ISCID is the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. Over at Stranger Fruit, Jerry Don Bauer (no stranger to the ISCID boards) makes a number of statements regarding peer-review and ID:
There is a ton of peer reviewed lituraure [sic] out there-Both ARN and ISCID put out quarterly journals in this area, along with many others. You could have gotten by with that statement 2 or 3 years back, but not today. …
[ID] literature [is] being peer reviewed is it not? In fact, the very purpose for ISCID is peer review. Look at all the peer reviewed books out on the subject. Look at the papers on other sites
In what follows, I want to briefly examine these claims.
Now, let’s start with the “papers on other sites.” It’s the “Bibliography of Supplementary Resources For Ohio Science Instruction” which the Center for Science and Culture produced as representing “important lines of evidence and puzzles that any theory of evolution must confront, and that science teachers and students should be allowed to discuss when studying evolution … The publications represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism (the prevailing theory of evolution taught in biology textbooks), discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins.” The majority of the authors are respected scientists - none of that literature comes from ID supporters, Discovery fellows and their fellow travellers. Note what JDB is claiming - this is ID literature that is peer-reviewed. It is not. Literature that “challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism (the prevailing theory of evolution taught in biology textbooks), discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider” is not de facto support for ID - to think such is to commit a logical fallacy.
This list has been analyzed by the National Center for Science Education which sent a questionnaire to at least one of the authors of every publication listed in the Bibliography, asking them whether they considered their work to provide scientific evidence for “intelligent design.” None of the 26 respondents (representing 34 of the 44 publications in the Bibliography) did; many were indignant at the suggestion.
So, as yet, we see no evidence of peer-reviewed papers expliciting testing or providing positive evidence for intelligent design. The ARN journal (Origins and Design) is largely defunct and has been discussed here. Let’s look at Progress in Complexity, Information and Design - the journal of ISCID, paying attention to its review procedures.
Articles accepted to the journal must first be submitted to the ISCID archive. To be accepted into the archive, articles need to meet basic scholarly standards and be relevant to the study of complex systems. Once on the archive, articles passed on by at least one ISCID fellow will be accepted for publication.
As Dembski notes, “this review process emphasizes creativity and exploration over criticism and censorship” and was developed in reponse to Tipler’s article “Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?” (link). As part of an extended tirade againt peer-review of research and funding proposals, Tipler proposes a second tier of publishing which “will consist of publishing a paper in the journal automatically if the paper is submitted with letters from several leading experts in the field saying ‘this paper should be published.’ … A genius could interact directly with another genius.” So there we have the PCID quality control - a single “genius” member of the editorial board vouches for the paper and it’s in. As someone who has both published and refereed papers, I don’t like that one bit and perhaps this explains why no one of note has published in PCID.
Given this, let’s look at who has actually published in PCID. (I have omitted the October 2003 issue devoted to philosophy of mind because as a purely philosophical issue it has little relevence to the application of design to biological evolution).
ISCID Fellows
Robert C. Koons - Professor of philosophy at University of Texas, Austin
Bill Dembski (x4) - Associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University
Michael J. Behe - Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University
Paul Nelson - With the Discovery Institute
Jonathan Wells - With the Discovery Institute
Forrest M. Mims - Self-employed atmospheric scientist
Christopher M. Langan - President of the Mega Foundation which provides “aid, support and camaraderie to the ‘severely gifted’ in order to help these creative individuals realize their dreams.”
Karl D. Stephan (x2) - Associate Professor, Department of Technology, Texas State University
Neil Broom - Associate professor, Department of chemical and materials engineering, University of Auckland
Non-fellows
John R. Bracht (x2) - Graduate student, Department of Biology, University of California, San Diego.
James A. Barham - Graduate student, History & Philosophy of Science, Notre Dame
Dermott J. Mullan (x2) - Professor of Astrophysics at University of Delaware
Philip R. Page - Technical Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Jolanta Koszteyn - Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Science
Piotr Lenartowicz - Professor, School of Philosophy and Education, Cracow
Arie S. Issar - Emeritus professor, J. Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
Granville Sewell - Associate Professor of Mathematics, University of Texas El-Paso
Phillip L. Engle - Data modeller with Mellon Bank
Jakob Wolf - Professor, Department of Systematic Theology, University of Copenhagen
Quinn Tyler Jackson - “author and researcher”
Iain G.D. Strachan - Computer science, AEA Technology, Harwell, U.K.
Frank J. Tipler - Professor, Department of Mathmatics, Tulane University.
David Owen - Graduate student, Software engineering, West Virginia University
John A. Davison - Department of Biology, University of Vermont
Darel R. Finley - unable to find any information; perhaps attached to MD Anderson Cancer Center in some capacity, but not as clinical or scientific faculty.
Richard A. Johns - unable to find any information
Joshua A. Smart - unable to find any information
That’s a total of 27 authors accounting for 31 papers. Twelve of these papers (38.7%) were written by members of the PCID editorial board - this seems just a little incestuous to me. Still, let’s assume that the board are being “fair and balanced” (as we have no idea of the acceptance rate of papers and the source of papers that are rejected, we can only assume this). It is noticable that the authors above are largely minor scientists at best and graduate students or unknowns at worst - Tipler may be the exception, but his paper offered no science. Organismal biologists are notably in the minority. Indeed, equally as noticable is that the papers published offer no new biological data or experiments. Frankly, even if the peer-reviewing process is stringent, no attempt is being made to provide and test explicit design hypotheses within the biological realm.
So in summary, what do we have? Firstly, neither Wells, Behe, Dembski nor Nelson appear to be currently publishing original research in mainstream scientific journals. Secondly, the research cited by ID supporters is not produced by ID supporters, and these authors do not see their research as supportive of the Discovery Institute’s anti-evolutionary program. Lastly, PCID’s review system is unorthodox and has not yielded any substantive advances in scientific inquiry being largely philosophical discussions, anti-establishment rhetorical diatribes or rehersals of jaded arguments from probability.
Here are my friendly suggestions if ISCID members and design advocates want to be taken seriously.
Dembski’s stand that he has “gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print … And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more.” (The Chronicle of Higher Education Dec. 21, 2001), positively hurts any hope that ID has in becoming accepted among the larger scientific community. Publish papers.
Publish in peer-reviewed journals in philosophy, statistics, mathematics and complexity theory. Journals such as Complexity would, I’m sure, be interested in what they have to say (indeed that very journal has published a review by Bracht of Stu Kauffman’s Investigations). Therein they can workout their theories of design and its detection to their heart’s content. If the paper gets rejected - resubmit. If it gets rejected again, feel free to post it unrefereed online and make bitter comments about what Tipler calls the “pygmies standing in judgement on giants.” Dembski has failed to publish qua mathematician and has proceeded directly to self-publishing. That is a mistake.
If ID has something to say about biological evolution, do biological research - not literature surveys, statistical simulations, thought experiments, etc. Generate biological hypotheses that come from the design perspective. Make sure these hypotheses can differentiate between evolutionary and design predictions. Test them using observation or experiment. Rinse. Repeat. Despite what Phil Johnson and others say, radical ideas do get published in mainstream journals. (Tipler implicitly admits this in his paper, as all his Nobel winners did get their papers published in mainstream journals eventually, just not their first-choice journals.)
Only then will the “pygmies” take the “giants” seriously.
242 Comments
Duane Smith · 20 May 2004
Is the claim about "papers on other cites" supporting ID a logical fallacy or just an old fashioned lie?
Duane Smith · 20 May 2004
Oops, I did mean "sites."
Alton Naur · 20 May 2004
"Tipler proposes a second tier of publishing which "will consist of publishing a paper in the journal automatically if the paper is submitted with letters from several leading experts in the field saying 'this paper should be published.' . . . A genius could interact directly with another genius.""
In fact, this is exactly how publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America works. Get a NAS member and two of his friends to attest to the quality of your paper, and it's in. NAS members, certified geniuses that they are, can also "contribute" papers with no review at all. This is one of the reasons it publishes over 16,000 pages per volume. It also has a conventionally-reviewed mode, in case you don't know anyone famous. PNAS has worked like this since 1914; a number of other prestigious society journals work the same way.
Reed A. Cartwright · 20 May 2004
Richard Wein · 21 May 2004
Let's get this clear. The only requirements for publication in PCID are (1) that the article "meet basic scholarly standards and be relevant to the study of complex systems" and (2) that the article be approved by any one of the 50+ Fellows, and this Fellow may even be the author of the article! The approving Fellow can be self-appointed and need not have any relevant expertise. The idea that this constitutes "peer review" is a joke.
Add to this the fact that most, if not all, of the Fellows are proponents of a particular belief (ID) rejected by the vast majority of scientists and that many of them are politically active in support of this belief, and it becomes clear that ISCID and PCID exist primarily for the promotion of this one belief. It's not surprising, then, that when you look at the actual content, it turns out to be largely the usual ID pseudoscientific junk.
Ed Darrell · 21 May 2004
To the extent that the PNAS is open to all comers, it is worthy of note that there are precious few papers advancing "intelligent design" ideas in PNAS. I suggest this is one further piece of evidence that there is no science in ID.
Also, apart from the recent flaps about what is governmental peer review, federal research grants have relatively tight standards about what is peer review, in order to make more standard the analyses of the publication records of grant applicants. After some problems in the early 1980s, Congress imposed the possibility of criminal penalties for falsely claiming peer review where none exists.
Has anyone else noticed that, in addition to there being no discernible research agenda from ID, none of the ID advocates gets federal funding based on their claims of peer review of ID? One might be reminded of the Arkansas trial in 1981 where, when put under oath and penalty of perjury, each creationist noted that there is no science basis to creationism, but instead their views are informed by their interpretation of scripture.
