The 1981 Miller-Morris Debate

I was one of the organizers of that debate - the sole "evolutionist" - on an otherwise Fundamentalist Protestant Christian creationist ad hoc committee comprised of members of the Brown Unversity chapter of the Campus Crusade for Christ (I was a member of that organization too, but merely as its resident skeptic, having then recently embraced Deism.). The debate was held in Brown's hockey rink arena and I still recall the scores of busses that had arrived from all over southern New England, from local Fundamentalist Protestant Christian churches. The atmosphere was a mixture between a Religious Revival meeting and a circus event until Ken spoke and silenced the audience with his credible refutations of Morris's breathtaking inanity.

During the Q & A session a few science literate Brunonians - including friends who were in the combined undergraduate - medical school program (These included a then close friend of mine whom I had known since our high school days at Stuyvesant High School and several Bronx High School of Science alumni too) - played a team-tag game of asking Morris questions about science and philosophy which he couldn't answer (We were also embarrassed by the sad, but unfortunate, fact that there were fellow Brunonians in the audience who were creationists.). Afterwards, at the end of the debate, I was confronted by some of my Fundamentalist Protestant Christian friends who accused me and Ken Miller (and my fellow science literate Brunonians of course) of being mean and disrespectful to the kindly, grandfatherly, Dr. Henry Morris.

John Kwok said: Afterwards, at the end of the debate, I was confronted by some of my Fundamentalist Protestant Christian friends who accused me and Ken Miller (and my fellow science literate Brunonians of course) of being mean and disrespectful to the kindly, grandfatherly, Dr. Henry Morris.

Being charitable I regard ole 'Enry Morris as the grandfather of all creationist conmen.

Some years ago I debated John Mackay of Oz and loads of fundies were bussed in to heckle.

You cannot debate a creationist as they are not interested in truth

Sore losers! Con artists who look kindly and grandfatherly still scam millions from people.….and should be imprisoned for fraud.

I won't have time to watch the videos until later, but I would nominate three of the more novel "ID/New Creationist" arguments that I am pretty sure were not argued in their current form in 1981:

1) Irreduceable Complexity. (Closely related to the Argument from Design, but I think it has enough novelty and literature to be considered on its own.)

2) The Information Argument (the proposition that biological processes can destroy information but not create it). This argument is like a weird cousin to the old Second Law of Thermodynamics canard, as filtered through the minds of computer science undergrads.

3) The Fine-Tuning Argument, which is the current trendy thing in philosophy of religion circles.

Joel said: 2) The Information Argument (the proposition that biological processes can destroy information but not create it). This argument is like a weird cousin to the old Second Law of Thermodynamics canard, as filtered through the minds of computer science undergrads.

This was happening during the time I and some of my fellow physicists were dealing with the grotesque mangling of thermodynamics that Morris and Gish were promulgating since the early 1970s.

You will notice in that debate that Morris trots this out quite early in his list of refutations of his equally grotesque caricature of evolution. Gish did this also when he was badgering biology teachers in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Morris came up with this shtick sometime before 1973; and both he and Gish apparently discovered that it was an extremely intimidating “demolition” of “claims of evolutionists.” It holds a primary place in Morris’s book What is Creation Science which came out around 1981; and Thomas Kindell is using Morris’s thermodynamic “argument” and graphs even today.

The ICR website still carries all of Morris’s original thermodynamic “arguments” even though they have been debunked over and over. This is the nature of ID/creationism.

Joel said: 1) Irreduceable Complexity.

In 1974, Young Earth Creationist Henry M. Morris introduced a similar concept in his book Scientific Creationism in which he wrote; "This issue can actually be attacked quantitatively, using simple principles of mathematical probability. The problem is simply whether a complex system, in which many components function unitedly together, and in which each component is uniquely necessary to the efficient functioning of the whole, could ever arise by random processes."[27]

TomS said: Check the Wikipedia article on IC under the heading "Forerunners"

TomS said:

Joel said: 1) Irreduceable Complexity.

Check the Wikipedia article on IC under the heading "Forerunners" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Forerunners

In 1974, Young Earth Creationist Henry M. Morris introduced a similar concept in his book Scientific Creationism in which he wrote; "This issue can actually be attacked quantitatively, using simple principles of mathematical probability. The problem is simply whether a complex system, in which many components function unitedly together, and in which each component is uniquely necessary to the efficient functioning of the whole, could ever arise by random processes."[27]

TomS said:

Joel said: 1) Irreduceable Complexity.

Check the Wikipedia article on IC under the heading "Forerunners" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Forerunners

In 1974, Young Earth Creationist Henry M. Morris introduced a similar concept in his book Scientific Creationism in which he wrote; "This issue can actually be attacked quantitatively, using simple principles of mathematical probability. The problem is simply whether a complex system, in which many components function unitedly together, and in which each component is uniquely necessary to the efficient functioning of the whole, could ever arise by random processes."[27]

Oh heavens. Now we're discussing "kinds" of creobot arguments.

Oh heavens. Now we’re discussing “kinds” of creobot arguments.

Henry J said:

Oh heavens. Now we’re discussing “kinds” of creobot arguments.

But did they evolve or were they intelligently designed?

mrg said:

TomS said: Check the Wikipedia article on IC under the heading "Forerunners"

Yeah. I think the primary innovation of Behe was to focus on the argument on the molecular biology level. Like CIT, it's not a new argument, it just raises the "fog factor" involved.

By contrast, much of my own work on intelligent design has been filling in the details of these otherwise intuitive, pretheoretic ideas of creationists.

Wow. So ID creationism really is kind of dead after all. If the great PandasThumb is now reduced to photos, "look at the crazy stuff Luskin/O'Leary/Dembski posted on the blog", and reexamining 30 year old debates, that's a pretty good indication of just how inert ID creationism has become.

No doubt creationism, and its anti-science crusade, continue on, but apparently not so much in the form of "intelligent design".

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Yeah. I think the CIT argument, one of ID's star attractions, jumped the shark a while back. They've gone about as far with it as they could, all they can do now is shuffle the same mumbo jumbo around in various ways, while the opposition (that means us) keeps figuring out better ways to shoot it full of holes.

David Fisher, in his recent popularization Much Ado About (Practically) Nothing offers a mixture of science and autobiography on the applied physics of the noble gases. Quite enjoyable.

From memory, I may have some details wrong:

Along the way he mentions how he was the scientist in a debate with Morris that stayed pretty close to questions about the age of the earth. Morris summarized a point from some geophysical paper at some point, Fisher thought the paper sounded familiar and asked for more details, and soon realized the paper was one he himself had authored. He got to hand Morris his head regarding what the paper actually said.

The audience, of course, wasn't impressed. They thought it was a mean unfair trick or something. Morris himself, as Fisher later learned and which will surprise no one here, continued to misquote Fisher in later debates.

Jose Fly said: Wow. So ID creationism really is kind of dead after all. If the great PandasThumb is now reduced to photos, "look at the crazy stuff Luskin/O'Leary/Dembski posted on the blog", and reexamining 30 year old debates, that's a pretty good indication of just how inert ID creationism has become. No doubt creationism, and its anti-science crusade, continue on, but apparently not so much in the form of "intelligent design". Good riddance to bad rubbish.

MichaelJ said: ID died with Dover. Pre-Dover, I think that these guys thought that they could change the world

Jose Fly said: Wow. So ID creationism really is kind of dead after all. If the great PandasThumb is now reduced to photos, "look at the crazy stuff Luskin/O'Leary/Dembski posted on the blog", and reexamining 30 year old debates, that's a pretty good indication of just how inert ID creationism has become. No doubt creationism, and its anti-science crusade, continue on, but apparently not so much in the form of "intelligent design". Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Just for fun-- before I read all the comments I'll leave mine.
I watched (really listened, just cool pics, no video) to the videos. I had never heard of this debate until I began paying attention to "the controversy" in the past couple of years.

As far as the creationist side is concerned, the debate could have occured yesterday. All of Morris' arguments are still heard and I've heard nothing really new recently. We don't hear so much about the dino/human tracks anymore(I was waiting for Miller to really take that down, but was it too new in '81 for him to be more decisive?).
It was so bad that I didn't even listen to his entire spiel, once I figured out all of video 1 was Morris, after about 20 minutes, I went right to the end. I skipped through much of his rebuttal too.

I listened to all of Miller's talk and that's the only time this really seemed like a 30 year old (really, 30?!) debate. I kept thinking of things more recently learned. He was really excellent.

If I have time to look at the transcript, I might scan more of Morris' arguments. Some of the audio wasn't so great.

Now I'll read what everyone else said.

MichaelJ said: ID died with Dover. Pre-Dover, I think that these guys thought that they could change the world

That ID creationism is dead is something I've been saying in various forums for a few years now. I think I may have even posted that view here a couple of times.

It's surprising though how YEC suffered even bigger legal losses (i.e. SCOTUS) yet continues to thrive in its own way. "Museums", theme parks, TV channels, fake journals, etc. But IDC seems to have just withered on the vine. It only seems to live on in the form of a handful of blogs and occasional mention (and subsequent abandonment) in backwater school districts.

Is it because YEC is directly tied to the Bible and fundamentalist Christianity, whereas IDC's attempt to portray itself as secular ended up being its demise? I think so, and the irony of that has to be savored.

Henry J said:

Oh heavens. Now we’re discussing “kinds” of creobot arguments.

But did they evolve or were they intelligently designed?

Jose Fly said: It's surprising though how YEC suffered even bigger legal losses (i.e. SCOTUS) yet continues to thrive in its own way. "Museums", theme parks, TV channels, fake journals, etc.

Jose Fly said: Is it because YEC is directly tied to the Bible and fundamentalist Christianity, whereas IDC's attempt to portray itself as secular ended up being its demise?

stevaroni said: Creobot arguments are, however, subject to the 2LOT. Since Creobot information is a constant (value: 1 Genesis worth), as their number proliferate sensibility entropy takes over and they each get a little more nonsensical than the last generation.

Henry J said:

Oh heavens. Now we’re discussing “kinds” of creobot arguments.

But did they evolve or were they intelligently designed?

mrg said: In my tinkerings on JFK assassination conspiracy theories, they have tended to become more baroque over time.

One of the first things I did when I had spare time off in Dallas was to make the pilgrimage to Dealy plaza. It’s amazing how quickly the conspiracy theories loose any veneer of sensibility once you stand in the place yourself. If you go up to the infamous sixth floor and look down on the street (it’s a museum nowadays, you can’t stand in the actual window, but you can stand in the next one) you can’t help thinking to yourself “Geeze, this would have been an easy shot. It feels like I could probably have hit Kennedy guy with a freakin’ baseball from here”.

stevaroni said: *SNIP* -- REPLY ON BW

mrg said: I think early on there were people -- Mike Denton comes to mind -- who honestly thought that if they sat down and really dug into the matter, they could show that evo science was bogus.

The second problem was that they had no substantial constituency for a secular attack on evo science: the hardcore antiscience cranks were too few in number, and so the only real constituency were the fundies who only reluctantly (and very inconsistently) pretended they were secular when they did so at all.

However, I think ID's arguments and, to an extent, tactics, have been picked up by the creobot community. The only question is how long ID will continue to pretend it's not the creobot sock puppet it effectively always was.

Henry Morris was not just a great man of origin research and accuracy in conclusions (truth) but a man of achievment in organizing and birthing organized creationism.
This was a famous man and respected by hundreds of thousands and as time goes on millions.
A man for the times. Creationism today is powerful and presumes to prevail in origin issues.
Henry morris made great arguments and like all leaders some wrong arguments.
He was a great evangelical Christian who attacked and held portions of enemy territory.
Oppose him and fear him if you must. yet to not respect him reflects on the lack of confidence of his opponents.
Its lame and poor sports.
He will rise as creationism rises in its success.

But could Morris tell us how many creationists can dance on the head of a pin?

Thought not.

Robert Byers said: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you!!!!

RB, I can never stop myself from saying how good it is that you're a creationist. I couldn't think of anyone I'd rather have lending support to the movement, and I could only wish they were all like you. Keep up the good work.

