polemicism.

MPW · 30 July 2009

Freelurker said: Poe's Law in action, I guess. As you may know, Dembski and Marks have actually floated the idea that ID is engineering science.

Whoa. That's some strong Poe there, Freelurker. I was about to do the verbal equivalent of poking you forcefully in the chest with my index finger while lecturing you. Still, this...

That’s what he is trying to detect by analyzing a pattern: simply whether or not the pattern was produced purposefully.

... perfectly apes what an IDist might say about this, and would no doubt be accepted by many as a very valid claim, so it still bears a little beating up. The technical problems with Dembski's ideas about "the complement of regularity and chance" have been ably dealt with by people more versed in such things than I. But even if we accept for the sake of argument that Dembski might be able to detect "purposefulness" in the way he claims... okay, what then? Supposedly he and his fellow IDists have uncovered evidence of a sentient entity or entities in the universe that were previously utterly unknown to science, possessing enormous creative power of an unknown kind, which it or they have wielded to shape the entire course of life on Earth. This would be the most amazing thing ever uncovered by science. Wouldn't its discoverers start asking questions and positing hypotheses about this designer, the way scientists do about any new and unknown being for whom evidence is uncovered? Instead, their official position is just, "Who knows? [Shrug] You can't know anything about the designer, it's unknowable." Why this should be so is unclear, with the designer's handiwork supposedly everywhere in the physical world and highly susceptible to detection and cataloging. On the assumption that they're sincere scientists, this would have to be the most amazing case of incuriosity in the history of the human intellect. Of course, this apparent incuriosity gives away the game: They're not actually trying to discover anything about an unknown entity, they're trying to point at God (one they feel they already know quite well, leaving them with no need of hypothesizing about Him, thank you very much) without saying "God."

RBH · 31 July 2009

Paul Burnett said: And the other leading light of intelligent design creationism, Stephen Meyer, has a new book, Signature In The Cell which is published by a religious publishing house, and is carried by Amazon in its Religious Books section.

I see this on Amazon at the moment:

#1 in Books-Science-Physics-Cosmology #1 in Books-Science-Astronomy-Cosmology #1 in Books-Religion-Spirituality-Christianity-Theology-Creationism

I particularly like that last one. :)

Amadan · 31 July 2009

jackstraw said: waynef to Dembski "You don’t agree? Fine. You sit at my desk for one day and design a plane or a bridge or a spaceship or a chemical plant or a pollution control system and we’ll see." Great. I already suffer from the "bad guys chasing me" nightmares, and the "I can't stop falling" nightmares. Now I'm going to get the "Dembski engineered that bridge/plane" nightmares. I may never sleep again.

Dr Dr D shows how to perform engineering calculations for bridge building.

Freelurker · 31 July 2009

Looks like I misread waynef's comment of July 30, 2009 3:24 PM as a defense of Dembski. I see now that waynef and I are both mainstream engineers, the kind that won't tolerate IDists misrepresenting our profession.

eric · 31 July 2009

MPW said: They're not actually trying to discover anything about an unknown entity, they're trying to point at God (one they feel they already know quite well, leaving them with no need of hypothesizing about Him, thank you very much) without saying "God."

Yes. To use a metaphor, the ID movement thinks they've discovered presents under the xmas tree. They rule out chance as an explanation. They rule out physical law. But then, somehow, they make the gargantuan leap into thinking this proves Santa. ID doesn't just see design where there is none, it also ignores all reasonable explanations for design in favor of one fantastic one.

phantomreader42 · 31 July 2009

eric said:
MPW said: They're not actually trying to discover anything about an unknown entity, they're trying to point at God (one they feel they already know quite well, leaving them with no need of hypothesizing about Him, thank you very much) without saying "God."
Yes. To use a metaphor, the ID movement thinks they've discovered presents under the xmas tree. They rule out chance as an explanation. They rule out physical law. But then, somehow, they make the gargantuan leap into thinking this proves Santa. ID doesn't just see design where there is none, it also ignores all reasonable explanations for design in favor of one fantastic one.

This isn't a new metaphor. I've seen it in a webcomic, termed "External Delivery". The name of the comic was Cectic, I think it's spelled.

