Comment #32854

Posted by Burt Humburg on May 31, 2005 03:36 AM (e) (s)

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

BCH

Comment #32855

Posted by PaulP on May 31, 2005 04:03 AM (e) (s)

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

Comment #32863

Posted by Martin Ek on May 31, 2005 06:49 AM (e) (s)

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

Enjoy!

Comment #32876

Posted by PvM on May 31, 2005 09:17 AM (e) (s)

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

Comment #32880

Posted by Rich on May 31, 2005 09:48 AM (e) (s)

Scott Rank wrote:

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

But the god of ID cannot be the Christian Triune God or even a classically theistic one. Classical theism posits an omnipresent and immutable God. The god-of-the-gaps is definitely not like that. Of course, that is not the intent of ID and that’s why biological ID is rightly accused of dressed-up creationism and cosmological ID is rightly accused of dressed-up geocentrism. Thinking Christians and theists should realize that the ID proponents are more right than they think. ID thought they could pull a fast one on science but they ended up only fooling themselves by “proving” a different god than they originally set out to prove.

Comment #32883

Posted by PvM on May 31, 2005 10:04 AM (e) (s)

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

Comment #32894

Posted by PvM on May 31, 2005 10:48 AM (e) (s)

See The Purpose of Life is a Beach Part 1 where I (tongue in cheek) explore the relationship between habitability and pleasurability as it applies to the beach

Conclusion

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

and
Life is a beach: Part 2

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

Time to continue my explorations of “Life is a beach”

Comment #32895

Posted by Randy on May 31, 2005 10:50 AM (e) (s)

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

Comment #32901

Posted by Rich on May 31, 2005 11:39 AM (e) (s)

PvM wrote:

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

Christian critics of ID have to be silenced because it would invalidate the whole wedge thesis. Christians by definition are not materialists. So, we have to be “worse than atheists”. Since Christians also by definition believe in design, the opposition of some Christians to ID can be confusing. Thus, the following question is legitimate: Why do you oppose ID when you believe in design? [Note: this is different than the ASA which believes in design but takes no stand on the alternatives. They have to worry about the diversity of their members. As an individual, I need to choose and I personally oppose ID.]

Because as a Christian I believe in the truth and thus I only support valid arguments for design. To date, ID has produced only laughable arguments that only serve to falsify Christianity. But, that’s not the primary reason because we all produce dumb arguments from time to time. I also believe in the Ten Commandments and oppose any false accusation against my neighbor. This would include the false accusation that science is purely about promoting philosophical materialism. As noted by PvM, this accusation is done by falsely conflating philosophical materialism with methodological naturalism. It is this latter, moral, dimension that motivates my opposition to ID.

Comment #32904

Posted by Henry J on May 31, 2005 12:13 PM (e) (s)

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

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

Henry

Comment #32905

Posted by Rupert Goodwins on May 31, 2005 12:14 PM (e) (s)

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

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

R

Comment #32910

Posted by Piltdown Syndrome on May 31, 2005 01:33 PM (e) (s)

Henry wrote:

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

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

Comment #32943

Posted by Greg Peterson on May 31, 2005 04:27 PM (e) (s)

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

Comment #32965

Posted by Paul on May 31, 2005 06:48 PM (e) (s)

Rich wrote:

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

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

Comment #32978

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on May 31, 2005 08:44 PM (e) (s)

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

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

If you say that path A is the path that the light took between points X₁ and X₂ and then state that this path takes less time than any other path, there must be a another path B that the light could have taken had it not taken path A.  But if that was the case, then if the light had taken path B between the two points, there would necessarily have been a different path, namely path A, that would take less time.

Is it a requirement that both paths are physically possible to be traversed at the same time for this statement to hold?  Surely if you blocked one path while making the observation of transit time, the other would give one time (hypothetically the “least” time).  Then if you block the other path, the first would give a different transit time.  And one would be less than the other (at least for most circumstances).  So what does this mean?

If we take the quantum explanation, then yes, it would seem that the path taken would be the shortest one possible at any given instant.  But how does that square with quantum uncertainty?  While a naive quantum interpretation would say that if we were to put in two measuring points X_A and X_B respectively on the two paths, we should see both paths being taken (although not necessarily with the same frequency), the “shortest time” requirement would mandate that only one path should be taken.  I guess that one “answer” to that is that our “measuing points” would have to intercept the photons in order to detect them, and in fact any photons measured or recorded wouldn’t ever reach the endpoint X₂.  Is that the answer to the conundrum here?