Could any ID advocate pass muster as an "expert" in the area under any state's rules for expert witnesses? I doubt it.
Frank J · 21 May 2004
John Lynch said:
"Darel R. Finley - unable to find any information; perhaps attached to MD Anderson Cancer Center in some capacity, but not as clinical or scientific faculty."
Maybe this is why:
http://www.alienryderflex.com/evolution/default.html
Alex Merz · 21 May 2004
Of couse, one can self-publish and earn a Nobel Prize in Physiology. Peter Mitchell did it with the famous grey books, (which I have facsimile copies of), and he did it with a body of theory (chemiosmotic coupling) that was viewed by many of his colleagues as utterly heretical. Of course, the grey books contained the extended arguments; Mitchell ALSO published papers in the peer-reivewed biochemical and physiological literature. And he did most of his work in a nonacademic setting, a self-funded laboratory in the English countryside. Ultimately, he swayed even his sternest critics including Paul Boyer. (See P D Boyer, B Chance, L Ernster, P Mitchell, E Racker, E C Slater, 1977, Ann Rev Biochem 46:955 for the review that was, in effect, the field's announcement that a paradigm shift had occurred.)
It is difficult to convey to people without some biochemical background how revolutionary Mitchell's ideas were. I think this is *the* classic modern case in which biologists were convinced to adopt a totally new explanatory model in the face of accumulating data.
But there (at least!) two important differences between Mictchell and the ID crowd, however. First, Mitchell vigorously engaged his colleagues in the field. He went to meetings and maintained a voluminous correspondence with his critics. He did not wander off to start new institutes, new journals that were isolated from the field. He actively engaged and confronted his critics. He never seriously entertained the possibility that his critics were too "hidebound" or "reactionary" to change their views. He knew that the onus was on *him* to sharpen his arguments, and that his efforts would be for naught if he could not convince his colleagues. (In fact, one could say the same of Darwin himself!)
Second, Mitchell's theory made specific predictions, and he did experiments - lots of experiments - to test these predictions. Merely proposing the first and second chemiosmotic hypotheses would not have been sufficient for a paradigm shift or a Nobel Prize. Modern biology is, above all, a synthesis of theory (or model-building, if you prefer) with vigorous biological experimentation and observation. That, in my view, is the critical difference between a genius like Mitchell, and a crank like Dembski.
Marcus Good · 21 May 2004
Re: Finley's site.
"Intermediate-like creatures such as Archaeopteryx or the therapsids could be a designer's early prototypes."
"Creationists such as myself are open to consider many possible ways that God might have chosen to create life, but are required by the empirical evidence to discard most of these ways, including discarding evolution."
I'm tempted to assume that this implies God has trouble getting organisms right on the first try..
Navy Davy · 21 May 2004
Do y'all mind if I ask another stupid question?
Is this site named "Panda's Thumb" or is it, "Get Dembski"?:)
Here's my background:
1. I am an attorney, specializing in cancer cases;
2. I, therefore, have to hire zillions of experts (pathologists, biochemists, oncologists, etc,) at usurious rates (sometimes up to $500/hour!)
3. I, therefore, have to cross-examine the other side's expensive, well-qualified experts at trial;
4. I, therefore, know just enough science to make me dangerously, incompletely informed;
5. I also get to see, first hand, numerous schisms in the scientific/medical community on numerous issues;
6. But, I rarely see the rancor and teeth-gnashing exhibited in this debate, Evolution v. ID.
Here's my observations:
1. This site has some serious intellectual fire-power. It is an outstanding resource. Well Done!;
2. But after reviewing most of the posts and comments, I now understand the reasons behind the rancor;
a. The evolution crowd does not believe ID is even a theory, nor that evolution is less than a fact.
b. The ID crowd is, partly, motivated by theologists, not scientists.
Hence, a schism in communications. Hence, the rancor.
My proposed solution:
1. Evolution be treated as the dominant theory;
2. ID be treated as the minority theory;
3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable;
4. If so, devise suitable tests and test them both;
5. Analyze the results to see if the theories are proven more likely than not true, or more likely than not false;
6. Make some good real world predictions about each theory;
7. Worry less about the characters of the persons promoting theories or their motivations, and more about the theories, test results and predictions themselves; and
8. Avoid rancor and ad hominem. Humor is always a good balm;
Again, I say this as man who has an undying affection and respect for science and scientists, who really has no stake in the outcome, and who, instinctively, on a lay level, tends to accept evolution as the best explanation of origins and cause.
Cheers, y'all.
shiva · 21 May 2004
Navy Davy,
I am not a man of science either - unless you count my undergrad degree in Physics acquired >20 years ago. I am a middle-level employee in a large organisation - that treats me pretty well. I am concerned that pseudoscientists are given so much mileage in the US and more that my children will have to learn the junk they peddle - I live now in Ohio. I know enough of science to know that your solution - nothing more than passing a fiat - is wrong, obsolete, discredited and pretty much useless. PT exists to provide a forum for practicing scientists as well as those who believe in science even if they don't make a living out of it. So there is no question of thinking in terms of "dominant theory" minority theory", etc, weighing the evidence etc., since the managers of this site and its wellwishers intend to stick to the scientific method like leeches since there hasn't been any other for a few centuris now. Each one of the processes your suggest in your list #3 to 8 have already been done by science and been dicked by the pseudoscientists running the what-shall-i-call-it ID movement. It is hard to avoid references to Dembski as a person because that is pretty much all you see when he writes - because when I have heard him talk once on a video in a debate with Genie Scott and a Christian philosopher from U.Notre Dame - Genie trounced him on matters of science and the philosopher from ND (sorry for forgetting your name) tore his 'theories' about religion and faith. When after being refuted like this at every debate and after his errors, howlers and misquotes have been pointed out every time, a person continues to parrot the same point - one cannot help but question what the person is up to. Bill may be a great guy to have a beer with - I don't know. But as far as his work in science is concerned it is no work at all. Humor is a good balm but can be dangerous. Because whenever I read Dembski and his students I can't help splitting my sides in laughter. I need all the humor I can get!
gbusch · 21 May 2004
RE: Finley's site
RE: Evolutionists
"By deliberately concealing strong negative evidence, they are in gross violation of the scientific attitude."
Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to grossly excuse the inability to substantiate one's opinion.
Johnnie C. · 21 May 2004
shiva · 21 May 2004
....processes your suggest in your list #3 to 8 have already been done by science and been <> by the pseudoscientists....
I meant to say <>
shiva · 21 May 2004
Superstition of every sort is the norm among a majority - rationalism be damned. But rarely anywhere in the world do you find pseudoscientists so well funded and feted as you do in the US. France has its share of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists - but the mainstream intellectual establishment treats them as cranks. I cannot think of any legislative body in the world excepting the US Congress that has ever invited pseudoscientists to testify about their theories. M.M.Joshi former HRD Minister in India despite being a qualified physicist and encouraging cutting edge research in the basic sciences tried to give a leg up to astrology and other junk. He has lost his seat in parliament this time; but even at the height of his powers he never managed to gain any legislative mileage for his crank theories - even as the scientific establishment in India continued to invite him for all sorts of scientific conferences. In Australia despite there being a well funded creationist movement there is no official legitimacy of any sort for junkscience. Richard Milton in the UK who wrote a pseudosientific tract on evolution (and referenced profusely in Cornelius Hunter's anti-science ID apologia) was laughed out of the mainstream and is today considered a minor distraction.
Navy Davy · 21 May 2004
Johnnie C.,
I am also attorney but have the added advantage of having a Ph.D. in molecular biology from UC Berkeley.
Great. What do you do as an attorney? How do you use your background as a molecular biologist?
I am sure you appreciate the fact that courtrooms are not the best venues for determining the merits of a scientific theory.
....Except for the Scopes Monkey Trial. Didn't you see "Inherit the Wind"? :)
I'm rather surprised to see you admit that you know next to nothing about the issues being debated here and yet you feel compelled to offer a "proposed solution."
I feel "compelled" to do no such thing. Why the silly haughtiness? It makes me think you've never tried a case in your life. Gotta be friendly to convince a jury. Also (as I said), I do know a few (perhaps many) things about cancer.
Your solution strikes me as rather quaint.
Quaint? Seems kind of clear and straightforward to me. Form a hypothesis and test it.
2. ID be treated as the minority theory;
What about the theory that a giant space bat pooped out the earth and all its inhabitants and fossils unintentionally?
Good theory! Can it be tested?
Why should we not treat that as the minority theory as well?
You can if you want! Forgive me, if I prefer not to join you, though. Seems kinda goofy to me.
Can you prove that didn't happen?
Either you've never tried a case or you have, but have chosen not to employ those elementary logic skills here.
3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable;
(1) is testable and has been tested thousands of times and tests are consistent with the theory.
Great. Don't need thousands, just 1. What's the best test, in your view?
(2) has not even been sufficiently articulated to be testable. There are no testable predictions from ID.
Well, if true, ID folks need to either sufficiently articulate or go away.
5. Analyze the results to see if the theories are proven more likely than not true, or more likely than not false;
See (3). Geez, you really aren't familiar with this area.
And, besides your credentials (appeals to authority rarely work), you've made exactly ZERO substantive comments. You're like the poster boy for Kuhn's, "The Structure of Scientific Revolution." A know-it-all, who has nothing to say.
Done, over and over again. There are literally mountains of peer-reviewed research which support evolution.
Again, don't need "mountains." Just 1, thanks. Preferably, the most convincing one, too. I'd like to hear each side's best -- kinda like the World Series.
There is NOTHING for ID. NADA. ZILCH.