Erasmus, FCD · 31 July 2009

PAUL BURNETTE. CLIVE,BABY IS WATCHING YOU. CLIVE,BABY WILL NOT TOLERATE YOUR MENTION OF HIS SITE ON OTHER GODLESS HOMO SITES. UNCOMMONDESCENT TOLERATES ALL RESPECTFUL DISSENT EXCEPT FOR THE DISSENT YOU PROFFER ON OTHER WEB PAGES OR ON UNCOMMONDESCENT. UP IS DOWN, NIGHT IS DAY, ID IS SCIENCE.

-DT

Paul Burnett · 31 July 2009

Erasmus, FCD said: PAUL BURNETTE. CLIVE,BABY IS WATCHING YOU. CLIVE,BABY WILL NOT TOLERATE YOUR MENTION OF HIS SITE ON OTHER GODLESS HOMO SITES. UNCOMMONDESCENT TOLERATES ALL RESPECTFUL DISSENT EXCEPT FOR THE DISSENT YOU PROFFER ON OTHER WEB PAGES OR ON UNCOMMONDESCENT. UP IS DOWN, NIGHT IS DAY, ID IS SCIENCE. -DT

Wow, you mean you can get moderated on Uncommon Descent for stuff that's said (written) somewhere else? That's kind of unusual in the blogosphere, and isn't mentioned in the Uncommon Descent Moderation Policy at http://www.uncommondescent.com/comment-policy/moderation/ which quotes Dembski as stating (among other things): "Finally, there is one cardinal rule at this blog, namely, I make up the rules as I go along." Sounds like intelligent design creationism, all right.

Erasmus, FCD · 31 July 2009

anyone who wishes to explore this topic(Clive,Baby and other UD moderators having personal temper tantrums and hissy fits resulting in the EXPELLING of critics and commentors) any further might find this comment and thread illuminating

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=5141;p=145912

as you have noted paul the moderation policy at UD is a joke. Barry Arrington has claimed that even PZ Myers would be welcome at UD, but the history of the blog comments documented in gory detail at AtBC demonstrates that BarryA et al are pathetic liars.

Wheels · 31 July 2009

I tried to register to post comments there, but never got my confirmation e-mail.
Could be that I used the same name as I do here.

Paul Burnett · 31 July 2009

Erasmus, FCD said: anyone who wishes to explore this topic(Clive,Baby and other UD moderators having personal temper tantrums and hissy fits resulting in the EXPELLING of critics and commentors) any further might find this comment and thread illuminating http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=5141;p=145912

Here's a good one: Dembski bans himself! 19 August 2005 - My Retirement from Intelligent Design - William Dembski - The rancor and daily vilification directed at me by the Pandasthumb has finally taken its toll. Never a kind word or a gesture of appreciation for all I've done to advance science and enrich our understanding of the world. Just criticism, vituperation, and abuse. I can't endure it any longer. I've therefore decided to leave intelligent design and return to my first love ?- playing Chicago blues at the keyboard. Is this decision final? Might I make a comeback to intelligent design? Yes, it's possible. If someone were to deposit $1,000,000 in my bank account (routing and account numbers available on request), I will consider a return. Otherwise, look for me around Halsted and Fullerton. Farewell. ?-WmAD - http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4a731f2c6ff745fd;act=ST;f=14;t=5141;st=30

gregwrld · 31 July 2009

Paul Burnett said:
Erasmus, FCD said: anyone who wishes to explore this topic(Clive,Baby and other UD moderators having personal temper tantrums and hissy fits resulting in the EXPELLING of critics and commentors) any further might find this comment and thread illuminating http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=5141;p=145912
Here's a good one: Dembski bans himself! 19 August 2005 - My Retirement from Intelligent Design - William Dembski - The rancor and daily vilification directed at me by the Pandasthumb has finally taken its toll. Never a kind word or a gesture of appreciation for all I've done to advance science and enrich our understanding of the world. Just criticism, vituperation, and abuse. I can't endure it any longer. I've therefore decided to leave intelligent design and return to my first love ?- playing Chicago blues at the keyboard. Is this decision final? Might I make a comeback to intelligent design? Yes, it's possible. If someone were to deposit $1,000,000 in my bank account (routing and account numbers available on request), I will consider a return. Otherwise, look for me around Halsted and Fullerton. Farewell. ?-WmAD - http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4a731f2c6ff745fd;act=ST;f=14;t=5141;st=30