What happens if we put polarizers in the two paths at different orientations, and measure reception with a polarization detector?  Is such a phenomenon responsible for birefringence?

Help me out, any of you folks of a physics bent… .

Cheers,

Comment #32981

Posted by RBH on May 31, 2005 09:16 PM (e) (s)

Addressing Rich, Paul asked

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

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

If one wants to play theist-bashing games, go to Infidels.  Let’s try to keep the focus on science here, hm?  Thanks!

RBH

Comment #32988

Posted by Vic Stenger on May 31, 2005 10:34 PM (e) (s)

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

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

Comment #32990

Posted by Henry J on May 31, 2005 10:51 PM (e) (s)

Re “I read the post about the quantum explanation, but I’m still a bit puzzled.”

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

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

Henry

Comment #32996

Posted by Paul on June 1, 2005 12:03 AM (e) (s)

RBH wrote:

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

Indeed, I did.  I should have elaborated, if someone says they only support “valid arguments for design” it implies the existence of a real argument.  The adjective valid implies verification.  It was my understanding that the PT was dedicated to thouroughly debunking the specious claims of the entire anti-evolution movement and was curious what valid arguments there might be.  The ontological argument is the only creationist claim I personally find to be infallible.

Am I a bit spiteful of christians at the moment? Yes, I am.  Let me give a brief explaination of how I got here (PT).  At a large protestant university I attended, I read about a winterim course offering called cosmogony.  I had a very misinformed view of what the ID/C was about.  The content was likely quite similar to your typical young earth creationist weekend seminar.  Except this was 3 weeks at 4 hours a day.  I learned that if I believe in evolution I don’t believe in God (the case made against theistic evolution has me convinced.)  Rather than be drawn with the power of an electromagnet to a 6-10 thousand year old earth for the sake of my salvation, I remained as the lone dissenter out of approx. 25 students.  Do you know what it’s like when you find out that the Ph.D professors you held in such high regard, believe in all the tenets of young earth creationism?  Are you one of their favorite students after they discover this? It made this past semester pretty difficult.

I apologize to you if you feel I degraded your thread in any way.  I thought one of the main things ID and YEC talk about is their quest for “truth.”

I still have no clue what the message of Rich’s postings are, I don’t see where his legs are while he’s  straddling both sides of the fence, and I can’t even see the fence.  I wanted to know what he’s trying to say, I just went about it in a condescending way, and that was the wrong way.

Comment #32997

Posted by Paul on June 1, 2005 12:13 AM (e) (s)

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

Comment #32998

Posted by Paul on June 1, 2005 12:27 AM (e) (s)

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

Comment #32999

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 1, 2005 12:33 AM (e) (s)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cheers

Comment #33003

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on June 1, 2005 01:22 AM (e) (s)

Henry wrote:

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

Then the question remains:  Seeing as the “shortest path” is the one that is taken, wouldn’t it always appear on that path?  Yeah, I know that QM is strange and counter-intuitive, but this lays to rest the idea that the photon knows in advance “where it will end up” (which is what was mentioned in the first post, albeit in the negative).

I agree that a single observation reveals one of the two paths (or perhaps neither, but a different one).  But multiple observations ought to produce a “statistical” picture, in which the photon goes one way or the other with some definite probability (and in fact, this is what is seen in dual-slit experiments depending on where and what you’re measuring, but nonetheless, the statistical “aggregate” at the sensor still shows interference of the two divergent probability waves).

The claim that the shortest path is always taken would give an intuitive idea that one specific path is chosen, though.  Measurements taken should show that, at least if measured by time of flight (a certain time of flight implies a certain path, at least if we consider the speed of light to be constant and we know the paths involved), the fastest path is taken.  But we derive a different inference when we look at where the photons are going, though.  Of course, unlike ID, this implies that TOF measurements should show one specific TOF with both possible pathways open, the same with the shortest pathway open and the longer one blocked, and a longer one with the shortest pathway blocked.  These are testable predictions.  I’m confident that QM will prove secure and that the results would show that QM is confirmed, but I’m still a little hazy on what it would show if we tried to detect the photons in flight on the different pathways.  Also, any thoughts on my questions on polarization and birefringence?