Jose Fly said: Wow. So ID creationism really is kind of dead after all. If the great PandasThumb is now reduced to photos, "look at the crazy stuff Luskin/O'Leary/Dembski posted on the blog", and reexamining 30 year old debates, that's a pretty good indication of just how inert ID creationism has become. No doubt creationism, and its anti-science crusade, continue on, but apparently not so much in the form of "intelligent design". Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Re Vanko's reply to Byers' rosy depiction of Morris:

"But could Morris tell us how many creationists can dance on the head of a pin?"

I was thinking more along the lines of the more trivializing "But can Morris see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?" (Yeah, child of my times, and all that.)

Kris said: ... Panda's Thumb is mired in the past and has nothing new to talk about...most people here have no life and have nothing better to do...

MichaelJ said: ID died with Dover. Pre-Dover, I think that these guys thought that they could change the world

Jose Fly said: Wow. So ID creationism really is kind of dead after all. If the great PandasThumb is now reduced to photos, "look at the crazy stuff Luskin/O'Leary/Dembski posted on the blog", and reexamining 30 year old debates, that's a pretty good indication of just how inert ID creationism has become. No doubt creationism, and its anti-science crusade, continue on, but apparently not so much in the form of "intelligent design". Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Kris said: Bringing up 30 year old debates is actually an indication that Panda's Thumb is mired in the past and has nothing new to talk about.

Wow. So ID creationism really is kind of dead after all.

Mike,

I agree, and that's why I was careful to stipulate that although the banner of "intelligent design" may no longer be flying, the creationist enemies of science are still a force to be reckoned with.

My guess is the next significant court case will involve the "strengths and weaknesses" tactic. Hopefully, the clear record of how they are basically the same threads that have weaved their way through YEC, IDC, and now this will win the day.

Mike Elzinga said: So it is never a good idea to just write these ID/creationists off.

Karen S. said: Not really. After all, the debunking of the alleged vaccine/autism link has had no effect on some people's beliefs. In fact, some now see Dr. Andrew Wakefield as a martyr being "expelled" by those evil scientists.

Jose Fly said: Mike, I agree, and that's why I was careful to stipulate that although the banner of "intelligent design" may no longer be flying, the creationist enemies of science are still a force to be reckoned with. My guess is the next significant court case will involve the "strengths and weaknesses" tactic. Hopefully, the clear record of how they are basically the same threads that have weaved their way through YEC, IDC, and now this will win the day.

I would think that’s not what’s meant here. Just that ID as a distinct entity from mainline creationism, always a fiction, is on the declining line of ever-increasing fictionalism. It’s just a question of how long the fiction will continue to be maintained.

I think we can all agree -

1) ID was nothing but an attempt to "court proof" creationism, by focusing overtly only on biological evolution, and playing coy with the identity of the "designer".

2) While attracting a small number of pure crackpots like Berlinski (although even the non-Fundamentalist crackpots tended to come from the ranks of the political right), the vast majority of producers and consumers of ID were "closet creationists" (or tried to be).

3) Before Dover, the creationist trolls would try to get it right and mouth the platitude that "ID isn't religious", but as Lenny Flank famously used to point out, they could never stand to keep it up for very long. Judge Jones famously called out people for lying about their religious beliefs.

4) As soon as the Dover decision came out, ID's stock plummeted in value. As Jose Fly correctly notes, the fiction of pretending that it isn't simply creationism has become to be seen as pointless by many people. Indeed, it is pointless. It was designed to be tested in court as a way to sneak creationism into classrooms, it was tested, and it failed the test dramatically.

5) However, there are still plenty of bigots who want to deny science because it doesn't conform perfectly to the dogma they are fed by their transparently self-serving leaders. Those bigots are tormented by cognitive dissonance, and live in terror that someone might educate their children, lessening their authoritarian grip of repression and prejudice. They are always working.

If the letters to the editor of our local newspaper are any indication, the local ID/creationists aren’t backing away from ID. And I am still seeing the old “scientific” creationism arguments also.

Mike Elzinga said: If the letters to the editor of our local newspaper are any indication, the local ID/creationists aren’t backing away from ID.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: If the letters to the editor of our local newspaper are any indication, the local ID/creationists aren’t backing away from ID.

Well ... there was never really much distinction between ID and traditional creationist arguments except for cosmetics, and to the extent that ID arguments differed from traditional creationism, the traditional creationists have embraced them -- the CIT arguments as a prime example. CIT is now part of the standard creationist toolkit. Of course, the number one attribute of ID was its insistence on secularism. It's hard to say that traditional creationists are embracing that argument; more like they reluctantly accept it to the extent they can stand to do so, and for no longer than they absolutely have to. It's very strange to have the sort of fundy who can't tie his shoes without referring the matter to the Big G -- I used to work with someone like that -- saying: "This has nothing to do with religion." Of course some, like Ken Ham, refuse to compromise their principles in such a way.

I liked the creobot the other day who tried to tell that if ID was stealth creationism, then so was evolution:

"That's not a duck! It's a low-cost swan!"

"Looks like a duck. Swims like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Might be a duck."

"Well, if you think that, then I can say a cat looks like a duck, too!"

Hmmm.
The Pope just declared that God was behind the big bang. But remember a couple of things. Understandable that Pope Benedict, ex-head of the office of the faithful (i.e., the inquisition office of the Catholic Church) would make such a declaration. But Catholics teach evolution, not creationism, i.e., God used evolution. Now that notion doesn't sit well with the folks at the dishonesty institute nor with the ICR fundies. No, ID/creationism isn't dead, unless the human race itself disappears 'cause there'll always be rubes to eat up their nonsense.

Robert Byers said: Henry Morris was not just a great man of origin research and accuracy in conclusions (truth)...

PB, alas Byers is what you might call "damaged goods".

One of Morris’ books hypothesized that the moon’s craters were the result of a war between Satan’s army of demons and the archangel Michael’s army of angels.

Robert Byers said: Henry Morris was not just a great man of origin research and accuracy in conclusions (truth) but a man of achievment in organizing and birthing organized creationism. This was a famous man and respected by hundreds of thousands and as time goes on millions. A man for the times. Creationism today is powerful and presumes to prevail in origin issues. Henry morris made great arguments and like all leaders some wrong arguments. He was a great evangelical Christian who attacked and held portions of enemy territory. Oppose him and fear him if you must. yet to not respect him reflects on the lack of confidence of his opponents. Its lame and poor sports. He will rise as creationism rises in its success.

Karen S. said:

One of Morris’ books hypothesized that the moon’s craters were the result of a war between Satan’s army of demons and the archangel Michael’s army of angels.

Did Morris explain why they were fighting on the moon?

Not only could no one ever invent a fictional character as absurd as RB, but no one would WANT to.

I'd ban, rather than just ignore him, JUST 'CUZ IT WOULD PISS HIM OFF THE WAY HELIKES!

May he never truly experience real suffering after all these years of play-acting!

"His head must be denser than a neutron star after butting it into the hard ground after all these years, eh?"

"Heh. Hee."

Kris said:

Jose Fly said: Wow. So ID creationism really is kind of dead after all. If the great PandasThumb is now reduced to photos, "look at the crazy stuff Luskin/O'Leary/Dembski posted on the blog", and reexamining 30 year old debates, that's a pretty good indication of just how inert ID creationism has become. No doubt creationism, and its anti-science crusade, continue on, but apparently not so much in the form of "intelligent design". Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Bringing up 30 year old debates is actually an indication that Panda's Thumb is mired in the past and has nothing new to talk about. [...] You people really should step outside once in awhile, and also realize that it's 2011.

Robert Byers said: Henry Morris was not just a great man of origin research and accuracy in conclusions (truth) but a man of achievment in organizing and birthing organized creationism. This was a famous man and respected by hundreds of thousands and as time goes on millions. A man for the times. Creationism today is powerful and presumes to prevail in origin issues. Henry morris made great arguments and like all leaders some wrong arguments. He was a great evangelical Christian who attacked and held portions of enemy territory. Oppose him and fear him if you must. yet to not respect him reflects on the lack of confidence of his opponents. Its lame and poor sports. He will rise as creationism rises in its success.

sparc said: Dover may have been an important achievement but it surely is to early to declare ID-creationism dead.

Robert Byers said: Henry Morris was not just a great man of origin research and accuracy in conclusions (truth) but a man of achievment in organizing and birthing organized creationism. This was a famous man and respected by hundreds of thousands and as time goes on millions. A man for the times. Creationism today is powerful and presumes to prevail in origin issues. Henry morris made great arguments and like all leaders some wrong arguments. He was a great evangelical Christian who attacked and held portions of enemy territory. Oppose him and fear him if you must. yet to not respect him reflects on the lack of confidence of his opponents. Its lame and poor sports. He will rise as creationism rises in its success.

The indignation felt by Mr Byers at the accusations of fraud, stupidity, and the general incompitance of Morris, is a mere symptom of the fear felt by most creationists. Their gretest fear is to have their book discredited; made to look phony and a mere collection of ancient twisted tales of morality. (someone should have said to Abraham that when god told him to sacrifice his son to prove how much the self-absorbed god was loved, he should have said, 'sit on it and rotate.....lord!)

Mr Byers I suggest a reading of Karen Armstrong's 'A History of God' may put you right.

Michael Roberts said: If Morris was such a great man why did he tell so many lies in all his books. He was not an honest man

Mike Elzinga said:

Michael Roberts said: If Morris was such a great man why did he tell so many lies in all his books. He was not an honest man

Ken Miller, in his book Finding Darwin’s God on pages 172 and 173, tells of an encounter with Henry Morris at breakfast in a local motel after their debate in Tampa, Florida. He asked Morris if he really believed this stuff; and Morris made it clear that he believed everything. He told Miller, “Ken, you’re intelligent, you’re well-meaning, and you’re energetic. But you are also young, and you don’t realize what is at stake. In a question of such importance, scientific data aren’t the ultimate authority. Even you know that science is wrong sometimes.” And this was after Ken demolished Morris in that debate the previous evening. Morris has had plenty of feedback over the years on just how wrong his caricatures of science are. So has Duane Gish. Neither appears to have been fazed by it whatsoever. And this also appears to be pretty much the attitudes of all YEC leaders; and it’s what they hammer on constantly in their training of children and high school students. Just look at AiG, for example. Trying to imagine just what hermetically sealed, irrefutable logic gets them to that point is extremely difficult for persons who have been open to the constant stream of evidence from the world of reality for their entire lives. The terror of learning that their dogma conflicts with reality has to be totally paralyzing for these YECs. Many of these leaders know what they are saying about science is wrong; but they keep holding out for the “proof” that science really is wrong.

Dale Husband said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Michael Roberts said: If Morris was such a great man why did he tell so many lies in all his books. He was not an honest man

Ken Miller, in his book Finding Darwin’s God on pages 172 and 173, tells of an encounter with Henry Morris at breakfast in a local motel after their debate in Tampa, Florida. He asked Morris if he really believed this stuff; and Morris made it clear that he believed everything. He told Miller, “Ken, you’re intelligent, you’re well-meaning, and you’re energetic. But you are also young, and you don’t realize what is at stake. In a question of such importance, scientific data aren’t the ultimate authority. Even you know that science is wrong sometimes.” And this was after Ken demolished Morris in that debate the previous evening. Morris has had plenty of feedback over the years on just how wrong his caricatures of science are. So has Duane Gish. Neither appears to have been fazed by it whatsoever. And this also appears to be pretty much the attitudes of all YEC leaders; and it’s what they hammer on constantly in their training of children and high school students. Just look at AiG, for example. Trying to imagine just what hermetically sealed, irrefutable logic gets them to that point is extremely difficult for persons who have been open to the constant stream of evidence from the world of reality for their entire lives. The terror of learning that their dogma conflicts with reality has to be totally paralyzing for these YECs. Many of these leaders know what they are saying about science is wrong; but they keep holding out for the “proof” that science really is wrong.

All based on the assumption, completely unfounded, that the Bible is the Word of God. But that is impossible, because anyone can make up a book and call it divine revelation, but the ONLY thing that man cannot make is the universe itself and ultimate truth must be found through studying it, never through studying any man-made book.