Sorry, hyperbole ain't persuasive. I'm sure some ID proponents have (a) an articulable theory and (b) a proposed means to test it. This, of course, doesn't mean the test will convince me (or anyone else) that the theory is true.
This is where my senses start tingling, Navy Davy, because surely as an attorney you realize that evidence of bias is great for impeachment.
I don't care if your senses are "tingling' or not. This is Law school stuff. Both sides are biased in what they believe. In the scientific arena of ideas, I'm interested in what is TRUE or not.
The fact that ID creationists almost entirely consist of non-scientist non-biologist religious figures who are funded by a conservative religious think tank is a fact that can NOT be ignored in this "debate."
Perhaps. Proposed compromise: Defer issues of bias until AFTER examinations of the theories.
As an attorney, you may believe that the obvious impeachment value of this information is attenuated by the possibility that the jury will be sympathetic towards the inane religious hucksters.
Incoherent. Also, ad hominem.
8. Avoid rancor and ad hominem. Humor is always a good balm;
I agree. I tell you what. Why don't you educate yourself on the issues here and debate a freak like Jerry Don Bauer for a couple days. We'll see how humorous you feel after that.
I've read some of JDB's posts. He may be wrong, but I wouldn't call him a freak or you a freak.
Question to the crowd: How many of you endorse my sober, thoughtful, humorous, non-controversial approach as opposed to, well,.... Johnnie C's ?approach?
Cheers, y'all. (Still a damn good site, too!)
Andrew · 21 May 2004
As yet another attorney, I disagree with Navy Davy.
I would analogize the ID crowd to the plaintiff's lawyer in mediation who begins the discussion with an exhorbitant demand in a frivolous case. By starting at (say) $25 million, the lawyer hopes to wear out the other side and collect a significant sum, even though the actual value of his case may be virtually nothing.
Similarly, the actual value of ID is zero. Zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Navy Davy can plead, "this is hyperbole!" as much as he likes, but it doesn't change the utter lack of value that ID has had in the scientific community. Five dozen threads here at Panda's Thumb attest to that.
To that end, bringing ID to the table is a mistake. They don't get to make a demand; they're not worth a counteroffer. They should be the subject of a motion to dismiss.
That's what we're doing.
Scott Simmons · 21 May 2004
Adam Marczyk · 21 May 2004
DaveS · 21 May 2004
Is it just me, or does there seem to be a lot of attorneys reading The Panda's Thumb? I wonder why that is. Curious.
shiva pennathur · 21 May 2004
Navy Davy,
Attorney/scientist says <>
Navy says<< . . . .Except for the Scopes Monkey Trial. Didn't you see "Inherit the Wind"? :)>>
Please read Carl Zimmer's Evolution - companion volume to the PBS TV series of the same name and you will find what scientists think of the trial and the movie - not much. If you believe that evolution is here to stay because of the trial or the movie - I am sorry you have a lot of catching up to do.
DaveS · 21 May 2004
Navy Davy · 21 May 2004
DaveS,
Between trials, I have free time. My field is cancer. Work with many pre-eminent cancer scientists, some who are members of National Academy of Science. So, they inundate me with genes, chromsomes, mutations, mitosis, which is similar to this stuff. I find it fascinating, then I stumbled on to this site.
Adam Marcyzk,
Fully agreed. Are there any ID folks, who want to accept the challenge? Specifically, we want:
1. An articulated theory; and
2. A suitable means to test the theory.
We also want the same from the Evol crowd, too. But, please, NO more lawyers:)
Andy Groves · 21 May 2004
shiva · 21 May 2004
Navy Davy,
Something on "Theory". Scientists love theories that open up more questions not ones that shut down enquiry - as long as the theory itself isn't coming out of a crank hypothesis. Because when we look at predictions arising from a theory we are looking at what it doesn't predict and why. Which is why even today half-a-dozen are investigating gravity - a 17th century model that many might wrongly assume has been tied up and put away. So once you come to a point where you can explain an event you look for things you can't. Logically so, scientists giving a wide berth to IDists want to know what's the next stop for ID. OK ID created you me and everything else. Now who/what is that IDesigner? How does he/she/it create? Considering Bill D has decided that creation violates the known physical; laws, is the dashed thing amenable to physical laws at all or are I.Dists going to come up with the 4th law of motion, the 4th Law of Thermo. etc.?
I guess that is the final step in the "ID revolution"?
Nate Barrister · 21 May 2004
"I agree. I tell you what. Why don't you educate yourself on the issues here and debate a freak like Jerry Don Bauer for a couple days. We'll see how humorous you feel after that."
Haha, Jerry's presence on the net is in itself an argument to pick on ID-ers, imho.
Pim van Meurs · 21 May 2004
May I suggest that we please refrain from using ad hominems. I understand the frustations involved as I have also tried to communicate with Jerry Don but I find the use of ad hominems to be overly distracting, unnecessary and counter-productive.
Johnnie C. · 21 May 2004
Navy Davy
When I said that my senses were tingling, I was referring to a feeling of doubt regarding the honesty of some statements you made, particularly your statement that you "tend" "to accept evolution as the best explanation of origins and cause."
Based on what you've written here, I think you are less than truthful about where your allegiances lie. If I'm wrong ... sue me. ;)
Also, I am troubled, although not particularly surprised, to find that an attorney who deals with "expensive experts" from the NAS in cancer cases appears to know so little about the nature of scientific research or the current state of understanding of molecular evolutionary biology.
Why don't you ask one of your National Academy experts whether they believe that it is mathematically impossible for E.coli to have evolved its flagellum and that, therefore, the flagellum must have been "intelligently designed"?
Also ask them if they'd like to go on the record about their beliefs, i.e., would they be willing to discuss their beliefs here on Panda's Thumb?
Of course, if I was an attorney on the other side of one of your cases and I was looking for a statement to impeach your expert's credentials, I think the fact that your expert has publicly proclaimed his belief in a wacky fringe theory promulgated by a political think tank that has virtually NO support from the scientific community would be great evidence for impeachment. I'd have that expert quacking like a duck in no time.
Matt Inlay · 21 May 2004
Jim Anderson · 21 May 2004
Matt,
Sounds like Jonathan Wells' article over at ISCID. I read it, and even to my non-biologist mind, it sounded flaky. (And hey--any other teachers out there? We're not *all* lawyers.)
DaveS · 21 May 2004
Russell · 21 May 2004
Navy Davy · 21 May 2004
Matt Inlay,
Hey, a friendly voice! When Lengauer refers to "chromosomal instability" of a cancer cell he is referring to an observed phenomenom called "aneuploidy" That's Greek for "Not-good-chromosomes"
Most every cancer scientist agrees that all solid tumors are aneuploid. Most scientists beleive this condition is a consequence of numerous DNA mutations gone bad.
A few scientists believe that the aneuploidy condition is a cause of cancer in the cell. Meaning, no aneuploidy, then no cancer. They are not too big on "tumor suppressor" genes. Their view is that certain carcinogens, such as asbestos fibers or tar from cigarettes, interfere with cell mitosis, thereby 'scrambling' all that nice, orderly DNA sequence, which, as you know, is the hallmark of cancer. No beneficial mutations here!
Johnie C,
Could you please stop writing me? You bore me.
Cheers, y'all.
Johnnie C. · 21 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 21 May 2004
*****Here are my friendly suggestions if ISCID members and design advocates want to be taken seriously.*****
Oh, I can assure you that we are taken seriously. On these boards consisting mainly of radical naturalists we are demeaned, of course, and usually trolled to the point that we eventually leave before any points can be made. We profoundly threaten the religion of secular humanism. But it's not this case in the real world. You might be surprised at the large amount of Universities that welcome our lectures. And our books sell like hot cakes.
*****Dembski's stand that he has "gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print . . . And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more." (The Chronicle of Higher Education Dec. 21, 2001), positively hurts any hope that ID has in becoming accepted among the larger scientific community. Publish papers.******
Although I might agree that Dembski has become rich in selling books and now has little incentive to do anything else, there are many of us out here that just do the science.
You also need to point out that Dembski is a philosopher, not a scientist, so I don't believe one could expect many scientific papers from him. And thus you will find a lot of the peer review on that forum to be based more on philosophy than science.
But, there are many scientists who take an interest in ISCID and you will find two papers over there right now being examined by Idists, one I presented by Elsberry and Wilkins and another presented by Dr Wells on biophysics. I'm sure that research will follow well's paper in time.
******Publish in peer-reviewed journals in philosophy, statistics, mathematics and complexity theory. Journals such as Complexity would, I'm sure, be interested in what they have to say (indeed that very journal has published a review by Bracht of Stu Kauffman's Investigations).*****
Right. John has also been published by the Santa Fe Institute. That's another reason why your argument stands refuted that Idists are not published in reputable journals. How many has Behe been published in? Heck I don't know but he has papers over at PubMed even as we speak.
****If ID has something to say about biological evolution, do biological research - not literature surveys, statistical simulations, thought experiments, etc.*****
We DO biological research. Your entire argument is based on fallacy because you seem to think that if the abstract does not state, "Ok, I'm an Idist and this stuff can only be used in ID," then its not a paper 'on" intelligent design.
The truth of the matter is that much of this research has already been done and peer reviewed by others.
I recently introduced a study by evolutionary biologists Eyre-Walker and Keightley of the UK showing devolution of the human genome in our evolutionary walk from Chimp. There is no reason for me to do this research all over again because its been done. And this is a good example of biology supporting ID. The researchers don't have to be 'converted' to anything in order to do research that supports the tenets of ID. That's a common myth among our detractors.