Cheers,

Comment #33008

Posted by Koly on June 1, 2005 02:47 AM (e) (s)

Piltdown Syndrome wrote:

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

Both approaches are mathematically equivalent, not in contradiction.

Comment #33009

Posted by fh on June 1, 2005 03:03 AM (e) (s)

Arne wrote:

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

Try Feynman’s The Character of Physical Law for a description of the double slit experiment, and what happens if one path or another path is allowed.

Comment #33010

Posted by PaulP on June 1, 2005 03:27 AM (e) (s)

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

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

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

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

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

Comment #33012

Posted by Koly on June 1, 2005 03:40 AM (e) (s)

Arne Langsetmo wrote:

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

Ok, let’s clear this thing up a little bit.

What PaulP mentioned is an instance of a general law at the classical (i.e.nonquantum) level called ‘The principle of minimal action’. This principle is the most fundamental law in classical physics and it can be used for describing of all phenomena. It is tight with quantum theory through Feynman’s path integral approach.

I believe the “minimal path of light” were the first know case sometime in the 19th century. Though far away from a complete classical theory of light (i.e.Maxwell equations), it gets the propagation thing right. It’s important to understand that light does not chooses ‘where to go’. It’s only that if you know that it propagated from point X1 to X2 (and you know the initial direction, or more precisely momentum), then you can conclude which path it has taken. If you block that path, let’s say A, no light will get to X2. So it’s a description of propagation of plain waves. A little analogy: if you throw a boulder from X1 to X2, then you can calculate the path it has taken. The boulder does not chooses the path, if you block it, it will not get to X2 (of course).

At quantum level, things got a little more complicated. Instead of plain waves you have photons which have momenta but cannot be localized. You cannot talk about the path photon has taken. For a more intuitive picture you can imagine that it propagates through all possible paths at once, each with some (amplitude of) probability. If you send a photon from X1 in the same direction and momentum as above and block path A (and it’s immediate surrounding), there is still a nonzero probability it will get to X2. However, it will be much lower than that with A not blocked. So if you send many of them and you do not care to detect each them, e.g. you don’t use a photomultiplier, but only your eyes, you’ll see an avarage. If you block A, your eyes will not detect anything as the few photons are not enough for you to register the light. If you do not block A, you will register much more light and you conclude that they propagated through path A, exactly as predicted by the principle of minimal action. This is how quantum phenomena appear to be classical at macroscopical level.

Comment #33013

Posted by PaulP on June 1, 2005 03:41 AM (e) (s)

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

So how can you see the beam if there are no stray photons? I need to think about this a little more.

Comment #33014

Posted by Koly on June 1, 2005 03:46 AM (e) (s)

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

Comment #33015

Posted by Koly on June 1, 2005 03:53 AM (e) (s)

PualP wrote:

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

This is not extremely correct anyway. At least in principle, you could detect photons everywhere (though with extremely low probability). The reason why you can forget QM is that you use high number of photons and don’t care about the individual events.

Comment #33018

Posted by PaulP on June 1, 2005 05:09 AM (e) (s)

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

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

Here in Ireland we have an expression: “it works in practice but not in theory”. Perhaps it’s relevant here.

Comment #33019

Posted by PaulP on June 1, 2005 05:14 AM (e) (s)

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

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

Comment #33020

Posted by SEF on June 1, 2005 05:56 AM (e) (s)

PaulP wrote:

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

You can’t! People use smoke/mist to make laser beams visible by causing a few stray photons.

Comment #33021

Posted by PaulP on June 1, 2005 06:36 AM (e) (s)

People use smoke/mist to make laser beams visible

I knew I was forgetting something. That’s what a ban on smoking in public places does to the brain!

Comment #33023

Posted by Peet Naude on June 1, 2005 06:56 AM (e) (s)

Sir_Toejam wrote:

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

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

PS. I’m Afrikaans so please forgive any bad spelling and grammar…

Comment #33032

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on June 1, 2005 08:45 AM (e) (s)

Sir_Toejam wrote:

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

Such a case could certainly be made, but as already noted, this is not the place to make it.

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

I am an American with no direct experience of South Africa. I have of course heard about apartheid and its demise in the news, but have no inkling of the situation there WRT religion or creationism. So, if some have perceptions of this, all I can say is that it not general enough to have reached me.