Kris said:

Dale Husband said: All based on the assumption, completely unfounded, that the Bible is the Word of God. But that is impossible, because anyone can make up a book and call it divine revelation, but the ONLY thing that man cannot make is the universe itself and ultimate truth must be found through studying it, never through studying any man-made book.

Does that mean that all science books are wrong too? You did say "any man-made book".

Offtopic:

Do you think this should be considered an example of CSI?

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=236619&catid=71

"Four of the six numbers selected in real $355 million lottery on Tuesday matched those picked by the character Hugo "Hurley" Reyes from "Lost" who won a $114 million fictional jackpot.

Tuesday's winning Mega Millions numbers: 4, 8, 15, 25, 47 and 42

Hurley's winning numbers: 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 and 42.

As for the big prize Tuesday, two winning tickets were sold, one in Idaho and one in Washington state. The as-yet-unidentified winners each earned $177.5 million."

mrg said: PB, alas Byers is what you might call "damaged goods".

ID was dead on arrival as a "research program." It does live on in the imaginations of its adherents. The followers genuinely believe that the leaders are persecuted and driven from their university teaching posts, and that surely ID research would take off if only it wasn't denied funding.

sparc said:

Kris said:

Jose Fly said: Wow. So ID creationism really is kind of dead after all. If the great PandasThumb is now reduced to photos, "look at the crazy stuff Luskin/O'Leary/Dembski posted on the blog", and reexamining 30 year old debates, that's a pretty good indication of just how inert ID creationism has become. No doubt creationism, and its anti-science crusade, continue on, but apparently not so much in the form of "intelligent design". Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Bringing up 30 year old debates is actually an indication that Panda's Thumb is mired in the past and has nothing new to talk about. [...] You people really should step outside once in awhile, and also realize that it's 2011.

If ID-creationism is dead why is there a Biologic Institute? Why did ID-creationists open Bio-Complexity? Why are Dembski, Marks, Lönnig and other ID-Creationists still try to get something published in peer reviewed journals (one may debate if those journals actually have a functioning peer reviewing system)? Why do ID-creationists continue to write books? Why is there still a Discovery Institute? Why do Casey Luskin, Egnor and others continue to lie at evolutionnews.org? Why is Uncommondescent.com still active? Why has the California Science Center been sued? Maybe it's just because Behe, Dembski, Luskin and others make their living from ID-creationism or to keep the anti-modern, anti science right wing agenda alive. Dover may have been an important achievement but it surely is to early to declare ID-creationism dead.

Ghrom said: Offtopic: Do you think this should be considered an example of CSI? http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=236619&catid=71 "Four of the six numbers selected in real $355 million lottery on Tuesday matched those picked by the character Hugo "Hurley" Reyes from "Lost" who won a $114 million fictional jackpot. Tuesday's winning Mega Millions numbers: 4, 8, 15, 25, 47 and 42 Hurley's winning numbers: 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 and 42. As for the big prize Tuesday, two winning tickets were sold, one in Idaho and one in Washington state. The as-yet-unidentified winners each earned $177.5 million."

Mike Elzinga said: Trying to imagine just what hermetically sealed, irrefutable logic gets them to that point is extremely difficult for persons who have been open to the constant stream of evidence from the world of reality for their entire lives. The terror of learning that their dogma conflicts with reality has to be totally paralyzing for these YECs. Many of these leaders know what they are saying about science is wrong; but they keep holding out for the “proof” that science really is wrong.

Karen S. said: ID was dead on arrival as a "research program." It does live on in the imaginations of its adherents. The followers genuinely believe that the leaders are persecuted and driven from their university teaching posts, and that surely ID research would take off if only it wasn't denied funding.

John Kwok said: Intelligent Design creationists have not made any scientific progress, period. If they have published, it is because of their work that's not ID-related or, in the recent unfortunate example of Mikey Behe, they were asked by the editors of the journal(s) in question to submit a suitable paper. Instead, Intelligent Design creationism has been an ongoing public relations effort worthy of anything done by the likes of Bob Guccione and Hugh Hefner. That's a major important reason as to why - along with their deceitful, blatantly dishonest, tactics - that I have dubbed Intelligent Design creationism a sterling example of mendacious intellectual pornography ,and those like Behe, Dembski and Marks as being no more than the terrific mendacious intellectual pornographers that they are.

And for those who really believe that, then I think I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NY available for sal

DS said: Indeed. And just for perspective, you can contrast that with the literally millions of papers in real peer reviewed scientific journals that have been published in the field of evolution in the last thirty years. in fact, there have been major revolutions in almost every area of evolutionary biology, including the development of at least three completely new fields: molecular phylogenetics, evolutionary development and comparative genomics. For good examples of work in these fields, just go to the thread about the NABT conference and watch the videos.

Karen S. said:

And for those who really believe that, then I think I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NY available for sal

Bridges are intelligently designed. So there!

Ghrom said: Offtopic: Do you think this should be considered an example of CSI? http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=236619&catid=71 "Four of the six numbers selected in real $355 million lottery on Tuesday matched those picked by the character Hugo "Hurley" Reyes from "Lost" who won a $114 million fictional jackpot. Tuesday's winning Mega Millions numbers: 4, 8, 15, 25, 47 and 42 Hurley's winning numbers: 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 and 42. As for the big prize Tuesday, two winning tickets were sold, one in Idaho and one in Washington state. The as-yet-unidentified winners each earned $177.5 million."

Just as a polite reminder, I have been well versed in creationist mendacity ever since I agreed to serve as the "evolutionist" member of the ad hoc Brown University campus committee (the rest were all Fundamentalist Protestant creationists, including a friend who had read all of Darwin's books, believe it or not) responsible for organizing the debate between Ken Miller and Henry Morris.

And for those who really believe that, then I think I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NY available for sal

Ghrom said: Offtopic: Do you think this should be considered an example of CSI? http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=236619&catid=71 "Four of the six numbers matched..."

Mike Elzinga said:

Michael Roberts said: If Morris was such a great man why did he tell so many lies in all his books. He was not an honest man

Ken Miller, in his book Finding Darwin’s God on pages 172 and 173, tells of an encounter with Henry Morris at breakfast in a local motel after their debate in Tampa, Florida. He asked Morris if he really believed this stuff; and Morris made it clear that he believed everything. He told Miller, “Ken, you’re intelligent, you’re well-meaning, and you’re energetic. But you are also young, and you don’t realize what is at stake. In a question of such importance, scientific data aren’t the ultimate authority. Even you know that science is wrong sometimes.” And this was after Ken demolished Morris in that debate the previous evening. Morris has had plenty of feedback over the years on just how wrong his caricatures of science are. So has Duane Gish. Neither appears to have been fazed by it whatsoever. And this also appears to be pretty much the attitudes of all YEC leaders; and it’s what they hammer on constantly in their training of children and high school students. Just look at AiG, for example. Trying to imagine just what hermetically sealed, irrefutable logic gets them to that point is extremely difficult for persons who have been open to the constant stream of evidence from the world of reality for their entire lives. The terror of learning that their dogma conflicts with reality has to be totally paralyzing for these YECs. Many of these leaders know what they are saying about science is wrong; but they keep holding out for the “proof” that science really is wrong.

JohnK (not Kwok) said: I disagree with Cubist, in that CSI is a trivial conception rather than a undefined one. It's an improbable pattern which, at minimum, matches some independent pattern.

A couple of points -

ID may be dead, but the Discovery Institute works hard to resurrect it. I encourage mentioning "cdesign proponentsists" wherever possible to counteract their efforts.

Secondly, creationist (and other) idealogues are well explained by confirmation bias and by Herbert Simon's Bounded rationality concept.

eric said: This makes his concept undefined baloney.

Kris said: Does that mean that all science books are wrong too? You did say "any man-made book".

JohnK (not Kwok) said: The possible choices for each number run from 1 to 56. So the odds of 4 matching is only 1/56^4, or about 10^-7.

JohnK (not Kwok) said:

Ghrom said: Offtopic: Do you think this should be considered an example of CSI? http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=236619&catid=71 "Four of the six numbers matched..."

The possible choices for each number run from 1 to 56. So the odds of 4 matching is only 1/56^4, or about 10^-7.

stevaroni said:

Matt G said: There was an article in that recent Synthese called "Are creationists rational?" by John S. Wilkins. He suggests that people early in life adopt a particular worldview, and creationist beliefs may be "rational" within that worldview. He also discusses how difficult it may be to wean someone off creationism past a certain point in their development.

Science Avenger said:

Kris said: Does that mean that all science books are wrong too? You did say "any man-made book".

This "gotcha" moment provided by Trolls R Us (TM). Stay tuned for more idiocy, same batshit insane time, same batshit insane channel.

The Bible is simply not in the same league. It is full of known factual errors, and not only do these errors not get corrected, the mechanism Biblical believers use to reconcile the issue is… well.. to simply ignore pesky, inconvenient, easily demonstrated facts..

That’s an important distinction. When science finds text that doesn’t match reality, they change the text. When creobots find text doesn’t match reality, they pretend reality doesn’t exist

Karen S. said: ID was dead on arrival as a "research program." It does live on in the imaginations of its adherents. The followers genuinely believe that the leaders are persecuted and driven from their university teaching posts, and that surely ID research would take off if only it wasn't denied funding.

Lenny Flank: Indeed, one of the founders of the modern creationist movement, Dr. Henry Morris, has declared that evolutionary theory was given to Nimrod by Satan himself, at the Tower of Babel: "Its top was a great temple shrine, emblazoned with zodiacal signs representing the hosts of heaven, Satan and his 'principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of the world' (Ephesians 6:12). These evil spirits there perhaps met with Nimrod and his priests, to plan their long-range strategy against God and his redemptive purposes for the post-diluvian world. This included especially the development of a non-theistic cosmology, one which could explain the origin and meaning of the universe and man without acknowledging the true God of creation. Denial of God's power and sovereignty in creation is of course foundational in the rejection of His authority in every other sphere. . . . If something like this really happened, early in post-diluvian history, then Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution. "One question remains. Assuming Satan to be the real source of the evolutionary concept, how did it originate in his mind? . . . A possible answer to this mystery could be that Satan, the father of lies, has not only deceived the whole world and the angelic hosts who followed him--he has even deceived himself! The only way he could really know about creation (just as the only way we can know about creation) was for God to tell him! . . . . He refused to believe and accept the Word of God concerning his own creation and place in God's economy . . . He therefore deceived himself into supposing that all things, including himself and including God, had been evolved by natural processes out of the primordial stuff of the universe. . . ." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75). Thus, concludes Morris, "The entire monstrous complex was revealed to Nimrod at Babel by demonic influences, perhaps by Satan himself . . . Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75)

Mike Elzinga said:

Karen S. said: ID was dead on arrival as a "research program." It does live on in the imaginations of its adherents. The followers genuinely believe that the leaders are persecuted and driven from their university teaching posts, and that surely ID research would take off if only it wasn't denied funding.

And the crass irony is that these ID/creationist “think” tanks have far more money than do many individual laboratories in academia. So we know where their priorities lie.

stevaroni said:

JohnK (not Kwok) said: The possible choices for each number run from 1 to 56. So the odds of 4 matching is only 1/56^4, or about 10^-7.

Actually, I think it's better than that. It's been many, many moons since freshman statistics (and there was a lot of alcohol involved at the time) but I would have thought that the probability would be... 6/56 ( the probability of getting one ball right ) times... 5/56 ( the probability of pulling a second correct ball from the remaining pile ) times... 4/54 ( a third ball from the remaining pile ) times... 3/53 ( the last ball ) = (6/56) * (5/55) * (4*54) * (3/53) = 1/24486 Am I doing something wrong? (as I said, there was a lot of alcohol in the general neighborhood of freshman statistics... And freshman physics... And eco 101... You get the idea )

raven said: Henry Morris was a true conman. What he really believed, if anything is unknown.

They have the money for public relations work, not for real “research”. Heaven forbid!!!

JohnK (not Kwok) said:

Ghrom said: Offtopic: Do you think this should be considered an example of CSI? http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=236619&catid=71 "Four of the six numbers matched..."