Also, I hope you understand that its very difficult for people who do not believe in macroevolution to get a PhD in evolutionary biology. <;0)
Booji Boy · 21 May 2004
Navy Davy · 21 May 2004
Johnnie C,
Anyone who is has both a PHd in Molecular Biology and a law degree -- means they probably couldn't cut it in either field. Way too much schooling, way too little experience.
Ha ha. How nice of you to ask. I'll respond to your posts whenever I feel like it, thank you very much. "Motion denied."
I doubt you've ever argued a motion in court.
Have you called up one of your "zillions of experts (pathologists, biochemists, oncologists, etc,)" to ask them their opinion about ID creationism yet? What about one of those "pre-eminent cancer scientists, some who are members of National Academy of Science"?
I guess you can't read. The experts I work with deal with cancer -- particularly a nasty little bugger called, "mesothelioma" mostly caused by asbestos. I have no idea what any of these scientists think of ID. Never once broached the subject. If you want me to ask them, I will.
Navy Davy, I note with disappointment (but not surprise) that you've utterly failed to acknowledge what people here have told you about the status of the "debate" between evolutionary biologists and creationists, a debate which you are clearly unfamiliar with.
Huh? What about Marczyk above?
I don't care if you choose to ignore my posts (apparently you're a rather sensitive creature),
Actually, I was waiting to find an ID proponent to take up the challenge. My wife does say I have sensitive skin, though.
but it strikes me as odd that you chose to ignore everyone else's post and refused to thank everyone else for taking the time to respond thoughtfully to your "thoughtful" and "humorous" proposals.
See above. Clearly, the ball is in the ID court to: (a) articulate a theory and (b) propose a suitable test. My job is merely to referee
Really, Johnnie C, we could waste a lot of space with witticisms and snideness, but I actually like to learn things. Hopefully, you are not representative of the scientific community, because you have nothing of interest to say. Undeniably, you are not representative of the legal community -- I think I can safely say that.
But, Cheers, anyway.
Russell · 21 May 2004
Frank J · 21 May 2004
Navy,
ID is not a "minority theory," but a strategy to misrepresent evolution to unsuspecting audiences. That's why IDers mostly target secondary school science curricula instead of conducting relevant research. Their "evidence for design" is not in itself an alternative to evolution. Dembski himself said that ID can accommodate all the results of "Darwinism." At best their arguments could provide a scientifically irrelevant personal commentary of evolution - sort of the flip side of what Dawkins does. But only if they stick to "design" and avoid misrepresenting evolution.
But occasionally IDers will state an alternative hypothesis that conceivably could be alternative to our current hypotheses of abiogenesis, and possibly even challenge the current theory of evolution (although it would probably be, technically, just another theory of evolution). But since IDers don't bother to test the hypotheses that they occasionally do make, they simply aren't doing relevant science.
Consider this: Kenneth Miller and John Haught, for example, speak very openly of their belief in design. Meanwhile, Christian Schwabe and Periannan Senapathy have proposed what you might call "minority theories" that challenge not only evolution, but even common descent (Behe and Dembski don't even challenge common descent). This site is not "out to get" Miller, Haught, Schwabe or Senapathy.
Johnnie C. · 21 May 2004
Navy Davy · 21 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer,
I am a disinterested party -- meaning I have no stake, professional, emotional or otherwise in whether Evolution or ID is the better substantiated theory. I'm a lawyer, not a science geek, er, I mean, scientist.
Ignoring the static of certain comedians on this thread, it seems to me the main critique of ID is that it lacks (a) an articulable theory and (b) a suitable test to assess the theory.
In that vein, I proposed the following:
1. Evolution be treated as the dominant theory;
2. ID be treated as the minority theory;
3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable;
4. If so, devise suitable tests and test them both.
A fine gentleman, named Andrew Marczyk wrote in response, "This sounds like a pretty good plan to me."
He proposed, specifically, that ID advocates identify "specific tests [that]would confirm or falsify intelligent design."
Question to you:
(1) Will you agree to a civil debate (perhaps on a new thread) against Marczyk or his designee?
Cheers,
Navy Davy (Self-Appointed Justice of the Peace for scientific inquiry:)
Navy Davy · 21 May 2004
Frank J,
Good post. You make a lot of sense. You state:
But since IDers don't bother to test the hypotheses that they occasionally do make, they simply aren't doing relevant science.
That's what I'm trying to resolve. I want ID to form a discrete hypothesis and test it. If they can't do this, then it seems to me the theory isn't valid and should melt away.
To be fair, though, my courtroom mentality is hard-wired to ensure 2 sides of every issue. So, I would want the Evolution crowd to do the same: form a theory and test it. I think it would be a fascinating and worthwhile debate.
Johnnie C,
Why would I defend asbestos manufacturers? Everyone knows asbestos causes lung cancer and mesothelioma. I didn't think anyone disputed this. There is a small faction who say, though, that an SV-40 virus also causes mesothelioma. They say that this virus contaminated the first polio vaccinations, which were derived from Monkey kidneys. True claim! Don't know if it will wash though.
You are still irritating, BTW. I will pay you $$$ to stop writing me!!!
Matt Inlay · 21 May 2004
Navy Davy,
Jim Anderson is correct. The passage I quoted is from page 3 of the latest article by Jonathan Wells, entitled Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research.
It seems the primary disagreement between you and others in this thread is that you feel ID should be given some consideration as a theory, while most of the other people here feel it deserves none. Since you know more about cancer than you do evolutionary biology, you might be interested how one of the primary advocates of intelligent design views cancer biology.
Navy Davy · 21 May 2004
Matt Inlay,
A crafty trap! How devious:)
But, I was addressing Lengauer, not Wells, who is citing Lengauer as part of a some larger argument about ID or game theory or something else.
Your initial succinct question was:
In your experience, is DNA mutation correlated with cancer?
My answer is an emphatic, "Yes." In fact, I can't imagine anyone of ANY discipline saying "No"
Chromosomal instability as a potential cause of cancer has been around since 1914 or so, when Boveri first postulated it. I don't think it's that controversial. But, more importantly, I have no idea how it would come into play with issues of ID or Evolution. That's seems way tangential.
You write:
It seems the primary disagreement between you and others in this thread is that you feel ID should be given some consideration as a theory, while most of the other people here feel it deserves none
You guys are killing me:) I don't think ID should be given some consideration ... I think it should be clearly articulated, so as to be either refuted or confirmed by proper testing.
If refuted, it should be given NO consideration. If confirmed, it should be studied further. Not a big deal.
Cheers, y'all.
Navy Davy
Johnnie C. · 21 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 21 May 2004
*****1. Evolution be treated as the dominant theory*****
It certainly is in academia. I might differ whether it is in other arenas, but this can be discussed.
*****2. ID be treated as the minority theory;*******
It certainly is as I doubt many scientists even know what it is.
*****3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable;*****
Fine and I might add falsifiable under the Popperian thought of the scientific method.
*****4. If so, devise suitable tests and test them both.*****
Certainly
*****He proposed, specifically, that ID advocates identify "specific tests [that] would confirm or falsify intelligent design."
Question to you:
(1) Will you agree to a civil debate (perhaps on a new thread) against Marczyk or his designee?*****
Yes, this would be a pleasure. There seems much misunderstanding of even what ID is on this particular forum.
RBH · 21 May 2004
Regarding this proposed debate, I'd request that yuou all take it somewhere like Infidels, where there are facililties for formal debates. Set the debate up here and do the debate here. The Rules and Procedures for Formal Debates are here. Read the last URL - Rules and Procedures - first.
RBH
RBH
Matt Inlay · 21 May 2004
Navy Davy,
Sorry, that wasn't meant as a trap. I just didn't want to bias your response.
Chromosomal instability as a potential cause of cancer has been around since 1914 or so, when Boveri first postulated it. I don't think it's that controversial.
Nor do I, but notice that Wells implies that chromosomal instability and DNA mutation are completely separate events. You have to admit, the notion that chromosomal instability, in the absense of mutation, as a cause of cancer is extremely controversial.
But, more importantly, I have no idea how it would come into play with issues of ID or Evolution. That's seems way tangential.
You'll have to read the Wells article if you want an answer. I'm not even gonna try to answer that.
I apologize if I didn't sum up your argument correctly. If you explore ID for any length of time, you'll soon realize that there is no theory of ID beyond the one sentence summary of ID that I'm sure anyone on this forum, on either side of the debate, can paraphrase for you. There's a very specific reason for that, which you allude to in the last sentence of your post.
You should check out the Wells article. At least the first 3 pages. I'm curious what your thoughts are on it.
Bonnie · 21 May 2004
Pim van Meurs · 22 May 2004
Jerry: There seems much misunderstanding of even what ID is on this particular forum.
Well, I can understand your confusion about what ID really is or isn't but why should we care?
Jerry Don Bauer · 22 May 2004
Why do you troll me through every forum I've been in for the last 3 years if you don't care about, ID, Francis?
Jerry Don Bauer · 22 May 2004
David, just one other note before I go crash for a few hours. I want to be fair to whomever is choosen to debate ID if this gets that far, as my intention is not to demean anyone.
This person will need a firm grasp of science, be mathematically competent and must at least have studied thermodynamics at the university level as this will get extremely heavy. ;)
Thanks and good night, all.
shiva · 22 May 2004
Jerry says,>
<
Jerry check out this link
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.10.Scott_Response.htm
I don't want to tangle with Bill's copyright lawyers, so I am not pasting those lines where he claims his book(?) TDI qualifies as scientific literature - based on one reference to his work - which refers to a phrase that Bill's book doesn't contain. Jeffrey Shallit has already fisked and filleted Bill every which way possible. In fact your contention that Bill's work is more philosophy than science will surprise Bill a lot more than any one of us out here. Thanx anyway for owning up on behalf of Bill
Pete Dunkelberg · 22 May 2004
Navy Davy, in case you have forgotten about the other topic [Newspeak from the Ministry of Truth], I have returned to our conversation there, also covering some of your remarks here. Sorry for being late in in responding.