Comment #33062

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 1, 2005 11:37 AM (e) (s)

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

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

cheers

Comment #33087

Posted by Peet Naude on June 1, 2005 01:40 PM (e) (s)

Sir_Toejam wrote:

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

I didn’t intend to sound “attacking”, so sorry if that was the impression that I gave.  My experience of the school system in South Africa is a bit out of date (I was 13 in 1994 when the first democratic elections were held).  It is true that there wasn’t any material on evolution in the Biology syllabus before 2000, the year that the new public education syllabus came into effect.  If you’re like me and wanted more than the schools could offer in terms of knowledge you had to go to the public library.

As far as I remember no creationist teaching was taking place, the subject of the origins of life wasn’t discussed at all in school.  Sunday school was of course a different matter.  Unfortunately I don’t have any statistics but I feel that the 90% creationists statistic is way too high, you would probably only have gotten that kind of response amongst white Afrikaners which make out only about 13% of the total population (84% black and 3% from Asian descent) although even that should have drastically decreased by now.

AFAIK the new education curriculum does include the TOE, but as to how well it is implemented I have no idea.  The biggest problem here is that there is a lot of pseudoscience going on e.g. our beloved (PUKE) head of the Department of Health that cheerfully states that the best way to prevent getting HIV\AIDS is to eat garlic. This in a country were about 30% of the entire population is HIV positive…

Comment #33090

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 1, 2005 01:50 PM (e) (s)

thanks, peete.

always looking to update my information.

cheers

Comment #33100

Posted by Henry J on June 1, 2005 02:42 PM (e) (s)

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

Henry

Comment #33103

Posted by Boyce Williams on June 1, 2005 02:53 PM (e) (s)

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

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

Comment #33139

Posted by Rich on June 1, 2005 06:48 PM (e) (s)

Indeed, I did.  I should have elaborated, if someone says they only support “valid arguments for design” it implies the existence of a real argument.  The adjective valid implies verification.  It was my understanding that the PT was dedicated to thouroughly debunking the specious claims of the entire anti-evolution movement and was curious what valid arguments there might be.  The ontological argument is the only creationist claim I personally find to be infallible.

Am I a bit spiteful of christians at the moment? Yes, I am.  Let me give a brief explaination of how I got here (PT).  At a large protestant university I attended, I read about a winterim course offering called cosmogony.  I had a very misinformed view of what the ID/C was about.  The content was likely quite similar to your typical young earth creationist weekend seminar.  Except this was 3 weeks at 4 hours a day.  I learned that if I believe in evolution I don’t believe in God (the case made against theistic evolution has me convinced.)  Rather than be drawn with the power of an electromagnet to a 6-10 thousand year old earth for the sake of my salvation, I remained as the lone dissenter out of approx. 25 students.  Do you know what it’s like when you find out that the Ph.D professors you held in such high regard, believe in all the tenets of young earth creationism?  Are you one of their favorite students after they discover this? It made this past semester pretty difficult.

I apologize to you if you feel I degraded your thread in any way.  I thought one of the main things ID and YEC talk about is their quest for “truth.”

I still have no clue what the message of Rich’s postings are, I don’t see where his legs are while he’s  straddling both sides of the fence, and I can’t even see the fence.  I wanted to know what he’s trying to say, I just went about it in a condescending way, and that was the wrong way.

It’s fun to see people talking about me while I was gone (at least from this thread). Boy, one missing word and everything goes to pot:

What I should have said:

Because as a Christian I believe in the truth and thus I should only support valid arguments for design.

I did not mean to imply the existence or lack of existence of valid arguments. As I used it, valid does not imply verification but logically coherent. Verification, for example, would eliminate all a priori argumentation such as the Ontological Argument you mentioned. On the other hand, for scientific arguments verification is the warp and woof of validity. The set size of the number of valid, scientific, arguments for design is zero.

Your points about your experience at school are well taken. Your story needs to be heard. As Christians, our “quest for truth” must be beyond mere words. Careless hypocrisy has devasting real-world consequences.

I have a good idea how you feel. A personal friend of mine was deprived of his church office in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for believing in theistic evolution. His integrity and good will pulled me out of the creationist camp.

I hope this helps you understand where I am coming from. If some questions still remain, feel free to fire away.