The possible choices for each number run from 1 to 56. So the odds of 4 matching is only 1/56^4, or about 10^-7. The C in Dembski's "CSI" is synonymous with improbability, and Dembski's cutoff for a intelligently designed event is 10^-150. So, not enough C in that lottery to trigger the Bat Signal... errr... ID Detector. I disagree with Cubist, in that CSI is a trivial conception rather than a undefined one. It's an improbable pattern which, at minimum, matches some independent pattern.

Oh incidentally, the answer to getting 4 matches out of 6 targets with 6 selections out of 56 is 1/1,767. Kwok calculated the odds of getting 4 matches out of 4 targets with 4 picks, and in order. Stevaroni calculated the odds of getting 4 hits out of 6 targets with 4 selections regardless of order. Those extra 2 selections in the actual example that can be misses really reduce the odds.

eric said: Dembski does not provide a methodology for determining the probabilities of realistic cases... This makes his concept undefined baloney. Dembski has toy examples but no legitimate methodology.

Oh, Kwok's calcs assumed replacement, and Stevaroni's assumed none. [stepping off the podium]

Cubist said: Are you sure that's what an ID-pusher means, when they talk about 'CSI'?

ben said:

The Bible is simply not in the same league. It is full of known factual errors, and not only do these errors not get corrected, the mechanism Biblical believers use to reconcile the issue is… well.. to simply ignore pesky, inconvenient, easily demonstrated facts..

Don't forget "...and lie about them."

That’s an important distinction. When science finds text that doesn’t match reality, they change the text. When creobots find text doesn’t match reality, they pretend reality doesn’t exist

....and lie about it.

JohnK (not Kwok) said: You are right stevaroni, the odds are 360 times greater than 1/56*55*54*53. Relative to 10^-150, I kinda ignored it but shouldn't have. But Dave, it's not reduced by "a factor of 56^2."

eric said: Dembski does not provide a methodology for determining the probabilities of realistic cases... This makes his concept undefined baloney. Dembski has toy examples but no legitimate methodology.

Well OK..... Because he can't do the prob. calc's in practice for relevant examples, you claim the entire CSI concept is "undefined." One might as well say probability is "undefined" as a concept in those cases. Everyone agrees CSI's useless for relevant cases and without a practical methodology, but I don't see why the extra step must be taken to call it "undefined". (There are also aspects of specification that are also ridiculously wooly in practice, but in this case (and for many others) the pattern is specified.)

I always like to hand them the probability of the formation of a salt crystal 10 atoms on a side, which is (2^1000)/24 == 4.17E300. They usually offer that the salt crystal doesn't contain "information".

JohnK (not Kwok) said: Well OK..... Because he can't do the prob. calc's in practice for relevant examples, you claim the entire CSI concept is "undefined." One might as well say probability is "undefined" as a concept in those cases.

I don't see why the extra step must be taken to call it "undefined".

mrg said: I always like to hand them the probability of the formation of a salt crystal 10 atoms on a side, which is (2^1000)/24 == 4.17E300. They usually offer that the salt crystal doesn't contain "information".

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said: I always like to hand them the probability of the formation of a salt crystal 10 atoms on a side, which is (2^1000)/24 == 4.17E300. They usually offer that the salt crystal doesn't contain "information".

If we start with 10 x10 x10 molecules and randomly select from a pile of these just lying around, the number of permutations for placing them in position would be 1000!. Now we have to fold in the fact that NaCl is a face-centered cubic Bravais lattice. What is the probability that sodium molecules would know to form such an arrangement? No information beyond the fact that these are sodium chloride molecules? Hah! Even at the simplest level, CSI makes no sense whatsoever.

Malchus said: One of my students pointed out to me that it makes even less sense than you think: CSI is computable IFF there exists a mechanistic pathway to the end pattern. But objects with high CSI cannot by definition have such pathways.

raven said: Henry Morris was a true conman.

Mike Elzinga said: If we start with 10 x10 x10 molecules and randomly select from a pile of these just lying around, the number of permutations for placing them in position would be 1000!.

My first encounter with creationist literature was the serialization of Criswell's "Did Man Just Happen?" In the Baptist Standard, around 1957. One still sees many of the same mistaken arguments in modern creationist writings. Sigh!

mrg said: That would assume that all the atoms are different.

Mike Elzinga said: Yes; I know! ;-)

Oh, now I get it. You have your Dembski hat on.

But if I ask for clarification, are you going to tell me that you don't have to match my pathetic level of detail?

mrg said: Oh, now I get it. You have your Dembski hat on. But if I ask for clarification, are you going to tell me that you don't have to match my pathetic level of detail?

Mike Elzinga said: Bingo!

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: Bingo!

You are aware, of course, that sad experience has disastrously dulled the ability of the Pandas to detect irony.

Mike Elzinga said: :-)

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: :-)

Well OK. But I recommend you draw the line at putting your Byers hat on.

Mike Elzinga said: My head doesn’t fit in any subset of those dimensions.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: My head doesn’t fit in any subset of those dimensions.

I was thinking it might be well too small to fit.

Karen S. said: Bridges are intelligently designed. So there!

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: :-)

Well OK. But I recommend you draw the line at putting your Byers hat on.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: My head doesn’t fit in any subset of those dimensions.

I was thinking it might be well too small to fit.

H.H. said:

Karen S. said: Bridges are intelligently designed. So there!

Not all of them!

But are there any trolls under that bridge? :)

Henry J said: But are there any trolls under that bridge? :)

It’s also irreducibly complex: remove a single stone and the entire thing falls down.

H.H. said:

Karen S. said: Bridges are intelligently designed. So there!

Not all of them!

Karen S. said:

It’s also irreducibly complex: remove a single stone and the entire thing falls down.

A testable prediction! Make sure Dembski is underneath it before the demo.

Mike Elzinga said:

JohnK (not Kwok) said: You are right stevaroni, the odds are 360 times greater than 1/56*55*54*53. Relative to 10^-150, I kinda ignored it but shouldn't have. But Dave, it's not reduced by "a factor of 56^2."

eric said: Dembski does not provide a methodology for determining the probabilities of realistic cases... This makes his concept undefined baloney. Dembski has toy examples but no legitimate methodology.

Well OK..... Because he can't do the prob. calc's in practice for relevant examples, you claim the entire CSI concept is "undefined." One might as well say probability is "undefined" as a concept in those cases. Everyone agrees CSI's useless for relevant cases and without a practical methodology, but I don't see why the extra step must be taken to call it "undefined". (There are also aspects of specification that are also ridiculously wooly in practice, but in this case (and for many others) the pattern is specified.)

Dembski has a more serious problem in calculating probabilities when it comes to assemblies of atoms and molecules. He assumes these are just lying around to be picked randomly using a uniform distribution for sampling. That’s not how atoms and molecules coalesce in any kind of system in nature. Dembski has been wrong at every level of his “theory” of CSI.

I am told that it was the tradition in ancient Rome to make the builder stand under the arch when construction was finished and the falsework was removed.

John Kwok said: Fundamentally THAT IS THE PROBLEM with the Explanatory Filter since it assumes some kind of uniform distribution:

Mike Elzinga said:

JohnK (not Kwok) said: You are right stevaroni, the odds are 360 times greater than 1/56*55*54*53. Relative to 10^-150, I kinda ignored it but shouldn't have. But Dave, it's not reduced by "a factor of 56^2."

eric said: Dembski does not provide a methodology for determining the probabilities of realistic cases... This makes his concept undefined baloney. Dembski has toy examples but no legitimate methodology.

Well OK..... Because he can't do the prob. calc's in practice for relevant examples, you claim the entire CSI concept is "undefined." One might as well say probability is "undefined" as a concept in those cases. Everyone agrees CSI's useless for relevant cases and without a practical methodology, but I don't see why the extra step must be taken to call it "undefined". (There are also aspects of specification that are also ridiculously wooly in practice, but in this case (and for many others) the pattern is specified.)

Dembski has a more serious problem in calculating probabilities when it comes to assemblies of atoms and molecules. He assumes these are just lying around to be picked randomly using a uniform distribution for sampling. That’s not how atoms and molecules coalesce in any kind of system in nature. Dembski has been wrong at every level of his “theory” of CSI.

Cubist said:

John Kwok said: Fundamentally THAT IS THE PROBLEM with the Explanatory Filter since it assumes some kind of uniform distribution:

Mike Elzinga said:

JohnK (not Kwok) said: You are right stevaroni, the odds are 360 times greater than 1/56*55*54*53. Relative to 10^-150, I kinda ignored it but shouldn't have. But Dave, it's not reduced by "a factor of 56^2."

eric said: Dembski does not provide a methodology for determining the probabilities of realistic cases... This makes his concept undefined baloney. Dembski has toy examples but no legitimate methodology.

Well OK..... Because he can't do the prob. calc's in practice for relevant examples, you claim the entire CSI concept is "undefined." One might as well say probability is "undefined" as a concept in those cases. Everyone agrees CSI's useless for relevant cases and without a practical methodology, but I don't see why the extra step must be taken to call it "undefined". (There are also aspects of specification that are also ridiculously wooly in practice, but in this case (and for many others) the pattern is specified.)

Dembski has a more serious problem in calculating probabilities when it comes to assemblies of atoms and molecules. He assumes these are just lying around to be picked randomly using a uniform distribution for sampling. That’s not how atoms and molecules coalesce in any kind of system in nature. Dembski has been wrong at every level of his “theory” of CSI.

Wrong, John. The fundamental problem with the Explanatory Filter is that only an omniscient Entity can get useful results out of it. When a non-omniscient entity uses the EF, it yields a false positive indication of Design whenever it's applied to any non-Designed whatzit with a non-Design explanation that the non-omniscient user doesn't know how to test for.

Stanton said:

Cubist said:

John Kwok said: Fundamentally THAT IS THE PROBLEM with the Explanatory Filter since it assumes some kind of uniform distribution:

Mike Elzinga said:

JohnK (not Kwok) said: You are right stevaroni, the odds are 360 times greater than 1/56*55*54*53. Relative to 10^-150, I kinda ignored it but shouldn't have. But Dave, it's not reduced by "a factor of 56^2."

eric said: Dembski does not provide a methodology for determining the probabilities of realistic cases... This makes his concept undefined baloney. Dembski has toy examples but no legitimate methodology.

Well OK..... Because he can't do the prob. calc's in practice for relevant examples, you claim the entire CSI concept is "undefined." One might as well say probability is "undefined" as a concept in those cases. Everyone agrees CSI's useless for relevant cases and without a practical methodology, but I don't see why the extra step must be taken to call it "undefined". (There are also aspects of specification that are also ridiculously wooly in practice, but in this case (and for many others) the pattern is specified.)

Dembski has a more serious problem in calculating probabilities when it comes to assemblies of atoms and molecules. He assumes these are just lying around to be picked randomly using a uniform distribution for sampling. That’s not how atoms and molecules coalesce in any kind of system in nature. Dembski has been wrong at every level of his “theory” of CSI.

Wrong, John. The fundamental problem with the Explanatory Filter is that only an omniscient Entity can get useful results out of it. When a non-omniscient entity uses the EF, it yields a false positive indication of Design whenever it's applied to any non-Designed whatzit with a non-Design explanation that the non-omniscient user doesn't know how to test for.

In other words, the Explanatory Filter is nothing more than verbal hocus pocus Bill Dembski tries to use to justify him saying "GOD DID THAT"

Raven writes:

"Morris claimed that the theory of evolution was invented by satan and given to humans at the Tower of Babel.

He derives this by quoting the bible, as above. The problem is, none of what he says is in the bible, is actually in the bible. He just lied, made it all up.

Fundie xians do this a lot. They rewrite the bible to make it say what they want it to say, quote mine it, and just make up parts of it if they have to. Not exactly what someone who claims it is the inerrant word of god would do. Hypocrisy and lies are two of their three main sacrements."

Raven is not being honest. He misquotes Morris.

Here's how Raven (and Flank) quote Morris:

"The entire monstrous complex was revealed to Nimrod at Babel by demonic influences, perhaps by Satan himself"

Here's what Morris really wrote:

"It therefore is a reasonable deduction, even though hardly capable of proof, that the entire monstrous complex was revealed to Nimrod at Babel by demonic influences, perhaps by Satan himself"

Not only Morris admits that he is merely hypothesizing, Flank and Raven falsify Morris' quote by capitalizing "The" as if it was starting the sentence.