All he's done to advance science? It probably equals all he's done to advance blues keyboard... gregwrld

Mike Elzinga · 31 July 2009

Paul Burnett said: Here's a good one: Dembski bans himself! 19 August 2005 - My Retirement from Intelligent Design - William Dembski - The rancor and daily vilification directed at me by the Pandasthumb has finally taken its toll. Never a kind word or a gesture of appreciation for all I've done to advance science and enrich our understanding of the world. Just criticism, vituperation, and abuse. I can't endure it any longer. I've therefore decided to leave intelligent design and return to my first love ?- playing Chicago blues at the keyboard. Is this decision final? Might I make a comeback to intelligent design? Yes, it's possible. If someone were to deposit $1,000,000 in my bank account (routing and account numbers available on request), I will consider a return. Otherwise, look for me around Halsted and Fullerton. Farewell. ?-WmAD - http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4a731f2c6ff745fd;act=ST;f=14;t=5141;st=30

Holy crap! Is this for real? Did Dembski really make this claim? If this is what Dembski really believes, he is more delusional than is normal for a pseudo-science pusher. Let’s see here; if it weren’t for Dembski pushing misconceptions and misinformation, scientists would be neglecting the general public and science concepts would not be honed and clarified so that science can progress. Yeah, that’s it; Dembski has single-handedly prodded scientists to higher levels of clarity and public responsibility. Wow; what would we have done without him? We would have behaved slovenly and sloppily in our work, we would have deliberately kept the public ignorant and misinformed, and we would have forbidden students from exploring the concepts of evolution in the public school curriculum. Want proof? Just look at how far science lagged behind where it could have been during all those centuries before Dembski was born. And he doesn’t get a kind word or gesture for his martyrdom in single-handedly advancing science and enriching understanding in the world. But then, what about all those scientists who have to divert time, energy and resources to deal with ID’s multimillion dollar campaign of propaganda and culture warfare?

fnxtr · 31 July 2009

raven said: Odd factoid from wikipedia. Dembski's father was a college biology professor who taught evolution and he is a convert from Catholism.

That explains a lot. About a lot.

Mike Elzinga · 31 July 2009

Ok; I guess Dembski really said it.

MPW · 31 July 2009

Mike Elzinga said: Ok; I guess Dembski really said it.

Sorry to get all John McEnroe on you, but, you can NOT be serious. I assumed Paul Burnett was making up a parody quote. I still suspect Dembski was taking the piss a little bit there. Even after all I've read, I find it hard to believe he would write such a thing without his tongue in his cheek. At the very least, the line about being worn down by PT seems like something his ego couldn't admit to.

Flint · 31 July 2009

What in the world does it mean to “detect purposefulness”? Is this a science term I’ve never heard of?

Possibly. The word "purpose" is kind of slippery. Scientists obviously detect functional utility. Fins help fish to swim, legs help animals walk, wings help flyers fly. They're useful, and generally essential for the use they're put to. So is the "purpose" of wings to enable flight? It's the function, but is it the purpose? Well, yes it is if we regard function and purpose as exact synonyms without any further connotation. No, it's not if we think of a purpose as something someone has, and make it synonymous with a goal or motivation. Because when we cross that line, we require someone somewhere to HAVE and APPLY that motivation and goal. Creationists seem to comb the scientific literature looking for words that can have either a teleological or non-teleological interpretation, and then imposing the interpretation that clearly was not intended.

raven · 31 July 2009

wikipedia: Threats to Pianka and the Texas Academy of Sciences As a consequence of the controversy, Pianka and members of the Texas Academy of Science have received death threats.[12][13] According to Pianka, "His daughters are now worried about his and their safety, and says his life has been turned upside-down by 'right-wing fools.'"[14] William Dembski and the Department of Homeland Security On 2 April 2006, prominent intelligent design proponent William A. Dembski stated on his blog that he reported Eric Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security because he and fellow Discovery Institute affiliate Forrest Mims felt that Pianka's speech fomented bioterrorism.[7] Dembski claims that the Department was already aware of Pianka's statements.[7] Subsequently, Pianka was interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Austin.