Pete
Russell · 22 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 22 May 2004
I think peer review from Cambridge University referees should be pretty solid. And I must admit that I'm quite surprised to learn there is an: "International Journal of Fuzzy Systems."
Good read. Thanks
Jerry Don Bauer · 22 May 2004
*****The fact that there is NO scientific debate (i.e. discussion of ID in scientific journals, national/international meetings of professional scientists, etc.) is part of the reason ID does not meet any normal definition of science.*****
Well, there is tons of scientific debate out there that's not difficult to find if one does not look for it with their hands covering their eyes. And I can assure you that we do schedule regular debates, lectures and meetings. The biggest meeting in the ID movement is sponsored annually by Biola University.
******And if it won't just "blow over" because lots of ignorant, deceived people are jumping on the bandwagon, so what?******
It won't blow over because it is based on truth. The ID argument cannot be refuted in debate by anyone. There is not one tenet of ID that can be refuted logically or experimentally. This is why so many secular humanists are in a tizzy. They simply cannot reason their way passed this and it so frustrates them. Check out the debate on John's site he links to above.
*****Unfortunately, in the meantime the highly motivated and mobilized forces of the Religious Right are busy installing a pulpit in my child's science class.*****
With all due respect, you say this only out of ignorance of the subject. There are no gods, creators or creations anywhere in the science of ID. We would have no idea who the designer was. It could have been another race, an astronaut or your Uncle Frank. There is no empirical evidence to point to the identity of a designer and hence, we don't even muse in this area. There will be no pulpits anywhere installed by us.
Russell · 22 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 22 May 2004
Do a PubMed search for Michael Behe. Go over to ISCID and read the paper on biophysics being presented by Wells.
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000521
Visit the quarterly journal on ID put out by Access Research Network here:
http://www.arn.org/odesign/odesign.htm
Read Dembski and co's quarterly here:
http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php
Go to PubMed and search for design. I did and only 18391 papers popped up.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
Read the vast number of papers hosted by DI:
http://www.discovery.org/
You guys are going to have to get off this argument because it is a fallacious one not based on fact.
*****Which, not coincidentally, is true of religious tenets in general.*****
Show me the religion in this: Intelligent Design: A science based on probability employed to detect design. So are all the archeologists and paleontologist who employ methodology to detect design in a find, really just religionists? How about the vast number of Pansmermians (Many of them atheists) that have subscribed to ID since the days of astrophysicist Hoyle?
*****With all due respect . . . what an arrogant presumptuous thing to say! I have spent way more time than I'd like listening to the ID advocates who actually are trying to install their "science" in my kid's curriculum. DO NOT presume to tell me I'm ignorant of their agenda; they're very up front about it. So who is this mythical non-relgiously motivated "us" for whom you claim to speak?*****
I would really have no idea what people are trying to install in your kids classroom. Early on there were many creationists who climbed onto the design curriculum because they did not understand it and felt it somehow supported their religion.
It does not. And today the degreed scientists involved in ID are steering it firmly toward where any science should be: under the guidance of methodological naturalism inherent in the scientific method.
So, Tell me, you have my curiosity aroused; what tenets of ID do you believe not to be science?
Pim van Meurs · 22 May 2004
Pim van Meurs · 22 May 2004
Jerry: Go to PubMed and search for design. I did and only 18391 papers popped up.
Nice equivocation on the term design. How many of these papers are relevant to intelligent design I wonder.
ISCID hardly contributes anything scientifically relevant, neither does ARN. Wells himself is on the record that his paper is really nothing specifically relevant to ID.
Jerry then continues:
A science based on probability employed to detect design. So are all the archeologists and paleontologist who employ methodology to detect design in a find, really just religionists?
False premise, false conclusion. Could Jerry please show how paleontologists and archaeologists apply the design filter? It should become quickly obvious that these do NOT use the limited approach of appeal to ignorance chosen by ID.
ID is clearly motivated religiously and while some try to present it as a scientific endeavour, it should be clear that ID has failed to show itself scientifically relevant and many have shown how ID's approach is meaningless. Even Del Ratzsch suggests as much.
Ed Darrell · 22 May 2004
NavyDavy, if you don't mind,would you tell us what the tests are to qualify an expert witness in your state (or states)? You clearly have a lot of experience in getting expert witnesses through voir dire to testify in court, so I seek the value of your experience.
And then, if you can, can you find anyone who advocates "intelligent design" who can qualify as an expert on intelligent design?
Thank you.
Jerry Don Bauer · 22 May 2004
******And then, if you can, can you find anyone who advocates "intelligent design" who can qualify as an expert on intelligent design?******
I've studied it since its inception. I don't know if I'm an expert, but I probably can answer most questions you might have or point you to someone who can. I would me more than glad to help you, if you so wish.
Pim van Meurs · 22 May 2004
Well, names would be helpful Jerry
Jerry Don Bauer · 22 May 2004
WHAT IS ID?
ID is not creationism. Creationism is a distantly related subject in some ways, perhaps. One notable relationship we must consider is that ID emerged from the scientific arm of Creationism. However, it did not take long for this young fledgling science to completely remove itself from the supernatural as degreed scientists came onboard to steer intelligent design firmly into the auspices of the scientific method.
Modern Creationism is quite different in that it seeks to describe the creation process as well as the creator and in order to achieve this, often theology, scripture and other support means not based strictly on science are employed.
ID does not consider a creation; it just employs science to detect design in tissues and artifacts. And what would creators, deities, spirits, religion or metaphysics or anything not directly shored up by scientific theory, law, and/or empirical experimentation governed by the scientific method ever have to do with science?
Its true that when something is designed for a purpose there must be a designer but ID makes no effort to identify one. We are aware that if the designer were a deity or an astronaut, the identity of this designer could not be precisely identified through scientific analysis. If the designer were a god, would we expect to be able to scientifically analyze the foot-prints of God? Would we expect to find a spirit with a stethoscope or a CAT scan? Could we perhaps have the C.O.B.E satellite beam down pictures of the designer for us to examine? No, even to ponder this is just silly.
Articles placed under the auspices of our science for study are often artifacts, chemically formulated substances, patterned items, DNA, organisms, organs, cells and cell organelles that were initially conceived millions and sometimes billions of years ago. Its impossible to go back in time to logically and scientifically pursue conclusions of a designer via empirical methodology, thus, we don't go there. Musings on the nature and identification of the designer we leave to the philosophers and the theologians because that has little bearing when considering natural origins verses intelligently guided ones in nature.
Picture in your mind your favorite shirt out of all in the wardrobe in the closet. Isn't that a cool shirt? Something or someone designed a really neat piece and you are proud to wear it. Now, what/who designed it? Odds are, you probably cannot even tell me the company that manufactured it without looking, much less the name of the individual draftsman who created the design. And who cares? We can still appreciate the design of the shirt, wear it and enjoy it. The design engineer becomes irrelevant because the design is already here and functioning.
So, you get to pick the designer if you so choose to do so. We leave that conclusion to the individual and individual beliefs. You may believe the designer was Yahweh, an astronaut, little green aliens, Allah, Krishna or your uncle Frank. That's up to you because we are only concerned with design science used to study items or systems in our modern world..
Design has held a role in science almost from the inception of the field of study and even today is used regularly in the subjects of paleontology, cryptography, archeology and forensics to name just a few. In these disciplines and others it often becomes necessary to determine if something is designed for a purpose, or came into 'being' as the result of natural processes that randomly occur in nature.
Consider an archeologist who uncovers what appears to be a rock roof supported by pillars on a dig. Did this structure occur by some natural law or process or was it designed by a builder for a particular use? The archeologist will have to determine this. If she concludes this to be a structure designed by a civilization, then perhaps she should continue this dig which could possibly uncover an ancient city or culture. But if this is just some strange looking natural occurrence formed through natural law or process, then her money might be better spent researching another avenue.
Similarly, imagine a paleontologist discovering a bear fetish carved of bone in the style of Native Americans. Perhaps the scientist is unfamiliar with fetish carvings in that culture, but for sure, he concludes, this is a strange bone. Is there any chance this bone could have received this shape naturally in some peculiar, yet undiscovered species, or is this a designed item resulting from intelligent intent? If the bone was formed naturally, this paleontologist has a lot of research work ahead of him to draw new hypothesis.
In the above two analogies both of these scientists will employ techniques of design to determine if their discovery is in effect an artifact, or simply came into existence by perfectly natural, explainable and expected processes.
In the bear fetish example above, the paleontologist employs design methodology and concludes this is most definitely a designed item and furthermore, is a carving done in the style of the Zuni tribe around 3000 years earlier. So, now can he establish the identification of that particular designer? No, of course not. To attempt do so would be preposterous. He doesn't even know the names of those Zuni tribe members living three millenniums in his past and to throw out the find just because he doesn't know who the designer is, and has no way of discerning its name, would be illogical. And above all, Idists are logical. What he can conclude is: it is designed and not a natural occurrence and discerning that fact is the goal of design methodology. Now the scientist has enough knowledge to classify the artifact.
Idists use the term design a bit differently than the dictionary definitions. The 'intelligent' part of the term is necessary to distinguish purposeful design from natural design. If we look at a beautiful mountain range it may appear to be designed and in a way it is, by natural processes. But those mountains were randomly designed by processes that could have gone one of many directions because there was no intelligence guiding the process.