They also omit this passage, which is also the part of the paragraph in question:

"The solid evidence for the above sequence of events is admittedly tenuous. As a hypothesis, however, it does harmonize with the Biblical record and with the known facts of the history of religions; whereas, it is difficult to suggest any other hypothesis which does."

So Morris did not "make it all up", he constructed a hypothesis and qualified it as such. Raven and Flank, on the other hand, made it all up.

So instead of rating a "10" on the crank-o-meter, we need to reduce the score for Morris to a "9". "Done."

Karen S. said:

It’s also irreducibly complex: remove a single stone and the entire thing falls down.

A testable prediction! Make sure Dembski is underneath it before the demo.

Stanton said:

Cubist said:

John Kwok said: Fundamentally THAT IS THE PROBLEM with the Explanatory Filter since it assumes some kind of uniform distribution:

Mike Elzinga said:

JohnK (not Kwok) said: You are right stevaroni, the odds are 360 times greater than 1/56*55*54*53. Relative to 10^-150, I kinda ignored it but shouldn't have. But Dave, it's not reduced by "a factor of 56^2."

eric said: Dembski does not provide a methodology for determining the probabilities of realistic cases... This makes his concept undefined baloney. Dembski has toy examples but no legitimate methodology.

Well OK..... Because he can't do the prob. calc's in practice for relevant examples, you claim the entire CSI concept is "undefined." One might as well say probability is "undefined" as a concept in those cases. Everyone agrees CSI's useless for relevant cases and without a practical methodology, but I don't see why the extra step must be taken to call it "undefined". (There are also aspects of specification that are also ridiculously wooly in practice, but in this case (and for many others) the pattern is specified.)

Dembski has a more serious problem in calculating probabilities when it comes to assemblies of atoms and molecules. He assumes these are just lying around to be picked randomly using a uniform distribution for sampling. That’s not how atoms and molecules coalesce in any kind of system in nature. Dembski has been wrong at every level of his “theory” of CSI.

Wrong, John. The fundamental problem with the Explanatory Filter is that only an omniscient Entity can get useful results out of it. When a non-omniscient entity uses the EF, it yields a false positive indication of Design whenever it's applied to any non-Designed whatzit with a non-Design explanation that the non-omniscient user doesn't know how to test for.

In other words, the Explanatory Filter is nothing more than verbal hocus pocus Bill Dembski tries to use to justify him saying "GOD DID THAT"

Cubist said: Wrong, John. The fundamental problem with the Explanatory Filter is that only an omniscient Entity can get useful results out of it. When a non-omniscient entity uses the EF, it yields a false positive indication of Design whenever it's applied to any non-Designed whatzit with a non-Design explanation that the non-omniscient user doesn't know how to test for.

RBH said: One must also bear in mind that if one runs the Designer through the Explanatory Filter, the Designer turns out to be designed.

With any luck, Bill might have a stroke or worse.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but I was just looking at Nick Matzke's post on the evolution of bacterial flagella:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum-evolu.html

There are a couple of things I'm unsure of:

1) Nick says that of the 42 standard flagellar proteins in Escherichia coli/Salmonella, only 23 are thought "indispensable". Does this mean that the flagella in these bacteria could have some function without the other 19 proteins? Or does it just mean that only 23 are common to all modern flagella?

2) Is the fact that 15 (36%) of the flagellar proteins in these bacteria have no known homologs problematic for evolutionary models of the origin of flagella? Is there a reason why no homologs for these proteins have been discovered?

Ghrom said: Raven writes: "Morris claimed that the theory of evolution was invented by satan and given to humans at the Tower of Babel. He derives this by quoting the bible, as above. The problem is, none of what he says is in the bible, is actually in the bible. He just lied, made it all up. Fundie xians do this a lot. They rewrite the bible to make it say what they want it to say, quote mine it, and just make up parts of it if they have to. Not exactly what someone who claims it is the inerrant word of god would do. Hypocrisy and lies are two of their three main sacrements." Raven is not being honest. He misquotes Morris. Here's how Raven (and Flank) quote Morris: "The entire monstrous complex was revealed to Nimrod at Babel by demonic influences, perhaps by Satan himself" Here's what Morris really wrote: "It therefore is a reasonable deduction, even though hardly capable of proof, that the entire monstrous complex was revealed to Nimrod at Babel by demonic influences, perhaps by Satan himself" Not only Morris admits that he is merely hypothesizing, Flank and Raven falsify Morris' quote by capitalizing "The" as if it was starting the sentence. They also omit this passage, which is also the part of the paragraph in question: "The solid evidence for the above sequence of events is admittedly tenuous. As a hypothesis, however, it does harmonize with the Biblical record and with the known facts of the history of religions; whereas, it is difficult to suggest any other hypothesis which does." So Morris did not "make it all up", he constructed a hypothesis and qualified it as such. Raven and Flank, on the other hand, made it all up.

JB: For myself -- and I suspect you agree -- that Barney publicly denounces his neighbor Fred is terrorist and a child-molester, the distinction of adding that it "just a hypothesis" is slight.

Claiming it is "unproveable" is in the negatives, because that begs the question of why the denunciation was made in the first place.

Ooh -- too early Saturday, apologies for the syntactic butchery there. But I think the idea is clear.

Alfie said: I know this is a bit off-topic, but I was just looking at Nick Matzke's post on the evolution of bacterial flagella:

Karen S. said:

With any luck, Bill might have a stroke or worse.

He sure look like he was having one at the Great Debate at the AMNH when Pennock was going after him.

John Kwok said: I asked him twice in person afterwards how he would calculate confidence limits for the Explanatory Filter and regarded me as an ignorant fool, ignoring my questions. Years later when I received an unsoliticited e-mail from him, I again asked him twice, but both times he ignored me.

mrg said:

John Kwok said: I asked him twice in person afterwards how he would calculate confidence limits for the Explanatory Filter and regarded me as an ignorant fool, ignoring my questions. Years later when I received an unsoliticited e-mail from him, I again asked him twice, but both times he ignored me.

Well, obviously he didn't feel like matching your pathetic level of detail.

As the old saying goes: It takes a surgical operation to get the understanding of a joke into the head of a Scotsman.

mrg said: As the old saying goes: It takes a surgical operation to get the understanding of a joke into the head of a Scotsman.

Ghrom said: Raven writes: "Morris claimed that the theory of evolution was invented by satan and given to humans at the Tower of Babel. He derives this by quoting the bible, as above. The problem is, none of what he says is in the bible, is actually in the bible. He just lied, made it all up. Fundie xians do this a lot. They rewrite the bible to make it say what they want it to say, quote mine it, and just make up parts of it if they have to. Not exactly what someone who claims it is the inerrant word of god would do. Hypocrisy and lies are two of their three main sacrements." Raven is not being honest. He misquotes Morris. Here's how Raven (and Flank) quote Morris: "The entire monstrous complex was revealed to Nimrod at Babel by demonic influences, perhaps by Satan himself" Here's what Morris really wrote: "It therefore is a reasonable deduction, even though hardly capable of proof, that the entire monstrous complex was revealed to Nimrod at Babel by demonic influences, perhaps by Satan himself" Not only Morris admits that he is merely hypothesizing, Flank and Raven falsify Morris' quote by capitalizing "The" as if it was starting the sentence. They also omit this passage, which is also the part of the paragraph in question: "The solid evidence for the above sequence of events is admittedly tenuous. As a hypothesis, however, it does harmonize with the Biblical record and with the known facts of the history of religions; whereas, it is difficult to suggest any other hypothesis which does." So Morris did not "make it all up", he constructed a hypothesis and qualified it as such. Raven and Flank, on the other hand, made it all up.

Ghrom lying about Morris: So Morris did not “make it all up”, he constructed a hypothesis and qualified it as such. Raven and Flank, on the other hand, made it all up.

Morris: “Its top was a great temple shrine, emblazoned with zodiacal signs representing the hosts of heaven, Satan and his ‘principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of the world’ (Ephesians 6:12).

Ephesians 6:12: 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Dale Husband said: Or you could be lying yourself.

Or you could be lying yourself.

raven: He (Morris) derives this by quoting the bible, as above. The problem is, none of what he says is in the bible, is actually in the bible. He just lied, made it all up.

mrg said:

Dale Husband said: Or you could be lying yourself.

"Lying" is such a harsh word. I tend to like "misrepresenting the facts" myself.

raven said: The fact that Morris qualified his claim by calling it a hypothesis is ingenuous at best.

Dale Husband said: Noted.

“It therefore is a reasonable deduction, even though hardly capable of proof, that the entire monstrous complex was revealed to Nimrod at Babel by demonic influences, perhaps by Satan himself”

Yea, right. Did satan use the term "common descent"? Did he use the term "natural selection"? DId he use the term "random mutation"? Would Nimrod or anyone else have understood what he was talking about if he had? Why didn't Nimrod or Satan publish? They could have had a real scoop!

Exactly what does this guy mean by "the entire monstrous complex"? Exactly how much did Satan know? DId he know about genetics? Did he scoop Mendel as well? DId he know about population genetics? Did he know about evolutionary development? Did he know about molecular phylogenetics? DId he know about comparative genomics? Too bad he wasn't more talkative. He could have saved mankind from having to do hundreds of years of research.

Here's the thing, even assuming that Satan did in fact figure out that evolution had happened and even if he did spill the beans to some Nimrod, he wasn't lying. At least he had evidence to back up his claims. So even if the whole thing was Satan's idea, he was still right!

Why is it that fundies always have to assume that all real knowledge must be revealed? Why can't they accept the fact that small, limited humans are capable of actually figuring something out about the world around them themselves? Don't they read the scientific literature? What? Oh ... never mind.

The fact that Morris qualified his claim by calling it a hypothesis is ingenuous at best.

icr.org: Question: "How can creationists expect to have their doctrines taught in public schools when they believe that evolution was invented by the devil and is responsible for communism, racism and many other evils in the world?" Answer: At most, such beliefs are no more offensive than the frequent evolutionist charge that creationists are ignorant fanatics, and that creationism and Biblical Christianity are responsible for religious wars, witch hunts, and all sorts of moral bigotry.

Matt Young said: Disingenuous?

Matt Young said:

The fact that Morris qualified his claim by calling it a hypothesis is ingenuous at best.

Disingenuous?

ICR.org: As far as the actual beliefs of creationists are concerned, this should be completely irrelevant in a land of religious freedom. The role of the devil in propagating the evolutionary concept is a legitimate topic of study for those who believe in Biblical authority, since the Bible does teach the reality of a great personal being who is the ultimate source of all rebellion against the authority of God in His creation. Those who do not believe the Bible should not be concerned one way or the other, since they do not believe there is a devil anyway. Evolutionists are completely unwarranted in taking any personal offense to this teaching of the Bible. Creationists do not regard them as "agents of the devil," as some have complained, but only as unknowing victims of the one who has "deceived the whole world" (Revelation 12:9). If, indeed, creationism is true and scientific, and if evolutionism is false and contrary to true science (and this is the question at issue) then it is also reasonable for creationists to seek a causal explanation for the world's pervasive and age-long belief in evolution.

Well, if you think about it for a minute, it's a bit puzzling which is the right term. Checking definitions online: INGENUOUS: artlessness, demonstrating childlike simplicity DISINGENUOUS: fake or deceptive

wikipedia Henry Morris: Henry M. Morris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn Evolution & the Modern Christian (1967), Morris hoped to "open the minds and ... for writing in the book that "evolutionism" is satanic and responsible for .... Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris - Cached - Similar

Matt Young said: Surely you are not accusing Morris of honesty?

raven said:

wikipedia Henry Morris: Henry M. Morris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn Evolution & the Modern Christian (1967), Morris hoped to "open the minds and ... for writing in the book that "evolutionism" is satanic and responsible for .... Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris - Cached - Similar

There is a huge amount of documentation that Morris and the ICR think the theory of evolution was invented by satan. Morris even wrote a whole book about that.

Dale Husband said: Noted. However, Lenny Flank DID provide an exact reference [(Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75)], so I was curious as to why Ghrom thought he had nailed Raven unless he has that actual book. I've never seen it, so now I may be tempted to get the book to see for myself.