Dembski's moment of fame came when he turned in Eric Pianka, a well known ecologist at UT to Homeland Security as a terrorist. Pianka and the Texas Academy of Science then received death threats from the good xians. And oh yeah, the FBI interviewed Pianka. He is still at UT and still a famous scientist. One could make a good case from a lot of statements that Dembski hates science and scientists. Which is odd because as posted above, his father was a college level biologist. Freud might have something to say about all this.

RBH · 31 July 2009

Flint said: [SNIP] So is the "purpose" of wings to enable flight? It's the function, but is it the purpose? Well, yes it is if we regard function and purpose as exact synonyms without any further connotation. No, it's not if we think of a purpose as something someone has, and make it synonymous with a goal or motivation. Because when we cross that line, we require someone somewhere to HAVE and APPLY that motivation and goal.

That was Behe's theme all through his Kitzmiller testimony. He repeatedly invoked "the purposeful arrangement of parts" as a mantra:

A. Well, I discussed this in my book, Darwin's Black Box, and a short description of design is shown in this quotation from Chapter 9. Quote, What is design? Design is simply the purposeful arrangement of parts. When we perceive that parts have been arranged to fulfill a purpose, that's when we infer design.

Sure thing.

fnxtr · 1 August 2009

Behe wanking:

When we perceive that parts have been arranged to fulfill a purpose, that’s when we infer design.

And when we perceive that emergent properties generate inheritable traits that confer a reproductive advantage, then what?

Mike Elzinga · 1 August 2009

MPW said: Sorry to get all John McEnroe on you, but, you can NOT be serious. I assumed Paul Burnett was making up a parody quote. I still suspect Dembski was taking the piss a little bit there. Even after all I've read, I find it hard to believe he would write such a thing without his tongue in his cheek. At the very least, the line about being worn down by PT seems like something his ego couldn't admit to.

Real researchers are busy enough in their careers that they don’t have time for all the mind-wonking games played on the Internet. Dembski’s wallowing in so many fantasies and melodrama suggests some kind of narcissism and/or megalomania. And, as one of the central characters in a crew that goes out of its way to wreck the science educations of millions of other people’s children, he makes one wonder just what part his religion plays in all of his games. How does he bend his sectarian scripture to justify his fantasies?

John Kwok · 1 August 2009

Tis a true but also ironic observation, since Dembski earned a Ph. D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago (He was sufficiently talented enough to have earned a NSF pre-doctoral fellowship. In retrospect that was a bad choice of NSF's, but who knew he would become the IDiot that he is today?):

Wheels said: Carl Sagan was a good astronomer who was at his best when popularizing science, making the processes of the cosmos wonderful to behold and championing the power of clear, rational science while also projecting a deep respect for a humanity that he hoped could reconcile itself with itself. Dembski is like an anti-Sagan. He's lousy at mathematics and at his worst when demonizing science, painting the processes of the world as so inferior that they need constant meddling to do anything, and causing a divisive rift between scientists and non-scientists while also fomenting ignorance and polemicism.

John Kwok · 1 August 2009

Mike,

Dembski doesn't have to worry. He has dear buddy and Number One Enabler, philosopher Michael Ruse, to lean on the next time the s**t hits the fan.

John

stevaroni · 1 August 2009

Real researchers are busy enough in their careers that they don’t have time for all the mind-wonking games played on the Internet.

Real researchers use the phrase "Now, here's how you measure it...."