Conversely, when intelligence is involved, a deliberate goal is predetermined and guiding actions work toward that goal. An architect uses his cognitive abilities to preconceive a skyscraper and meticulous plans are ordered into comprehensive blueprints so precise as to state where the rosebushes go in walkways. Intelligent design stands in stark contrast to design by natural processes.
ID is a conception all of us understand, although we may not think of the term when we perceive our world around us. We employ the gist of it every time we distinguish between things that 'just happen' and things that happen 'on purpose.'
When we see a digital camera accidentally left behind on a park bench is there any possibility that we might begin to ponder the possibility this camera could have randomly came into being over time by natural forces or that it has just always been on that bench? Of course not, that would be asinine. We know that someone designed and manufactured that camera and we don't even think about it.
Why then, when we observe a human dermal cell under a microscope, which is many times more complex than the camera, would we consider the possibility that the cell 'did' pop into existence by natural processes? In fact, each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica paling the complexity of the camera.
Perhaps another analogy other than a camera would better serve to contrast evolution by natural process to design by intelligence, however the analogy serves well to bring us to the example of 1700s English theologian/philosopher William Paley and his watch:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever . . . ..But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think the answer which I had before given would be sufficient.
To the contrary, the fine coordination of all its parts would force us to conclude that
. . . the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose . . . ..and designed its use.
Paley reasoned that logically one should view natural constructs, such as the eye, no differently than the watch. A watch's parts are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of telling time and similarly, the parts of an eye are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of seeing. In both cases, Paley observed, we perceive evidence of an intelligent designer.
Paley's muses were solid, logical and influence free-thinkers even today. However, Paley was a philosopher, not a scientist. Hence he never provided a rigorous standard for detecting design within the scientific method. His, and subsequent philosopher's notion of design, was dependent on such vague standards as being able to discern an object's 'purpose' while also considering the workings of God within that discernment.
This is what distinguishes this relatively new science called intelligent design, now only about ten years old or so, from the older versions of design that we can trace back to the ancient Greeks. Although many
ID: intelligent design is a science based on probability and employed to detect purposeful design in any given item or system.
Pim van Meurs · 22 May 2004
Jerry: ID: intelligent design is a science based on probability and employed to detect purposeful design in any given item or system.
Only a few problems, first of all it has been shown to not be a reliable or even useful way to detect 'purposeful design', secondly it cannot exclude for instance natural selection as a designer even when design is infered, thirdly it has failed to be shown to be useful in any non trivial manner.
A conflation between what science does to infer intelligent design and how ID claims to be able to infer intelligent design would be a first step to realize that ID's claims are mostly empty, lack in scientific relevance, applicability.
So far Jerry's article fails to address these simple issues.
And to anyone familiar with the ID movement it should be obvious that it is all about religion and that any scientific applicability is only incidental.
Pim van Meurs · 22 May 2004
For those interested in how others responded to Jerry's claims on ARN I suggest you check out http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=001291this link
Johnnie C. · 22 May 2004
Johnnie C. · 22 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 22 May 2004
*****Jerry Don, do you consider yourself knowledgeable about intelligent design "theory" (note the quotation marks)? I think you aren't knowledgeable about it at all. But I'm wondering if you think that you are knowledgeable about it.*****
What is ID theory and knowledge is a concept of degrees. So, compared to what or who?
*****For instance, Jerry Don, would you feel comfortable testifying in court about the fundamental tenets of intelligent design "theory" if called upon to do so?*****
Yes. I would feel comfortable testifying about the concepts of ID.
*****Also, other than my Uncle Frank, are there any other living human beings who possibly could be responsible for having designed all of the irreducibly complex biological structures on earth today?*****
I wouldn't know. I have know knowledge of that particular designer.
*****Thanks for the info, Jerry Don, and I hope all this ID business isn't getting in the way of your musical interests.******
I'm afraid the music interest has been replace by ID in the main-stream.
Jerry Don Bauer · 22 May 2004
ORDER, COMPLEXITY AND ORGANIZATION IN SYSTEMS
Heraclitus may have been the first person to muse on this subject. Around 500 BC, in the city of Ephesus in Ionia, Asia Minor, he became famous as the "flux and fire" philosopher for his postulation: "All things are flowing."
Heraclitus depicts a world composed of paired opposites--hot/cold, wet/dry, light/dark, order/disorder-- which perpetually struggle to dominate one another. Each pair of militaristic opposites simultaneously exists as unity; and this unity as a whole transcends its warring parts to provide a world with just enough order and disorder to make life possible.
Thus, it is chaos and equilibrium, order and disorder and complexity and simplicity that come together to form a useable universe and Heraclitus employs logos, the Greek word for reason, to describe this principle of order and intelligibility which governs this strange interplay of opposing forces.
In the 19th century several names emerged that would deal with the order/disorder dilemma. Carnot came upon the scene with his steam engines and introduced the interplay of energy and entropy, but he died as a young man and Clausius and Boltzmann would propel a young science called thermodynamics forward.
Both Clausius and Boltzmann viewed nature as decaying toward a certain death of random disorder in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.
All things in nature seek equilibrium. This equilibrium seeking, pessimistic view of the progression of natural systems was contrasted later with the introduction of the paradigm proposed by Darwin, of massively increasing complexity and organization of biological systems over time in a process called macroevolution.
This relationship between order and disorder is a delicate affair, indeed. The term "butterfly effect" was introduced by Edward Lorenz in the 1960's. Lorenz was a meterologist at MIT who noticed that tiny, butterfly-scale changes (as in a butterfly flapping its wings) shown on his computer weather models might result in anything from beautiful sunny skies to violent storms. He sought to understand this strange observation.
The Web Site Mathworld defines this phenomenon for us: "Due to nonlinearities in weather processes, a butterfly flapping its wings in Tahiti can, in theory, produce a tornado in Kansas. This strong dependence of outcomes on very slightly differing initial conditions is a hallmark of the mathematical behavior known as chaos."
Lorenz concluded that if as small a disturbance as a butterfly flapping its wings on one side of the planet can cause the development of weather on the other side, science will never be able to forecast the weather with any degree of accuracy. Chaos theory took the concept from there posing that many complex systems including the weather and even the stock market, are difficult to predict due to their extreme sensitivity to small changes.
Troy Shinbrot, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Rutgers University, wrote his PhD thesis on this concept entitled "Controlling Chaos: Using the Butterfly Effect to Direct Trajectories to Targets in Theoretical, Numerical, and Experimental Chaotic Systems."
Shinbrot does some mind experiments with a fork to help us understand the butterfly effect. "If you put a fork flat on a table, it will stay there. It's what we call stable. If you balance a fork on its tines, it's unstable. However carefully you balance it, it falls because any tiny fluctuation of air in one direction or another is enough to make it tip to the left or the right. So now you can ask the question, 'If I have a fork balanced perfectly on its end, could I choose whether it goes to the left or the right?' And the answer is yes, if at the right time you give it just the tiniest puff of air, you can make it fall over in the direction you like." The butterfly in Lorenz's butterfly effect represents the tiny puff of air that tips chaotic weather patterns to one outcome or another.

As an IDist ponders complexity, generally; order, complexity, and organization are used synonymously. Yet they are really not synonymous.
Order and chaos go hand in hand and work off one another. In fact, chaos, which is disorder, is most necessary for order to arise and the more chaos we have in a system, the better that order likes it.
Physicist Ilya Priogine won a Nobel Prize in 1977 for his work in systems that are far from equilibrium. He discovered that organization needs chaos to form. And this makes sense if we think it through. The word equilibrium could remind us of a placid, tranquil lakeside scene; a state of rest is one of its definitions, but it also entails the idea of balance. Thus the further we get away from equilibrium and the more intensely unstable that a system becomes, the better become our chances that order can form.
Prigogine postulated that systems that are very chaotic are far from equilibrium systems and therefore entropy becomes low enough that structures can form. Total chaos, minimum entropy, is just the opposite of maximum entropy--equilibrium.
All things in nature seek equilibrium where nature is perfectly balanced. But in a system at perfect equilibrium, nothing is happening. Therefore how could anything ever order itself from such a system?
Schrodinger posited that maximum entropy--perfect equilibrium in the organism, is achieved at death. (9) And this makes sense. How could there be anything more at equilibrium with itself than a cold, dead organism that isn't functioning at all? Furthermore, how could anything be more disorganized than this same organism? Nothing is organized adequately enough for anything to work. Yet it is ordered because there is no chaos.
In systems that are highly unstable, certain fluctuations can occur that can cause order, and "instead of regressing, may be amplified and invade the entire system, compelling it to evolve toward a new regime that may be qualitatively quite different from the stationary states corresponding to minimum entropy production." (14)
You wouldn't enjoy a perfectly ordered universe. A wholly ordered universe would be at perfect equilibrium and would be dead. Yet order is the underpinning communiqué between elements at all levels of organization. This is true regardless of whether we are considering a population of humans, mice, or neurons. But no natural environment can be ordered in its sum total and still function.
Chaos seems to be the moving mechanism by which nature develops constrained and useful randomness; as there can arise no order unless also is present a flow of matter and energy which decreases in intensity as a system moves toward equilibrium. This disordered flow is our source of order. As we grasp a better understanding of this relationship between chaos and order, in the words of Prigogine: "We begin to have a glimpse of the road that leads from being to becoming."
There seems a propensity, for reasons we still only partially understand, for the systems of nature to balance order and chaos--To keep a delicate balance between structure and uncertainty. The result of this balance serves to increase complexity.
The truth is that no one has ever offered any one definition of these terms, order, complexity and organization, that are scientifically or universally accepted.