Wrong, John. The fundamental problem with the Explanatory Filter is that only an omniscient Entity can get useful results out of it. When a non-omniscient entity uses the EF, it yields a false positive indication of Design whenever it’s applied to any non-Designed whatzit with a non-Design explanation that the non-omniscient user doesn’t know how to test for.

DS said:

raven said:

wikipedia Henry Morris: Henry M. Morris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn Evolution & the Modern Christian (1967), Morris hoped to "open the minds and ... for writing in the book that "evolutionism" is satanic and responsible for .... Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris - Cached - Similar

There is a huge amount of documentation that Morris and the ICR think the theory of evolution was invented by satan. Morris even wrote a whole book about that.

So let me get this straight. Satan is responsible for figuring out that evolution happened, maybe even how it happened. But god is the one who actually made it happen. Have I got that right? So, once again, knowledge is the thing that is supposed to be bad for humans to have. After all, that's what got them in trouble in the first place, right? Why is god so insecure?

Even better than than, HJ: an omniscient entity wouldn't need to go to the answer, It would always have it.

It might be frustrating to have a conversation with such an entity. He would give you all the responses before you asked them.

As a Church of England minister I find it well nigh impossible to convince all my fellow clergy and also bishops on just how ludicrous and dishonest creationism and intelligent design is.

Often they think I am OTT, and have a thing about it

Michael Roberts said: As a Church of England minister I find it well nigh impossible to convince all my fellow clergy and also bishops on just how ludicrous and dishonest creationism and intelligent design is. Often they think I am OTT, and have a thing about it

There is at least one Church of England bishop who is a creationist - Wally Benn.

Also a good 5% of clergy.

Over the last 30 years it has grown from nothing in my church

Alfie said: I know this is a bit off-topic, but I was just looking at Nick Matzke's post on the evolution of bacterial flagella: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum-evolu.html There are a couple of things I'm unsure of: 1) Nick says that of the 42 standard flagellar proteins in Escherichia coli/Salmonella, only 23 are thought "indispensable". Does this mean that the flagella in these bacteria could have some function without the other 19 proteins? Or does it just mean that only 23 are common to all modern flagella? 2) Is the fact that 15 (36%) of the flagellar proteins in these bacteria have no known homologs problematic for evolutionary models of the origin of flagella? Is there a reason why no homologs for these proteins have been discovered?

Alfie said: I know this is a bit off-topic, but I was just looking at Nick Matzke's post on the evolution of bacterial flagella: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum-evolu.html There are a couple of things I'm unsure of: 1) Nick says that of the 42 standard flagellar proteins in Escherichia coli/Salmonella, only 23 are thought "indispensable". Does this mean that the flagella in these bacteria could have some function without the other 19 proteins? Or does it just mean that only 23 are common to all modern flagella? 2) Is the fact that 15 (36%) of the flagellar proteins in these bacteria have no known homologs problematic for evolutionary models of the origin of flagella? Is there a reason why no homologs for these proteins have been discovered?

Another way to say it is that the 15 nonessential proteins aren't even universally required *within flagellar systems*, so there is a lower probability (in general) that they will be conserved *outside of flagellar systems* (which is a more distant relationship).

Michael Roberts said: As a Church of England minister I find it well nigh impossible to convince all my fellow clergy and also bishops on just how ludicrous and dishonest creationism and intelligent design is. Often they think I am OTT, and have a thing about it

Michael Roberts said: There is at least one Church of England bishop who is a creationist - Wally Benn. Also a good 5% of clergy. Over the last 30 years it has grown from nothing in my church

Thanks, Nick.

There is at least one Church of England bishop who is a creationist - Wally Benn. Also a good 5% of clergy. Over the last 30 years it has grown from nothing in my church

Meanwhile, I’ve read that the majority of Englishmen are non-Christians now, and the percentage of Christians has been falling over the decades. You think maybe the two trends are related?

The reference to "Troubled Waters of Evolution" provides me with the opportunity to mention this. I have just put my collection of ICR published materials into storage. Much of it goes back to the early '70s, including "From Goo to You by Way of The Zoo"(hilarious). If anybody wants any of these for their own research maybe there is a way we could communicate outside of this venue. I'm not sure how we would do that but if somebody could use the stuff...well. FYI nearly all of it was purchased second hand I have no interest in supporting ICR or any other C/ID organization.

Peter Henderson said: I've always said YECism produces more Atheists than Christians Dale.

Mary H said: The reference to "Troubled Waters of Evolution" provides me with the opportunity to mention this. I have just put my collection of ICR published materials into storage. Much of it goes back to the early '70s, including "From Goo to You by Way of The Zoo"(hilarious). If anybody wants any of these for their own research maybe there is a way we could communicate outside of this venue. I'm not sure how we would do that but if somebody could use the stuff...well. FYI nearly all of it was purchased second hand I have no interest in supporting ICR or any other C/ID organization.

Mary H said: The reference to "Troubled Waters of Evolution" provides me with the opportunity to mention this. I have just put my collection of ICR published materials into storage. Much of it goes back to the early '70s, including "From Goo to You by Way of The Zoo"(hilarious). If anybody wants any of these for their own research maybe there is a way we could communicate outside of this venue. I'm not sure how we would do that but if somebody could use the stuff...well. FYI nearly all of it was purchased second hand I have no interest in supporting ICR or any other C/ID organization.

actually, I would suggest sending a note to Gary Hurd.

he has a massive collection of such items, and is always looking to add to it.

He has utilized them in his public debates.

Gary has visited these Freshwater threads on a fairly regular basis.

If Mary wishes I can put her in touch privately with Gary or others who comment here, with their prior permission.

Mary, you might want to consider scanning all that stuff and putting it up on the Net -- i.e., make it a publicly-available resource. Copyrights might be a problem, but I do know that in at least some cases, Creationists have explicitly granted permission for people to copy and disseminate their material widely...

Mary H said: The reference to "Troubled Waters of Evolution" provides me with the opportunity to mention this. I have just put my collection of ICR published materials into storage. Much of it goes back to the early '70s, including "From Goo to You by Way of The Zoo"(hilarious). If anybody wants any of these for their own research maybe there is a way we could communicate outside of this venue. I'm not sure how we would do that but if somebody could use the stuff...well. FYI nearly all of it was purchased second hand I have no interest in supporting ICR or any other C/ID organization.

RBH said: If Mary wishes I can put her in touch privately with Gary or others who comment here, with their prior permission.

As an aside I hope everyone will pause for a moment and think about those murdered and those fortunate to survive the deadly massacre in Tucson, AZ yesterday (I lived in Tucson for more than a decade so am a bit numbed with grief for what has transpired there.). I just learned that one of those killed was the granddaughter of former New York Yankees and New York Mets manager Dallas Green. My thoughts and condolences go out to all of the families who have suffered from that attack, but I also want special note of the tragic loss suffered by Dallas Green's family.

John Kwok said: Fundamentally THAT IS THE PROBLEM with the Explanatory Filter since it assumes some kind of uniform distribution:

Mike Elzinga said:

JohnK (not Kwok) said: You are right stevaroni, the odds are 360 times greater than 1/56*55*54*53. Relative to 10^-150, I kinda ignored it but shouldn't have. But Dave, it's not reduced by "a factor of 56^2."

eric said: Dembski does not provide a methodology for determining the probabilities of realistic cases... This makes his concept undefined baloney. Dembski has toy examples but no legitimate methodology.

Well OK..... Because he can't do the prob. calc's in practice for relevant examples, you claim the entire CSI concept is "undefined." One might as well say probability is "undefined" as a concept in those cases. Everyone agrees CSI's useless for relevant cases and without a practical methodology, but I don't see why the extra step must be taken to call it "undefined". (There are also aspects of specification that are also ridiculously wooly in practice, but in this case (and for many others) the pattern is specified.)

Dembski has a more serious problem in calculating probabilities when it comes to assemblies of atoms and molecules. He assumes these are just lying around to be picked randomly using a uniform distribution for sampling. That’s not how atoms and molecules coalesce in any kind of system in nature. Dembski has been wrong at every level of his “theory” of CSI.

I might add, TtheT, that what you mean is FUNCTIONAL information. In information theory when they say "information" it just means, in effect, "the number of bits in a file [message] after compression" and it's not arbitrary -- it can be measured. But it has nothing in particular to do with what the file contains, it could be anything, even sheer gibberish.

You are right, "functional information" (which is what CSI renders down to, if it can be rendered down to anything given its pointedly evasive nature) is hard to define. Take a file of 100 numbers. Functional information! What if they were generated randomly? Nonfunctional information! But what if they were used as a test set for a number-crunching program? Functional information! And so on.

Thanks for the NCSE suggestion. Having been a member since its earliest days I should have thought of that. If they don't need anything I try the other suggestions later.

So long as we understand that all of this is irrelevant. CSI is a phrase devised to make "looks designed to me" sound sciency. Let's not get the cart before the horse here. If something LOOKS designed, we know it has CSI. But if you don't base your data on your conclusions, what DO you base it on? If you don't keep your conclusions uppermost in mind from the start, you risk being in error.

Mike Elzinga said:

TomS said:

Joel said: 1) Irreduceable Complexity.

Check the Wikipedia article on IC under the heading "Forerunners" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Forerunners

In 1974, Young Earth Creationist Henry M. Morris introduced a similar concept in his book Scientific Creationism in which he wrote; "This issue can actually be attacked quantitatively, using simple principles of mathematical probability. The problem is simply whether a complex system, in which many components function unitedly together, and in which each component is uniquely necessary to the efficient functioning of the whole, could ever arise by random processes."[27]

Indeed. In Morris’s writings there is a famous graph that embodies Morris’s fundamental misconceptions about evolution violating the second law of thermodynamics. It has “Information” along the vertical axis and “Time” along the horizontal axis. A straight line labeled the “Historical Arrow of Time” slants upward to the right, and has additional labels “Evolution” and “Decreasing Entropy”. Another straight line labeled the “Thermodynamic Arrow of Time” slants downward to the right and has additional labels “Second Law” and “Increasing Entropy.” The caption for the graph (despite the Information and Time axes) is “Time’s Arrows – Evolution vs. Science.” Morris was clearly conflating all those words from the very beginning. My own impression is that he was so taken with his own “discovery” of this conflict that he actually manufactured, that this was much of what drove him and Gish to start a foundation to promulgate this “most devastating argument against evolution.” Once they had this undeniable “proof” in hand, it was simply a matter of “exposing all the dark secrets of the evolutionists” as further evidence of how desperate scientists were in attempting to cover this up. That was pretty much the shtick early on. ID was just waiting in the wings for a court decision.

So what is the most dangerous innovation of ID creationism? The movement stopped trying to overturn methodological naturalism, and adopted a new perspective on the nature of nature. The physical Universe is now comprised not just of matter and energy, but also of information. There is conservation of mass-energy, but not of information, which is created (only) by non-material intelligence. [...] The change in ontology makes IDC much more slippery than it was in Kitzmiller. On a verbal level, IDC has stepped entirely within naturalism. It does not obviously appeal to supernatural explanations. Many physicists accept the notion that information is in some sense physical. Thus it is much harder today than it was six years ago to argue that IDC is not science and that teaching of IDC as science does not serve a secular purpose.

Flint said: CSI is a phrase devised to make "looks designed to me" sound sciency.

Henry quoted:

"The tendency for entropy to increase in isolated systems is expressed in the second law of thermodynamics — perhaps the most pessimistic and amoral formulation in all human thought."

"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system."

So, once the earth is an isolated system, you know once the sun ceases to shine, all life on earth will have the tendency to cease to exist over time. Doesn't really have much to do with the process of evolution on the earth in the last four and one half billion years now does it?

DS said: "The tendency for entropy to increase in isolated systems is expressed in the second law of thermodynamics — perhaps the most pessimistic and amoral formulation in all human thought."

Having not been hanging at THE ONION for a while, I looked around a bit, and found one that the resident religion-bashers here will like:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-majority-of-money-donated-at-church-doesnt,18765/

henry said: This discussion of the second law in wikipedia seems to match Dr. Morris' description of it. http://www.icr.org/article/entropy-open-systems/

mrg said:

DS said: "The tendency for entropy to increase in isolated systems is expressed in the second law of thermodynamics — perhaps the most pessimistic and amoral formulation in all human thought."