John Kwok · 1 August 2009

Don't forget too how he "borrowed" the XVIVO-produced Harvard University cell animation video, bragged about it during his lectures back in 2007, and is thought to have "lent" it to Premise Media as they were assembling "EXPELLED" (We owe thanks of course to Abbie Smith for having "blown the whistle" at him.). Between this little charade and the Pianka affair I wonder how he can still call himself a "Christian". If Christ met him, then I am sure he would have denouced Dembski as being a true servant of Lucifer, not of Christ:

raven said:
wikipedia: Threats to Pianka and the Texas Academy of Sciences As a consequence of the controversy, Pianka and members of the Texas Academy of Science have received death threats.[12][13] According to Pianka, "His daughters are now worried about his and their safety, and says his life has been turned upside-down by 'right-wing fools.'"[14] William Dembski and the Department of Homeland Security On 2 April 2006, prominent intelligent design proponent William A. Dembski stated on his blog that he reported Eric Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security because he and fellow Discovery Institute affiliate Forrest Mims felt that Pianka's speech fomented bioterrorism.[7] Dembski claims that the Department was already aware of Pianka's statements.[7] Subsequently, Pianka was interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Austin.
Dembski's moment of fame came when he turned in Eric Pianka, a well known ecologist at UT to Homeland Security as a terrorist. Pianka and the Texas Academy of Science then received death threats from the good xians. And oh yeah, the FBI interviewed Pianka. He is still at UT and still a famous scientist. One could make a good case from a lot of statements that Dembski hates science and scientists. Which is odd because as posted above, his father was a college level biologist. Freud might have something to say about all this.

Rolf · 2 August 2009

Joe Shelby said: and who knows where the Soviets were doing their bit...).

Almost at our (Norway) doorstep - Novaja Semlja.

veritas36 · 3 August 2009

On a positive note, the global warming denialists will not be happy with Dembski's endorsement. They are oh-so-different from those anti-evolutionists dumb bunnies, please don't put them in the same category with religious cranks and holocaust deniers. Why, the antiAGW crowd believes in true science.

BioBob · 4 August 2009

You should be ashamed of posting that 'temperature' chart. Discredited pseudoscience and provocative presentation as you decry the same from others. The pot calling the kettle black much ??

Try one like this instead:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg

fnxtr · 5 August 2009

Roy apparently also said this:

"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

This QED moment brought to you by Wikipedia.

DS · 5 August 2009

"Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.”

Yea, and that brick wall is between the ears of creationists.

If you start out with the immutable assumption that a creator is required in order to produce complexity and then go on to completely ignore every scientific discovery made in the last two hundred years, then of course you will conclude that science cannot explain complexity. I guess that's what happens when discoveries startle you, you tend to ignore them in favor of your preconceived notions.

fnxtr · 5 August 2009

Creationism isn't better, it's just easier. All you have to do is act like The Who's "Tommy".

Wheels · 5 August 2009

I know I really shouldn't point out Spencer's IDist position whenever someone brings him up in a climate change debate, but I just can't let it go. What more blatant evidence do you need that the person doesn't understand the science they're describing?

Stanton · 5 August 2009

Wheels said: What more blatant evidence do you need that the person doesn't understand the science they're describing?

When they lie about Creationism/Intelligent Design having explanatory power equal to or greater than actual science, or whine about how science is in a fatal quagmire because it does not rely on appeals to the supernatural to explain any natural phenomenon?

DavidK · 5 August 2009

DS said: "Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.” Yea, and that brick wall is between the ears of creationists. If you start out with the immutable assumption that a creator is required in order to produce complexity and then go on to completely ignore every scientific discovery made in the last two hundred years, then of course you will conclude that science cannot explain complexity. I guess that's what happens when discoveries startle you, you tend to ignore them in favor of your preconceived notions.

But that's the crux of the problem, isn't it? The vast majority of people may indeed have bricks between their ears as far as science goes. Science doesn't cater to their egos and fears regarding their post-life status, now does it. They (we) are marvelous little creatures who have self-recognition and self-importance as our framework from which we work, and most can't get away from the "man is the measure of all things" anthropomorphic world-view. They don't understand science, they don't care about science, save only its application to serve and protect them. It offers no warm, fuzzies to stroke their egos. Yes, it's a simplistic explanation for simplistic minds.

fnxtr · 5 August 2009

Yeah I don't get that. First Earth was bumped from the centre of the universe, then the Sun was, but it seems moving homo sapiens sapiens from that position takes a lot more energy.

Biobob · 5 August 2009

The point is that neither climate change deniers nor climate change proponents have any monopoly on irrationality and pseudoscience.