Author F. Heylighen puts it well: "Complexity has turned out to be very difficult to define. The dozens of definitions that have been offered all fall short in one respect or another, classifying something as complex which we intuitively would see as simple, or denying an obviously complex phenomenon the label of complexity. Moreover, these definitions are either only applicable to a very restricted domain, such as computer algorithms or genomes, or so vague as to be almost meaningless." (15)
D. E. Berlyne defines complexity as "a pattern can be considered more complex the larger the number of independently selected elements it contains. (16)
M. H. Emden tackles the issue with a different theory: "complexity is the way in which a whole is different from the composition of its parts." (17)
Jeffrey S. Wicken, author of The Generation of Complexity in Evolution, writes: "'Organized' systems are to be carefully distinguished from 'ordered' systems. Neither kind of system is 'random,' but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external 'wiring diagram' with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic 'order.'"
So we can see, as we ponder this question, that order is not the same as organization and complexity. In fact, it is really perfect equilibrium which is maximum disorganization. Order becomes antithetical to organization and complexity.
I think I can synopsize this paper by concluding that complexity can be defined by how we are using the term to study a given system. In an organism, complexity might be defined as increasing parts in which these parts serve to add greater function to the cell or organism.
In a rock we could use Berlyne's definition in that the bigger the rock, the higher the complexity.
Considering a complex molecule, perhaps Emden's version of complexity is better suited.
Complexity of a social system would be an entirely different calculation than the complexity of a rock or a molecule. So this requires its own distinct definition.
The paramount point to derive from all of this is there is no one definition for complexity. Each system must be defined according to the system and what exactly in that system we wish to study.
(9) Schrodinger, Erwin from his book What is Life? Chapter 6
(14) Prigogine: http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/chaos_02.htm
(15) http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/COMPLEXI.html
(16) Berlyne D. E. (1971), Aesthetics and Psychobiology, New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
(17) Emden M. H. van (1971), "An analysis of complexity", Mathematical Centre Tracts, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Pim van Meurs · 22 May 2004
Another meaningless spam posting by Jerry Don. Perhaps Jerry can help us understand how complexity and information can increase through simple processes of mutation and variation for instance?
What in addition has ID contributed to our understanding of complexity and information as found in nature?
Compare this with the work done on complexity, scale free systems done by scientists.
Jerry Don Bauer · 22 May 2004
COUNTERFLOW IN DESIGN
Darwin proposed that random mutation and natural selection, a blind, purposeless process, had produced the myriad forms of life that inhabit planet Earth.
ID is just the opposite in that it sees purpose in the universe ranging from the magnificence of the cosmos to our unique solar system and all the way down to the microscopic cellular organelles and chemical processes that propel the macroscopics of life.
But while we recognize that purpose is inherent in ID, we must not overestimate the role of purpose in design because it is not always easy to ascertain that purpose.
Those of us who are fans of the television show, The Beverly Hillbillies, are well aware of how the Clampets confused their swimming pool with a 'cement pond' for the purpose of watering Ellie's animals. They recognized it as designed, certainly used it for a purpose, but clearly did not understand the purpose of the initial design.
And remember the episode where they discover the pool table located near the kitchen? They were in awe of the intellect of design intrinsic in that 'dining room table.' It had rails so that cups and plates would not slide off, cup holders at all four corners and on the sides and was of such ergonomic genius as to come complete with "pot sticks" in order to pass those hot pots around.
My point with all of this is that although we recognize the role of purpose in design, it is not explicitly important that purpose be ascertained in order that design be detected. While its true they exist side beside one another, it is the design we seek to validate and the initial purpose of the designer becomes largely irrelevant.
When my son was around the age of five, like most American kids of that era, he was sold on The Lion King and Mom and Dad would wince when, for the 100th time as we would travel, the sound track of that movie would chime the song, The Circle of Life once again.
But this was great lesson for kids because due to the flows of nature there is a most distinct circle of life. A shoot of fescue pops its head out of the ground and a cow eats it. The cow is rendered into hamburgers and humans have lunch at a fast food restaurant. Eventually, those humans will succumb to the second law of thermodynamics and they will die and be buried. Microscopic organisms will break down those bodies into nutrients that plants can use and more plants spring forward that cows can eat and so goes the circle of life--the ebb and flow of biotic existence.
The flows of nature are distinctly recognizable. According to the arrow of time, time will always flow forward as long as the universe is expanding. The laws of thermodynamics permeate natural processes and dictate that articles existing in nature will, as a tendency, always move toward disorder as they exist in time. Geologists determine that natural forces will shape natural structures uniformitarianistically, or gradually, over thousands and millions of years and sometimes catastrophism, such as an erupting volcano, comets and meteorites; or hurricanes and tornados can play its role in the natural process.
Even when we see phenomenon that seem to subsist in contradiction to natural flow, we can always confirm there is a very good reason if these phenomenon are a result of natural law.
Growing crystals seem at first examination to violate the second law of thermodynamics in that rather than growing more disordered over time, they actually grow more complex. But when we scientifically examine the underlying reason for this, we grasp there is a process called 'nucleation' that fully predicts this should happen.
Growing stalactites and stalagmites, formation of long protein chains from simpler amino acids; and even the simplicity of a freezing lake in the wintertime show order where there is a tendency in nature toward disorder. But we understand why this will happen. As water carries calcium to be deposited on natural structures, they grow larger over time as this calcium builds up. As temperatures change in summer and winter, lakes freeze and thaw and when we learn that some amino acids attract neighboring amino acids via opposite electrical charges we understand why proteins grow, become uniquely folded and twisted and the distinctive complexity of a shape gives each protein a unique function.
Nature is usually most predictable in its operation as modern technology learns more of the natural law that governs the cosmos around us. And while we still sometimes have trouble precisely predicting the timing of earthquakes, the formation of tornadoes or the exact amount of accumulation in any given snowstorm, we have no trouble at all in predicting that these natural phenomena will occur somewhere, at some point in time. It's only nature in action.
Nature has its own modus operandi. And it is when an event occurs or an artifact is found that seems to contradict this natural flow that the Idist makes an observation of the possibility that design rather than nature may be responsible for 'causing' this event or artifact.
One example may be that nature necessitates a baseball, unless energy is added, will fall toward the ground when thrown. Would we be surprised at a conclusion by the local coroner's office that a man fell off a cliff to his death? No, this is within the modus operandi of natural law and it happens every day somewhere in the world.
Was he pushed, did he slip, was it suicide or carelessness? We may or may not ever know the details of his death, but we can readily conclude that there is nothing unnatural about the end results. The man somehow left the cliff and nature demands that when he does, he must then fall to the lowest point available to him with that dreaded sudden stop at the bottom inevitable. A child would have no trouble understanding this simple concept.
But would we be surprised if we heard in the news that a man was touring a cave and suddenly he slipped, fell upward toward the top of the cave and his body then splattered across the ceiling?
Yes we would, because this scenario is breech of natural law. Things fall to the ground, they do not fall up spontaneously. How silly is that picture?
In the scenery of the continuum of life, we observe organisms being born into our world, aging, if they live a natural life, then withering away into death. Wouldn't we be most surprised to watch a dead fruit fly come to life, grow increasingly younger, climb back into the cocoon turn itself into a maggot and ease itself from existence totally backward to the laws of nature?
How would we feel if a worn out tire repaired its own hole and air suddenly gushed into it making it usable again--or if we were to observe the Titanic hitting an iceberg and repairing a hole in her belly, or if we were to walk into a room filled with the odor of strong perfume, open a sterile bottle and observe the perfume molecules concentrating themselves into the bottle, or if we suddenly watched a diver emerge backward from the swimming pool leaping 10 feet into the air to come to rest on the high dive?
None of these scenarios are going to happen because to do so would go against the intrinsic flow of nature and the laws that govern this flow which we will explore in detail later.
But if, and/or when, we observe an event that is contrary to the normal flow of nature, it is not that difficult to determine that quite possibly something other than the laws of nature caused the event.
When we hypothesize that a reaction or event has occurred that would seem to go against the natural flow of the universe there is a term in Intelligent Design used to describe this circumstance. we must investigate this reaction or event as possibly caused by counterflow.
Counterflow can be defined as: "A reaction or event with the end results being contrary to what would or might have resulted had nature operated freely."
This is a term coined by Del Ratzsch, a Calvin College philosophy professor and an Idist in his recent book, Design, Chance & Theistic Evolution:
"There is another, even more fundamental implication linked to the intervention just mentioned, there will now be something about the cosmos, its history or its path that did not flow out of its prior states. The intervention will in effect involve the pushing of nature out of a path that nature, if left to itself, otherwise would have taken and into one it would not have; otherwise it would not be intervention. ... Nature moving in paths it would not of itself have taken I shall term counterflow. Counterflow is both defined and identified against a background of
what nature might otherwise have done in contrast to the normal flow of nature."
Pim van Meurs · 22 May 2004
Given Jerry's tendencies to spam this website with meaningless commentary I propose to (re)move his comments.
Navy Davy · 22 May 2004
Holy Smokes! It's Saturday night, and I'm fixin' to take the missus out to dinner, and y'all are goin' hog wild!
Put your chromosomes back in your genetic holsters and wait for the orderly debate to commence!
Cheers,
Navy Davy
Russell · 22 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 22 May 2004
*****Put your chromosomes back in your genetic holsters and wait for the orderly debate to commence!*****
LOL..I'm reholstered and had planned to stop right here. I just wanted to define ID and get to counterflow. We'll see where it goes from here.
Jerry Don Bauer · 22 May 2004
*****"Tenets"? Does ID have tenets? I've never seen anything from ID proponents I consider science.*****
Well, stick around, you soon will. ;0)
Pim van Meurs · 22 May 2004
Jerry: I just wanted to define ID and get to counterflow. We'll see where it goes from here.