Well, of course DS, we ought to get the law repealed: http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281/

DS said: Actually I didn't say that. It was a quote from Hill et. al.

I don't feel that complaining about reality is a very productive activity.

mrg said: Having not been hanging at THE ONION for a while, I looked around a bit, and found one that the resident religion-bashers here will like: http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-majority-of-money-donated-at-church-doesnt,18765/

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Henry Morris was not just a great man of origin research and accuracy in conclusions (truth)...

One of Morris' books hypothesized that the moon's craters were the result of a war between Satan's army of demons and the archangel Michael's army of angels. Bobby, if you actually think that hypothesis has any relationship to "accuracy" or "truth," you are even more delusional than we realized. So tell us - do you actually believe angels and demons caused the craters on the moon? Do you really think that is an accurate statement of truth?

Remember people ... damaged goods. Be gentle.

9.0. Amusing misspellings, high craziness factor, its almost perfect. A bit too comprehensible to score a 10.0, but good try.

John Kwok said: He was a pathetic old man Booby Byers:

Robert Byers said: Henry Morris was not just a great man of origin research and accuracy in conclusions (truth) but a man of achievment in organizing and birthing organized creationism. This was a famous man and respected by hundreds of thousands and as time goes on millions. A man for the times. Creationism today is powerful and presumes to prevail in origin issues. Henry morris made great arguments and like all leaders some wrong arguments. He was a great evangelical Christian who attacked and held portions of enemy territory. Oppose him and fear him if you must. yet to not respect him reflects on the lack of confidence of his opponents. Its lame and poor sports. He will rise as creationism rises in its success.

Am glad that yours truly, other fellow science literate Brunonians and, of course, Ken Miller were able to expose him as the contemptible fraud that he was on the evening of April 10, 1981. BTW, I played team-tag with my fellow science literate Brunonians by posing the very questions (at least three of the four) asked of Morris. The very first one was worded primarily by a friend from high school, Michael Lev, who had enrolled in Brown's premed - med school program.

time has told in thirty years henry morris has completely faileded to convince any real scientistsis of any real thingsis his intellectual is powerful weak and his conclusions is all faileded he wernt never nothin but a huckersters who conned many peoples into nonsensical syllogisyticas for which theys is eternallys sourerfully eh

DS said: time has told in thirty years henry morris

Now WHERE did you learn how to speak Byers?

Robert Byers said:

John Kwok said: He was a pathetic old man Booby Byers:

Robert Byers said: Henry Morris was not just a great man of origin research and accuracy in conclusions (truth) but a man of achievment in organizing and birthing organized creationism. This was a famous man and respected by hundreds of thousands and as time goes on millions. A man for the times. Creationism today is powerful and presumes to prevail in origin issues. Henry morris made great arguments and like all leaders some wrong arguments. He was a great evangelical Christian who attacked and held portions of enemy territory. Oppose him and fear him if you must. yet to not respect him reflects on the lack of confidence of his opponents. Its lame and poor sports. He will rise as creationism rises in its success.

Am glad that yours truly, other fellow science literate Brunonians and, of course, Ken Miller were able to expose him as the contemptible fraud that he was on the evening of April 10, 1981. BTW, I played team-tag with my fellow science literate Brunonians by posing the very questions (at least three of the four) asked of Morris. The very first one was worded primarily by a friend from high school, Michael Lev, who had enrolled in Brown's premed - med school program.

My summery is accurate and how history will see it Your malice and judgement of Mr Morris suggests you really do see him as a gentlemen and a commanding intellectual influence that is changing some corners of human knowledge. Time will tell eh.

Robert Byers said: My summery is accurate and how history will see it Your malice and judgement of Mr Morris suggests you really do see him as a gentlemen and a commanding intellectual influence that is changing some corners of human knowledge. Time will tell eh.

Robert Byers said:

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: Henry Morris was not just a great man of origin research and accuracy in conclusions (truth)...

One of Morris' books hypothesized that the moon's craters were the result of a war between Satan's army of demons and the archangel Michael's army of angels. Bobby, if you actually think that hypothesis has any relationship to "accuracy" or "truth," you are even more delusional than we realized. So tell us - do you actually believe angels and demons caused the craters on the moon? Do you really think that is an accurate statement of truth?

I know and applaud Henry Morris's ideas for explaining the great crators that are around. In revealation there is mentioned there was a war between angels and demons. This is seen by some, I lean that way, as happening in the few days after the fall. so from this on earth or the moon etc the great impacts are explained. likewise the origin of comets, asteroids, and the general destruction in the universe. This would be in a spiritual realm and our time lasting little more then a week etc. Creationists don't all accept this or talk about it. Its hard enough with the other stuff much less a cosmic war. Yet its the probably the truth. Morris is simply understanding there are issues with the great impacts hereabouts.

explaining the great crators

Byers can't even spell correctly when he has the correct spelling in the post he's actually responding to.

what on EARTH would make anyone think Byers could get an argument correct, even if he was bloody well copy-pasting it!

I've never seen such a pathetic excuse for a human being that is still, somehow, able to even use a computer.

are we sure he is even doing it? maybe he has a handler to help him type?

mrg said:

DS said: time has told in thirty years henry morris

Now WHERE did you learn how to speak Byers?

Ichthyic said: explaining the great crators are we sure he is even doing it? maybe he has a handler to help him type?

Ichthyic said: explaining the great crators Byers can't even spell correctly when he has the correct spelling in the post he's actually responding to. what on EARTH would make anyone think Byers could get an argument correct, even if he was bloody well copy-pasting it! I've never seen such a pathetic excuse for a human being that is still, somehow, able to even use a computer. are we sure he is even doing it? maybe he has a handler to help him type?

8.7 (OK, so I'm the East German judge).

KEEP POSTING this priceless stuff, Bobby! I can't imagine a better example to show to the world of "this is your brain on fundamentalist creationism".

Hi guys! I have a question for one of the resident physicists. I have an explanation of string theory from a Christian perspective (maybe even relates to the original debate) and I want to know where it would be flawed (besides just being Christian). If we have four observable dimensions but cannot directly detect the other 11, wouldn't it be possible that God inhabits the other 7 (eternity since it is outside of time). It would explain Omnipresence and the Trinity. Even if you don't believe there is a God.....isn't it reasonable to assume that we are eternal and that we move from this dimensionality to the others once we run out of the 4th dimension (time)? Does string theory indicate that everything is actually eternal? Or is it more like alternate reality happening at the same time?

FlowersFriend said: Hi guys! I have a question for one of the resident physicists. I have an explanation of string theory from a Christian perspective (maybe even relates to the original debate) and I want to know where it would be flawed (besides just being Christian). If we have four observable dimensions but cannot directly detect the other 11, wouldn't it be possible that God inhabits the other 7 (eternity since it is outside of time). It would explain Omnipresence and the Trinity. Even if you don't believe there is a God.....isn't it reasonable to assume that we are eternal and that we move from this dimensionality to the others once we run out of the 4th dimension (time)? Does string theory indicate that everything is actually eternal? Or is it more like alternate reality happening at the same time?

mrg said: I think you might want to go over to the Bad Astronomy blog to ask this question: http://www.bautforum.com/ Besides ... string theory is, shall we say, not universally respected among physicists. And as far as what you might want to read into it theologically, feel free, but I don't think there's much anyone could say about it. You could read as much theologically into, say, crystallography, or for that matter baseball.

FlowersFriend said: Is it parts of string theory (or M-theory) that are in question or the theory as a whole?

FlowersFriend said:

mrg said: I think you might want to go over to the Bad Astronomy blog to ask this question: http://www.bautforum.com/ Besides ... string theory is, shall we say, not universally respected among physicists. And as far as what you might want to read into it theologically, feel free, but I don't think there's much anyone could say about it. You could read as much theologically into, say, crystallography, or for that matter baseball.

Is it parts of string theory (or M-theory) that are in question or the theory as a whole?

FlowersFriend said: Is it parts of string theory (or M-theory) that are in question or the theory as a whole?

John Kwok said: I am an agnostic on string theory, but I did go to high school with someone who does accept it, Columbia University physicist Brian Greene. He's also very much interested in the intersection between science and faith and he may give you an answer that might be relevant to your own particular faith. Look him up at Columbia's website and feel free to mention that I had suggested it:

FlowersFriend said:

mrg said: I think you might want to go over to the Bad Astronomy blog to ask this question: http://www.bautforum.com/ Besides ... string theory is, shall we say, not universally respected among physicists. And as far as what you might want to read into it theologically, feel free, but I don't think there's much anyone could say about it. You could read as much theologically into, say, crystallography, or for that matter baseball.

Is it parts of string theory (or M-theory) that are in question or the theory as a whole?

MrG's "not universally respected" comment probably refers to the fact that it hasn't been tested. Don't read much into the appearance of "theory" in the name - in scientific methodology terms the various versions of it would probably be better described as hypotheses.

I think some string theorists have outlined experiments we could hypothetically do to test their predictions. However, doing so would be very expensive, so it hasn't been done. And ideas that haven't been tested sit near the bottom of the totem pole in terms of scientific respect (but well above the untestable ones).

As MrG says, your questions about where God lives, whether we have eternal bits, etc... aren't scientific. Like him, I don't see how it relates to Christian theology at all.

eric said: MrG's "not universally respected" comment probably refers to the fact that it hasn't been tested.

As MrG says, your questions about where God lives, whether we have eternal bits, etc... aren't scientific.

Mike Elzinga said: Ken Ham’s latest rant is good fodder for The Onion.

FlowersFriend said: I have an explanation of string theory from a Christian perspective ... If we have four observable dimensions but cannot directly detect the other 11, wouldn't it be possible that God inhabits the other 7 (eternity since it is outside of time). It would explain Omnipresence and the Trinity.

stevaroni said: But yeah, it could work that way. But probably not.

Mike Elzinga said: And one might run into Mister Mxyzptlk also. :-)

Michael Roberts said: Henry Morris was a conman and liar. There are no other words for him

FlowersFriend said: Hi guys! I have a question for one of the resident physicists. I have an explanation of string theory from a Christian perspective (maybe even relates to the original debate) and I want to know where it would be flawed (besides just being Christian). If we have four observable dimensions but cannot directly detect the other 11, wouldn't it be possible that God inhabits the other 7 (eternity since it is outside of time). It would explain Omnipresence and the Trinity. Even if you don't believe there is a God.....isn't it reasonable to assume that we are eternal and that we move from this dimensionality to the others once we run out of the 4th dimension (time)? Does string theory indicate that everything is actually eternal? Or is it more like alternate reality happening at the same time?

The MadPanda, FCD said:

Michael Roberts said: Henry Morris was a conman and liar. There are no other words for him

Sir, I protest, vehemently protest your broad-brushed lumping of hardworking grifters and spin doctors in with the unspeakably vile example of blatant and mendacious intellectual pornographers like the execrable Morris. Theirs is a professional disdain for honesty and the truth, kept within certain limits as necessary for their role in our complex and ever-shifting world... (continue Monty Pythonesque rant ad nauseum) Byers, you're off the table and into someone's pint of lager (as usual). I give it a 5.3, because while Just Bob is the East German judge, I'm probably the Russian one. The MadPanda, FCD (with apologies to John Kwok for having borrowed his favorite descriptor without notice)

eric said: MrG's "not universally respected" comment probably refers to the fact that it hasn't been tested. Don't read much into the appearance of "theory" in the name - in scientific methodology terms the various versions of it would probably be better described as hypotheses. I think some string theorists have outlined experiments we could hypothetically do to test their predictions. However, doing so would be very expensive, so it hasn't been done. And ideas that haven't been tested sit near the bottom of the totem pole in terms of scientific respect (but well above the untestable ones). As MrG says, your questions about where God lives, whether we have eternal bits, etc... aren't scientific. Like him, I don't see how it relates to Christian theology at all.