Nor does either side refrain from propagandizing it's position and ad hominem attacks.

And, in fact, science tells us nothing about "faith" or the presence or absence of any 'creator'.

IMO, we are still like ants stumbling around merely attempting to understand earth, solar system, galaxy, and universe without an awful lot of success to date. We have a long way to go, and all of us should keep that foremost in mind.

Dave Luckett · 5 August 2009

Biobob said: IMO, we are still like ants stumbling around merely attempting to understand earth, solar system, galaxy, and universe without an awful lot of success to date. We have a long way to go, and all of us should keep that foremost in mind.

Actually, we have made very good progress, to my mind, since Newton remarked that he felt like a small boy on the seashore, picking up the occasional pretty shell, while before him the mighty ocean rolled, all unknown. And that was only three hundred and fifty years ago or so. Yes, we have a long way to go, but science has brought us to know alike how the Universe began and of what we are made; to know, if not to understand, the strange interactions of time and space, and the extraordinary ramifications of the chemical properties of the most common elements. We are more than ants. We know what we are about. Not everything, but increasingly, enough to make impossible the old excuse that we didn't know. Our entire species works on the fact that we can use technology to change our environment. Now we have to learn to control the changes we make.

fnxtr · 5 August 2009

Wheels said: I know I really shouldn't point out Spencer's IDist position whenever someone brings him up in a climate change debate, but I just can't let it go. What more blatant evidence do you need that the person doesn't understand the science they're describing?

Pointing out someone's lack of critical thinking skills is always a valid argument. The former leader of the now-defunct Reform Party isn't fit to run for a bus, let alone public office.

DS · 5 August 2009

Biobob wrote:

"IMO, we are still like ants stumbling around merely attempting to understand earth, solar system, galaxy, and universe without an awful lot of success to date. We have a long way to go, and all of us should keep that foremost in mind."

I agree completely.

However, real scientist are acutely aware of this. They are continually humbled by the unexpected things they discover. And they also know how far we have come in understanding the universe and our place in it by applying the scientific method and having the courage to examine the evidence and follow it where ever it leads. Not bad for ants.

Creationists never discover anything and if we used their approach we would never make any progress whatsoever. Moaning that we don't understand everything will never get you anywhere. Admitting it is one thing, but doing something about it is quite another. Why is it that those who have never discovered anything are always the first to point out that we don't know everything?

Stanton · 5 August 2009

DS said: Creationists never discover anything and if we used their approach we would never make any progress whatsoever.

Which was why their approach of "Bible (should have) said so, God is Great, Glory Hallelujah, nothing more to see" was abandoned by naturalists, scholars and early scientists centuries ago.

Moaning that we don't understand everything will never get you anywhere. Admitting it is one thing, but doing something about it is quite another.

Creationists and others of a similarly pious mindset always conflate "we have not learned much yet" with "we will never learn anything ever," and then attempt to make a segue into how it's a horrible, life-destroying sin to be inspired to learn about the world around us when we really should be busy preparing for the End Times so we can hurry up and die and get into Heaven so we can never use our horrible brains to think again.

Why is it that those who have never discovered anything are always the first to point out that we don't know everything?

Because they're lazy, and the activity and industry of others give them indigestion.

EoRaptor013 · 5 August 2009

Don't know who said it, but there is truth there, and it fits well with this discussion:

"The greatest advances in science begin not with, "Eureka!" but with, "Gee... That's odd."

Actually, does anybody know who originated that quote?

Thanks.

Raging Bee · 6 August 2009

Wow, what a shameless crybaby Dembski turns out to be! And of course, like most con-artists, he knows he can't just walk away from a debate, otherwise all his lies will be freely debunked with no response; so he has to leave himself a get-back-in clause while he's stamping off in a huff and vowing never to return.

I've seen this sort of thing from the more amateurish creo-trolls here: they realize they're losing the argument they started, so they make some excuse and say "This will be my last post, but I'd like to leave you with this unbeatable insight..." Then when their "insight" gets smacked down, they have to come back for one more "last time" parting shot...and another...and another...