Comment #33172

Posted by Arne Langsetmo on June 2, 2005 02:23 AM (e) (s)

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

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

Cheers,

Comment #33175

Posted by PaulP on June 2, 2005 03:10 AM (e) (s)

Henry J wrote:

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

Bohr’s concept of complementarity was designed to allow us to talk about such situations.
Essentially: if you ask questions about the particle-like nature of light you get particle-like answers and ditto for wave-like questions.
So if you have an experiment to look at the path taken by a beam of light you are asking a particle-like question and you will detect a path which is a particle-like answer. On the other hand if you have an experiment to look at interference you are asking a wave-like question and you get a wave-like answer - an interference pattern.
If you take the interference experiment and try to detect which path is taken by the photons then you are asking a particle-like question, then you get a particle-like answer , which means you will know which path each photon took but the interference pattern disappears.

I apologize for any headaches the introduction of QM has caused. The reason I wished to mention this phenomeneon is that it is a process that has the same quality the “privileged planet” idea is so enamoured with. In each case you can take at a starting point and an end point, look at the path taken between them and say there is something special about the whole thing. In the case of the path of the beam of light we find a wonderful natural process with a beautiful mathematical characteristic. In the case of the “privileged planet”, they start babbling about designers and guides and intention and purpose.

Comment #33176

Posted by PaulP on June 2, 2005 03:22 AM (e) (s)

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

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

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

Comment #33182

Posted by GCT on June 2, 2005 06:34 AM (e) (s)

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

Comment #33217

Posted by Henry J on June 2, 2005 01:54 PM (e) (s)

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

But was it intelligently designed? (heh heh)

Comment #33244

Posted by Ixpata on June 2, 2005 04:51 PM (e) (s)

Anybody seen this yet?

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JUNE 2,  2005

Press Contact: Rob Crowther

Discovery Institute

(206) 292-0401 x.107

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment #33248

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on June 2, 2005 06:31 PM (e) (s)

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

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

Comment #33250

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 2, 2005 06:44 PM (e) (s)

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

Does it tell us what the scientific theory of ID is and how it can be tested using the scientific method?

Why not?

Comment #33252

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 2, 2005 06:46 PM (e) (s)

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

Who paid for this PhD.

And why.

Comment #33256

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 2, 2005 07:09 PM (e) (s)

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

Comment #33315

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 3, 2005 02:00 AM (e) (s)

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

Comment #33316

Posted by PaulP on June 3, 2005 02:28 AM (e) (s)

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

In which case would not Wells et al be to detect the design and prove her right?

And in the meantime leave the rest of science to get on with life?

Comment #33318

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 3, 2005 02:33 AM (e) (s)

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

Comment #33319

Posted by SEF on June 3, 2005 02:55 AM (e) (s)

PaulP, that seems like an excellent test case.

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

Comment #33331

Posted by GT(N)T on June 3, 2005 06:14 AM (e) (s)

Excerpts from Wells’ abstract:

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

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

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

Comment #33332

Posted by GT(N)T on June 3, 2005 06:24 AM (e) (s)

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

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

Comment #33362

Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on June 3, 2005 09:31 AM (e) (s)

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

Comment #33372

Posted by Jon Fleming on June 3, 2005 10:06 AM (e) (s)

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

My dear aCTa, exactly the reverse is true.  The Adams quote nicely sums up the entire contents of the book.

Comment #33399

Posted by PvM on June 3, 2005 12:20 PM (e) (s)

Creationist Troll wrote:

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

The quote exemplifies that which is wrong with the argument of PP which is based on a (spurious, single observation) correlation between habitability and measurability. That the authors, like the puddle, reach the conclusion that the hole/universe was designed ‘for them’ shows the error in simple terms.

Have you read the book?

Comment #33426

Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on June 3, 2005 01:52 PM (e) (s)

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

Another quote from DNA:

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

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

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

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

Comment #33433

Posted by Flint on June 3, 2005 02:02 PM (e) (s)

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

But the coin has been tossed ONLY ONCE. It came up heads. How many other sides does it have? Who can know? What distribution of that unknown number would a very long sequence of random flips have produced? Your imagination is your only limit.

The puddle sits in only a single hole. If the hole count were large and it fit every one perfectly, would it be more justified in considering every hole to have been customized for its needs?