FlowersFriend said:

eric said: MrG's "not universally respected" comment probably refers to the fact that it hasn't been tested. Don't read much into the appearance of "theory" in the name - in scientific methodology terms the various versions of it would probably be better described as hypotheses. I think some string theorists have outlined experiments we could hypothetically do to test their predictions. However, doing so would be very expensive, so it hasn't been done. And ideas that haven't been tested sit near the bottom of the totem pole in terms of scientific respect (but well above the untestable ones). As MrG says, your questions about where God lives, whether we have eternal bits, etc... aren't scientific. Like him, I don't see how it relates to Christian theology at all.

I'm not really trying to "be scientific". My questions relate more to explaining theology to other Christians, but I don't want to extrapolate ideas from string theory if I don't have a decent understanding in the first place. I certainly don't want to express ideas that have been falsified. In regards to relating to Christian theology....many Christians struggle with free will vs predetermination and view it as a paradox that has no answer and even split entire congregations over it. In light of string theory it becomes not only plausible but easily understood. If God is outside of our time domain, then he can see time from beginning to end and knows who will choose and who will not while giving each their own completely free will. Many struggle with God being able to be concerned with each individual's personal struggles, lives, prayers all at the same time. If I view a point in space, me being 3 dimensional and it being 1 dimensional, I can see all around it, I can close my hand around it, I can even view many points in space all at once. If God exists in 11 dimensions it makes it plausible that He could indeed be able to be involved in each and every person's life at one time. Not really something to build doctrine on, but something that is interesting to investigate (for me at least).

John Kwok said: Just want to caution you that what you are writing is metaphysics, not science and that others who are devout Christians - and scientists - who have posted here, for example, physicist David Heddle, have been attacked merely for giving the appearance of conflating their religious beliefs with their understanding of science. I also think you should note these similar observations from the Dalai Lama and cell biologist Ken Miller (who is a friend BTW): 1) The Dalai Lama has observed that if Buddhism is wrong and science right, then Buddhism must conform with science. 2) Ken Miller has declared that those who embrace faiths hostile to science should reject them.

FlowersFriend said:

John Kwok said: Just want to caution you that what you are writing is metaphysics, not science and that others who are devout Christians - and scientists - who have posted here, for example, physicist David Heddle, have been attacked merely for giving the appearance of conflating their religious beliefs with their understanding of science. I also think you should note these similar observations from the Dalai Lama and cell biologist Ken Miller (who is a friend BTW): 1) The Dalai Lama has observed that if Buddhism is wrong and science right, then Buddhism must conform with science. 2) Ken Miller has declared that those who embrace faiths hostile to science should reject them.

That's what I'm trying to find out....is what I'm saying hostile to science? I'm not suggesting that it is "scientific", I'm just wondering if it jives (hypothetically of course). Is there something wrong with using science to help understand more about my Creator? It's like saying that a Creator used evolution as the mechanism to create isn't it? Or not? I'm not trying to "pass it off" as a scientific theory. I was just explaining why it was of interest to me.

John Kwok said: No, I don't think what you are saying now is hostile to science, but there may have been other comments you posted that did leave some of us with that impression. While I am a Deist and operate functionally as an Atheist, I am also reliigously tolerant (especially since my own sister is an Evangelical Protestant Christian, have family who are Buddhists, Christians, Jews and Muslims, and have two clerics as relatives; a retired Methodist minister and a Sunni Muslim cleric who is a prominent Muslim-American (though I am a bit dubious of him being "prominent" when he's become a willing mouthpiece of CAIR. But I digress.). I am probably far more tolerant than some of the Atheists posting here given the substantial breadth and depth of faiths represented in my extended family.

FlowersFriend said: Interesting dinner conversations to be sure.

FlowersFriend said: That's what I'm trying to find out....is what I'm saying hostile to science?

Is there something wrong with using science to help understand more about my Creator? It's like saying that a Creator used evolution as the mechanism to create isn't it? Or not? I'm not trying to "pass it off" as a scientific theory. I was just explaining why it was of interest to me.

mrg said: More like a food fight.

mrg said:

FlowersFriend said: Interesting dinner conversations to be sure.

More like a food fight.

eric said:

mrg said: More like a food fight.

They don't argue over piddly stuff like religion. They stick to the important topics, like who's High School is better. :)

FlowersFriend said: I'm not really trying to "be scientific". My questions relate more to explaining theology to other Christians, but I don't want to extrapolate ideas from string theory if I don't have a decent understanding in the first place.

FlowersFriend said:

John Kwok said: No, I don't think what you are saying now is hostile to science, but there may have been other comments you posted that did leave some of us with that impression. While I am a Deist and operate functionally as an Atheist, I am also reliigously tolerant (especially since my own sister is an Evangelical Protestant Christian, have family who are Buddhists, Christians, Jews and Muslims, and have two clerics as relatives; a retired Methodist minister and a Sunni Muslim cleric who is a prominent Muslim-American (though I am a bit dubious of him being "prominent" when he's become a willing mouthpiece of CAIR. But I digress.). I am probably far more tolerant than some of the Atheists posting here given the substantial breadth and depth of faiths represented in my extended family.

Can I just say WOW.....I just don't think you could get a much better representation of the world's religions in one family. Interesting dinner conversations to be sure.

eric said: Whatever your reason for wanting to learn more about science, I’m glad you want to. That is a good thing. Too often we hear of people who turn their backs on science and scientists after realizing some scientific discovery contracdicts something they learned elsewhere. This is both a shame, but also dangerous to society, because while we can temporarily fool ourselves about how the world works, as Feynman said, “nature cannot be fooled.”

FlowersFriend said: Not really something to build doctrine on, but something that is interesting to investigate (for me at least).

FlowersFriend said: That's what I'm trying to find out....is what I'm saying hostile to science? I'm not suggesting that it is "scientific", I'm just wondering if it jives (hypothetically of course). Is there something wrong with using science to help understand more about my Creator? It's like saying that a Creator used evolution as the mechanism to create isn't it? Or not? I'm not trying to "pass it off" as a scientific theory. I was just explaining why it was of interest to me.

John Kwok said: No apology is needed, MadPanda. I was hoping to comment in this thread without using that phrase (in deference to Matt Young since I know how much he hates it), but you are absolutely right: "kindly, grandfatherly" Dr. Henry Morris was indeed a mendacious intellectual pornographer. With any luck I hope he is spending Eternity burning in Hell

Kevin B said: He may have opted to go there voluntarily when he discovered that it did *not* contain everyone who disagreed with his theology. :)

Try Biologos instead:

eeeewwww.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/on-scientism-biologoss-big-meeting/

Ichthyic said: eeeewwww.

“VenomFangX – is that YOU?!”

*shudder*

I thought his mommy and daddy killed his intarweb access?

Ichthyic said: I thought his mommy and daddy killed his intarweb access?

mrg said:

Ichthyic said: eeeewwww.

I didn't think that would get a lot of applause. However, if somebody wants to talk with TEs, might as well go to the place where they hang out. No, I don't hang out there myself. Mostly on PHYSORG these days ... boyo, they have some world-class trolls on the comment threads there. "VenomFangX -- is that YOU?!"

worse.

WORSE?

good thing I never read the comments there.

Ichthyic said: Try Biologos instead: eeeewwww. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/on-scientism-biologoss-big-meeting/

Collins, Falk and Giberson should be ashamed of themselves.

I'll settle for being able to laugh at them in public without fear of being labeled a "bigot".

:)

Great material. Thanks for sharing!

Just an FYI, I recently ran across a creationist who claimed that both abiogenesis AND violations of the Second Law were (as predicted by creationists) not impossible, just very, very improbable.

In other words, a perpertual motion machine was possible, just not probable.

Of course, this guys arguement was that because no one has gone from non-biotic compounds to functioning living things in 20 years of research means that God did it.

sigh...

John Kwok said:

FlowersFriend said:

John Kwok said: Just want to caution you that what you are writing is metaphysics, not science and that others who are devout Christians - and scientists - who have posted here, for example, physicist David Heddle, have been attacked merely for giving the appearance of conflating their religious beliefs with their understanding of science. I also think you should note these similar observations from the Dalai Lama and cell biologist Ken Miller (who is a friend BTW): 1) The Dalai Lama has observed that if Buddhism is wrong and science right, then Buddhism must conform with science. 2) Ken Miller has declared that those who embrace faiths hostile to science should reject them.

That's what I'm trying to find out....is what I'm saying hostile to science? I'm not suggesting that it is "scientific", I'm just wondering if it jives (hypothetically of course). Is there something wrong with using science to help understand more about my Creator? It's like saying that a Creator used evolution as the mechanism to create isn't it? Or not? I'm not trying to "pass it off" as a scientific theory. I was just explaining why it was of interest to me.

No, I don't think what you are saying now is hostile to science, but there may have been other comments you posted that did leave some of us with that impression. While I am a Deist and operate functionally as an Atheist, I am also reliigously tolerant (especially since my own sister is an Evangelical Protestant Christian, have family who are Buddhists, Christians, Jews and Muslims, and have two clerics as relatives; a retired Methodist minister and a Sunni Muslim cleric who is a prominent Muslim-American (though I am a bit dubious of him being "prominent" when he's become a willing mouthpiece of CAIR. But I digress.). I am probably far more tolerant than some of the Atheists posting here given the substantial breadth and depth of faiths represented in my extended family.

henry said: What does your Sunni Muslim cleric relative think of your view that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation?

John Kwok said:

henry said: What does your Sunni Muslim cleric relative think of your view that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation?

I don't know. I haven't been in touch with him after I criticized him for supporting the Ground Zero Mosque and ignoring legitimate opposition towards its proposed construction from prominent Muslim Americans whom I regard as genuine patriotic Americans (He is the executive director of a state chapter of CAIR, and, as fellow Brunonian Steve Emerson has documented extensively at his Investigative Project on Terrorism (http://www.investigativeproject.org/) CAIR was founded by American supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose ideology also fostered the advent of Al Qaeda.). As for my "view that American wasn't founded as a Christian nation", this is a sentiment expressed within the 1796 Treaty with Tunis, as others have noted here. I also believe that eminent historian Gordon Wood - widely viewed as our foremost historian on the American Revolution and the drafting of the United States Constitution (whom I might add was one of my college professors) - has also made this very observation too. Moreover, we don't need to rely merely on the Treaty of Tunis nor Professor Wood's observations, since such sentiment was also expressed by some of our Founding Fathers, hence the recognition by Thomas Jefferson in his famous reply to some residents in Danbury, CT, that there exists a separation between church and state (As someone who is both a Conservative and Republican, I might add too that I wish some of my fellow compatriots would reach the same understanding arrived at by Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers.).

And while Wood is excellent, he is hardly the pre-eminent historian of the period. Merely one of a small group.

If you didn't convert every post into a mirror of narcissism, your points would be clearer to address. Just a suggestion.

There are many legitimate reasons to oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.

Ask M. Zuhdi Jasser, who, as a former United States Navy Lieutenant Commander (He was a medical officer.), I find far more credible than my West Point alumnus cousin who is now an executive director of a CAIR state chapter:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/mosque_unbecoming_QmXgG4QyGgz4ATF9v7cBDM

Ask Mansoor Ijaz, who, as a strong Wall Street supporter of Bill Clinton, tried unsuccessfully to bring Osama bin Laden from the Sudan to the United States for trial back in the mid 1990s:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/08/us_muslims_should_be_american_first.html

And finally, ask my friend Shireen Qudosi, who spoke out against the Ground Zero Mosque, shortly before Jasser did:

http://www.qudosi.com/religion/57-united-states/873-why-building-a-mosque-on-ground-zero-if-a-failed-idea

Jasser, Ijaz and Qudosi understand why the Ground Zero Mosque should never be built. Unfortunately such similar sophisticated understanding has yet to penetrate the thick skull of my cousin former United States Army chaplain James Yee.

I have no interest or desire in further derailing this thread, since the issue of the Ground Zero Mosque is quite independent with regards to the legacy of the Miller-Morris 1981 debate, of which I am still proud to have served as the sole "evolutionist" on the ad hoc campus committee which organized it.

Malchus said: And while Wood is excellent, he is hardly the pre-eminent historian of the period. Merely one of a small group. If you didn't convert every post into a mirror of narcissism, your points would be clearer to address. Just a suggestion.