Stanton · 6 August 2009

Raging Bee said: I've seen this sort of thing from the more amateurish creo-trolls here: they realize they're losing the argument they started, so they make some excuse and say "This will be my last post, but I'd like to leave you with this unbeatable insight..." Then when their "insight" gets smacked down, they have to come back for one more "last time" parting shot...and another...and another...

Or they fire some snide parting shot before crawling back under the holy rock they came from, with tails firmly tucked between their legs, never to be seen again, unless they come back as a different sockpuppet.

fnxtr · 6 August 2009

Or pick up on a different post where they left off before and pretend their bs was never exposed.

Mike Elzinga · 6 August 2009

fnxtr said: Or pick up on a different post where they left off before and pretend their bs was never exposed.

We have a character who frequently writes to the editor of our local newspaper. No matter how many times I and a number of others have debunked him, his next letter just continues as though no such debunking ever happened. Our local paper has an editor who is apparently a fundamentalist. So this ID/creationist crap keeps getting printed as though it has never been answered. The other trick is that the editor publishes the responses in the on-line version of the letters-to-the-editor so that they don’t appear to be related to the bullshit published in the hard-copy paper. The on-line audience and the hard-copy audience are not necessarily the same.

DavidK · 6 August 2009

Speaking of bricks between the ears, this news snippet recently appeared:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/ap_on_re_eu/eu_switzerland_glacier_prayer

What more can be said?

Dan · 6 August 2009

Raging Bee said: I've seen this sort of thing from the more amateurish creo-trolls here: they realize they're losing the argument they started, so they make some excuse and say "This will be my last post, but I'd like to leave you with this unbeatable insight..." Then when their "insight" gets smacked down, they have to come back for one more "last time" parting shot...and another...and another...

Not only creationists:

Richard Nixon said in 1962: You won't have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference ...

Press conference after losing the election for Governor of California (7 November 1962).

a lurker · 6 August 2009

Dan said: Press conference after losing the election for Governor of California (7 November 1962).

I have to remember Jules Feiffer's marvelous, almost flattering obit cartoon for Dick Nixon: "And now, once more, people are saying that Nixon is dead." "But folks ... I'm planning a comeback."

BioBob · 7 August 2009

Dave Luckett said: Actually, we have made very good progress, to my mind, since Newton remarked that he felt like a small boy on the seashore, picking up the occasional pretty shell, while before him the mighty ocean rolled, all unknown. And that was only three hundred and fifty years ago or so. Yes, we have a long way to go, but science has brought us to know alike how the Universe began and of what we are made; to know, if not to understand, the strange interactions of time and space, and the extraordinary ramifications of the chemical properties of the most common elements. We are more than ants. We know what we are about. Not everything, but increasingly, enough to make impossible the old excuse that we didn't know. Our entire species works on the fact that we can use technology to change our environment. Now we have to learn to control the changes we make.

Thanks. You demonstrate my point with hubris. We don't KNOW how the universe began - we THEORIZE. There is vanishing little empirical evidence and I put my money on naysaying the probability that you were there to witness the event ;) Nor do we KNOW the interaction of space and time, again we merely postulate, nibbling at the edges. I will grant you that we understand something about common elements and more, some uncommon ones, and have made good progress in various other areas of science. But the more we poke at elements and atom, the more head scratching ensues. We do know some things about how we change our environment and astonishing little about other effects we have. Our knowledge progresses at an exponential rate but the amount we do NOT know is astonishingly large. We try but do NOT always succeed and so we try again. Hubris is my enemy and obviously yours as well. Anyone who claims that anthropogenic warming is settled science and or fact is a charlatan. We don't KNOW - some merely theorize without strong empirical evidence nor testing via the scientific method one way or another. Perhaps in a millenium or 3 we can experiment with Mars or Venus and so come to KNOW. Anyone who dismisses faith and god as scientific untruths does not realize the limits of science. No one can dismiss the spirituality of humanity with science. And a scientist without spirituality is a dullard indeed.

Dave Luckett · 7 August 2009

Nothing is "known", in the sense you're trying to promote - perfectly, absolutely. Nothing ever will be. I don't make a habit of quoting the Apostle Paul, but have a look at 1 Corinthians 13:12, and you'll see that even he knew that much. (Mind you, he was cribbing from the original Plato, and Socratic thought before that.)