Comment #33436

Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on June 3, 2005 02:04 PM (e) (s)

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

Another quote from DNA:

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

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

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

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

Comment #33439

Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on June 3, 2005 02:10 PM (e) (s)

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

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

Another quote from DNA:

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

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

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

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

Comment #33442

Posted by neo-anti-luddite on June 3, 2005 02:29 PM (e) (s)

Although the acta’s triple post is porbably an error, it does graphically demonstrate the creationists’ general means of “argument”….

Comment #33444

Posted by steve on June 3, 2005 02:31 PM (e) (s)

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

Aha! You damned dirty scientists. Behe has proven creationism!

What? What’s that?…hmm…hmmm.

Aha! You damned dirty scientists. Dembski has proven creationism!

Do what? But….but…hmmm…ugh.

Aha! You damned dirty scientists. Gonzalez has proven creationism!

Comment #33472

Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on June 3, 2005 05:10 PM (e) (s)

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

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

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

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

Comment #33480

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 3, 2005 05:48 PM (e) (s)

You look for a better explanation

What is the “better explanation” that ID, uh, “theory” offers.

What the heck IS this scientific theory of ID that I keep hearing so much about.  Why won’t any IDer every produce it for me.  Why won’t any IDer ever apply it for me —- show me what the designer does, what mechanisms it uses to do whatever the heck it does, and where we can see these mechanisms in action today.

For the past ten years, every time I’ve asked any IDer to simply tell me what the scientific theory of ID is, the only “answers” I ever get are various versions of (1) “Jesus saves!!!!” or (2) “I don’t have to tell you”.

Why is that?

Comment #33482

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 3, 2005 05:54 PM (e) (s)

The usual confusing of ID with creationism

Um, how many, again, of the 23 champions of ID selected to testify in Kansas, were YECs and denied the common ancestry of humans and apes … .?

Can you name just ONE argument used by IDers today that wasn’t already used twenty years ago by creation “scientists”?  Just one?  ONE????

“Anthropic principle”?  ICR was yammering about it in the early 80’s.

“Cambrian explosion”?  An ICR staple 20 years ago.

“Irreducible complexity”?  Heck, ICR was asking “what good is half an eye?” before Behe even got out of high school.

“Probability against random mutations is too high”?  It was an ICR favorite twenty five years ago (odd, though, that just like Dembski, ICR could never prodcuce a consistent set of numbers for their “probability calculations”).

“No step by step description for evolution”?  ICR made the same demand in Morris and Gish’s tracts.

“Abiogenesis can’t happen”?  It’s all in Gish and Morris’s books from the early 80’s.

ID has nothing original to say.  Nothing at all.  <shrug>

Comment #33503

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 3, 2005 07:13 PM (e) (s)

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

You mean THIS “external agency”?

“some people might think that the designer was a space alien” — Michael Behe

“It could be space aliens. There are many possibilities.” — William Dembski

Do you think the Raelians are correct, after all?  Were we designed by space aliens?  Did space aliens design the universe?

Oh, wait, that’s NOT the “external agency” you obliquely refer to, is it … . ?  And Behe and Dembski are just being deceptive, evasive and dishonest in their statemetns above, aren’t they … ?

Tell me, again, how ID has nothing to do with advancing religion?  Nothing at all?

Liar.

Comment #33532

Posted by PvM on June 3, 2005 10:46 PM (e) (s)

Funny how our friendly troll has nothing much to contribute. The puddle indeed is a very good example of the simplistic argument known as the Privileged Planet which based on a correlation obtained from a single data point (and don’t get me started on the authors’ claim that they use multiple datapoints…. They contradict themselves..).

Troll wrote:

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

Let me guess, you don’t read much now do you? What about the explanatory filter being useless? THat conclusion follows from Dembski’s own arguments.
Or what about Behe watering down his definition of IC so much that nothing much remains?

So far the observations that ID is scientifically vacuous seems to hold as strong as ever. Or can our troll explain how ID explains the flagellum?

Poof…?

Comment #33538

Posted by steve on June 3, 2005 11:06 PM (e) (s)

A Creationist Tard, apparently said:

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

I’m not in astronomy or biology, I’m in physics. The best studies indicate that 60-80% of physicists are atheist/agnostic. So if you want to take their authority as evidence, I agree—ID is probably wrong.

Comment #33583

Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on June 4, 2005 09:54 AM (e) (s)

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

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

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

Comment #33584

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 4, 2005 09:56 AM (e) (s)

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

Comment #33592

Posted by neo-anti-luddite on June 4, 2005 10:49 AM