But not knowing perfectly doesn't mean that we are ants, or that we don't know anything, or that everything we know is wrong. Science doesn't pretend to absolute knowledge. It only accumulates evidence until conclusions can be stated from it. The evidence about the origin of the Universe is unequivocal, from three different directions. The Universe began with a single event, about thirteen to fourteen billion years ago. Time and space started then.

No, we haven't got a unifying theory of everything. We don't have an ultimate basis for matter or energy, so far as I know, but we've gone a lot further than "nibbling at the edges".

We have no experimental data that directly bears on all Earth. But we can measure climate, and we can measure the anthropogenic inputs, and we can compare them over time, and that is a body of evidence. It's not proof, like a theorem, but it's evidence.

To expect perfect knowledge is to expect to be God - hubris in spades. Ignoring evidence because it's not absolute proof, when by the nature of the problem absolute proof and perfect knowledge is impossible, is the act of a dullard indeed. Or more likely, of somebody with an agenda.

Faith and god are scientific untruths, in a sense. Nothing in science can be accepted on faith, or explained by God.

But it's your inconsistency that is most glaring, and most galling. You dismiss all evidence for anthropogenic climate change, but you also demand that the "spirituality of humanity" be accepted without question, even though it cannot be defined, specified, measured, quantified or shown to exist at all. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels, indeed!

Richard · 7 August 2009

EoRaptor013 said: Don't know who said it, but there is truth there, and it fits well with this discussion: "The greatest advances in science begin not with, "Eureka!" but with, "Gee... That's odd." Actually, does anybody know who originated that quote? Thanks.

I think it was a writer called Isaac Asimov. That's all I know about him.

eric · 7 August 2009

BioBob said: ...We don't KNOW - some merely theorize without strong empirical evidence nor testing via the scientific method one way or another... Anyone who dismisses faith and god as scientific untruths does not realize the limits of science...

Biobob, you do realize the nonsequitur you just made, right? Using your own comments about what is required to "KNOW" something would mean the validity of faith and existence of god are unknowable. Religious statements about God lack all the types of proof you claim in your very own post we need to have before we could consider such claims knowledge.

fnxtr · 7 August 2009

Anyone who dismisses faith and god as scientific untruths does not realize the limits of science…

They may not be untruths, but they're most certainly unscientific. Apparently it is you, bb, who does not realize the limits of science. You are free to beleive any superstitious nonsense you want, but don't pretend it's scientific, 'cause, like henry's posts, we're not buying the bullshit.

fnxtr · 7 August 2009

believe

Dan · 7 August 2009

BioBob said: We don't KNOW how the universe began - we THEORIZE.

Similarly, we don't KNOW the shape of the Earth, we THEORIZE. (It's definitely not a sphere. It's closer to a ellipsoid. But in fact the exact shape of the Earth is still unknown ... http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/gravity_definition.html ) Does this mean we shouldn't draw maps, because we don't know the exact projection to use?

Dan · 7 August 2009

BioBob said: I put my money on naysaying the probability that you [Dave Luckett] were there to witness the [origin of the universe] event ;)

If Dave had been there, it wouldn't have helped. The radiation was mostly X-ray, and Dave can't see X-rays. BioBob suffers from a common misconception, that the only reliable evidence is eyewitness testimony. This misconception comes about because most humans depend more on their eyes than on their noses, or their fingers, or any of their other sensory inputs. (I imagine that when dogs develop more technology, they will broadcast "smellavision" instead of television, and they will have programs like "nosewitness news".) In fact, numerous studies (for example, A. Rattner, (1988) "Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and the criminal justice system" Law and Human Behavior, 12, 283-293) have shown that eyewitness reports are unreliable. It is far better to rely on forensic evidence ... for example, no one saw Timothy McVeigh blow up the Oklahoma City Federal Building, but the evidence for McVeigh's guilt is overwhelming. And this is exactly what Dave is doing. He's relying on the evidence left behind, not on unreliable eyewitness reports. BioBob criticizes Dave precisely because Dave is using reliable evidence!

EmaNymton · 11 August 2009

Wow, BioBob....you're rather, er, dumb.