Hope it will be better than the fate of similar threads on ISCID or ARN.
Why do you not start your own BLOG Jerry to discuss these topics? Spamming this website with meaningless material is just not very polite imho
Bob Maurus · 22 May 2004
Jerry Don,
Somewhere way back there you said, "There are no gods, creators or creations anywhere in the science of ID. We would have no idea who the designer was. It could have been another race, an astronaut or your Uncle Frank. There is no empirical evidence to point to the identity of a designer and hence, we don't even muse in this area."
At some point you have to "muse in this area." You give three possibilities, all three of which have to be accounted for. Where did they come from? At best, all you've done is to push the final accounting back a step. At the risk of offending your sensibilities, let me suggest that your line of reasoning leads inexorably to "God did it." That's fine for Sunday School, but it simply doesn't cut it for Science.
Jerry Don Bauer · 22 May 2004
*****At the risk of offending your sensibilities, let me suggest that your line of reasoning leads inexorably to "God did it." That's fine for Sunday School, but it simply doesn't cut it for Science.*****
Nope, there are no gods in any of arguments and I hate to disappoint you, but I don't go to Sunday School. I got my science education as a chemistry major, not in a seminary.
*****At some point you have to "muse in this area." You give three possibilities, all three of which have to be accounted for. Where did they come from? At best, all you've done is to push the final accounting back a step.******
I think you failed to understand one of my major points. The fact that something stands as designed and functions and I can scientifically show this, does not logically lead to, Therefore the designer's name was Jim Beam.
Design and designers have nothing to do with one another once the design as been completed. I have no idea what carpenter built this house I live in, but it functions perfectly. I'm not meaning to be rude, but I'm hoping to show you that your logic leads to the necessitation that I throw my vacuum cleaner, toaster, cell phone and hair dryer into the trash. Because of what use are they to me since I don't know who the design engineer was?
Pim van Meurs · 22 May 2004
Jerry: The fact that something stands as designed and functions and I can scientifically show this,
Actually ID's claim that it can show scientifically that something was designed without assumptions about the designer are on shakey grounds.
Just ask Del Ratzsch :-)
So stop making strawmen arguments. Noone is interested in your toaster, what we are interested is how you believe ID can identify intelligent design(ers) in nature since so far, ID has failed miserably.
Bob Maurus · 23 May 2004
Sorry Jerry,
I don't see that you have a major point, or at least one that holds water.
Biological organisms aren't toasters; Mathematicians with better resumes than Dembski have, in loving detail, dismantled his Explanatory Filter; and the Design Inference, with the gobbledy-gook removed, simply says that for any organ/function/process that Science hasn't yet determined a natural path, Creationists can claim design. The whole thing's pretty lame as theories go.
Design requires a Designer. At best, ID is disingenuous in this regard. It's all very well and good to talk about another race or an astronaut or my Uncle Frank. Stop dissembling. Who designed Uncle Frank? I can only assume the obvious - as soon as you stop playing games, and address the identity of your Designer, ID is shown to be Divine Creation.
Johnnie C. · 23 May 2004
I'd like to remind everyone that the last time Jerry Don was asked to clarify his statement that a human being living on the earth today could have designed all of the "irreducibly complex" structures on the earth today, he crapped all over himself.
His reluctance and inability to deal with this issue honestly are evidence (as if we needed anymore) of Jerry Don's complete lack of integrity and and his complete lack of understanding of how science works.
For just a few moments, we can indulge Jerry Don and imagine that he is right (note: it helps to bang your head against a hard wall ten or twelve times). Jerry Don, what comes next? Surely you've given this prospect much consideration. After you have "proven" that life on earth was "intelligently designed," then where do scientists go from there? Do we initiate a manhunt to find who the designer is? (after all, she might be living among us, according to Jerry Don). It seems that it goes without saying that every paper in biology or molecular biology or paleontology would be reduced to a catalogue of observations without any hypotheses possible for how a given system or structure might have evolved.
And Wells and Behe and Dembski and Jerry Don and Charlie Wagner would surely be elevated to the highest ranks amongst living scientists (and living religious figures), as they will have uncovered, in the face of vociferous doubts, a new area of scientific study whose geopolitical ramifications cannot be underestimated. Einstein's theories begin to look trivial by comparison.
Because IF (and let me just bang my head on my sidewalk a few more times) Wells, Behes, etc. are right then surely human beings (Uncle Frank notwithstanding -- let me hit my head with a hammer just a few more times), with the indisusputable (i.e., mathematically proven) knowledge that an intelligent being exists whose powers vastly surpass their own (sightless eyeballs notwithstanding -- maybe a nailgun is necessary here), will certainly take note of that intelligence and (1) celebrate it or (2) worship it. In the United States, at least, we can expect that the celebration will take place not in churches, as it does now, but in science classrooms.
Your thoughts, Jerry Don (assuming you haven't been banned for your obnoxious spamming, an entirely appropriate punishment IMHO)? Or is your smallish-sized brain not capable of speculating about the future in the wake of your ID revolution (oops! I did an ad hominem, my apologies: I have no idea about how big Jerry Don's brain is. I only know his head looks really really small between those giant headphones).
RBH · 23 May 2004
Here's the ARN thread from which Jerry Don cut and pasted his long posting above. I particularly recommend The Pixie's rebuttal.
RBH
Jerry Don Bauer · 23 May 2004
*****After you have "proven" that life on earth was "intelligently designed," then where do scientists go from there?*****
Science never proves. It probes and pushes, but it doesn't prove.
*****Do we initiate a manhunt to find who the designer is? (after all, she might be living among us, according to Jerry Don).*****
You can if you want. I won't be joining you on that hunt because I see no way it could be successful.
*****It seems that it goes without saying that every paper in biology or molecular biology or paleontology would be reduced to a catalogue of observations without any hypotheses possible for how a given system or structure might have evolved.******
That's what most of them are right now.
******And Wells and Behe and Dembski and Jerry Don and Charlie Wagner would surely be elevated to the highest ranks amongst living scientists (and living religious figures), as they will have uncovered, in the face of vociferous doubts, a new area of scientific study whose geopolitical ramifications cannot be underestimated. Einstein's theories begin to look trivial by comparison.*****
Nah . . . .I've had my 15 minutes of fame. And I'm rather happy with Einstein's work. Let's keep this in there.
*****Because IF (and let me just bang my head on my sidewalk a few more times) Wells, Behes, etc. are right then surely human beings (Uncle Frank notwithstanding --- let me hit my head with a hammer just a few more times), with the indisusputable (i.e., mathematically proven) knowledge that an intelligent being exists whose powers vastly surpass their own (sightless eyeballs notwithstanding --- maybe a nailgun is necessary here), will certainly take note of that intelligence and (1) celebrate it or (2) worship it. *****
You would worship an astronaut? Why?
*****I only know his head looks really really small between those giant headphones).******
That ain't me in the picture. That's the lead singer for the Blackwood Quartet. We just did the album. Tell me, is there anyone in here capable of bringing a cogent argument rather than posts based on the ad homonym fallacy? Its very difficult to win a debate when all the posts are logical fallacies, is it not?
Jerry Don Bauer · 23 May 2004
*****Biological organisms aren't toasters;******
Designers aren't either.
*****Mathematicians with better resumes than Dembski have, in loving detail, dismantled his Explanatory Filter; and the Design Inference, with the gobbledy-gook removed, simply says that for any organ/function/process that Science hasn't yet determined a natural path*****
They dismantled the EF? Interesting. I don't think anyone bothered to tell us about it because someone uses it every day. And if you think the EF has any thing to do with organs or function I would be happy to send you to some good reading on the subject.
*****Creationists can claim design.******
Yep. We'll let them use design if they want. You can too.
*****Design requires a Designer.*****
Yep.
*****At best, ID is disingenuous in this regard. It's all very well and good to talk about another race or an astronaut or my Uncle Frank. Stop dissembling.*****
ID isn't disingenuous on this. Its just not necessary to know what it was in order to detect design. In fact, its irrelevant and a totally different subject.
******Who designed Uncle Frank?******
Astronauts?
******I can only assume the obvious - as soon as you stop playing games, and address the identity of your Designer, ID is shown to be Divine Creation.******
So this applies to the panspermians among us who a largely atheists?
Russell · 23 May 2004
Bob Maurus · 23 May 2004
Jerry,
I just jumped to the ARN board to look at your thread that RBH linked above. There and here, your bag of examples and illuminations seems to consist entirely of toasters, shirts, digital cameras, watches, and possibly various other non-biological and obviously designed objects - except for that protruding rock. I doubt that that was intelligently designed, though it could very well have been intelligently placed.
I have no problem following your argument concerning the obvious intelligent design of those objects. With at least some of them though, I can't agree about not being able to arrive at the Designer's identity. Brand names and designer labels on most of them are a pretty good place to start, don't you think? And even if you were unable to track down the designer of your shirt, why on earth would you think I'd demand that you throw it in the trash? That'd be kind of stupid. You could at least keep it for a shop rag.
Where you really lose me though, is when you you make that abrupt switch to biological entities and processes. Did I read you right - are you claiming you can prove scientifically that certain biological structures were intelligently designed? That would be a first, wouldn't it? Will you be using the EF? Or do you have another method? It's not going to involve toasters or designer shirts is it?
As has been amply stated before, the list of potential Designers is pretty short. I've always figured there were three - an alien race, God, or a natural process. I'm not sure I'd include your two additions. My Uncle Fred is definitely out, because he's nowhere near old enough, and your astronaut is accounted for by the alien - unless you meant John Glenn or the guy who went looking for the Ark, in which case they're not old enough either. So there's three, and the aliens aren't contenders because then you'd have to account for their designer. You're stuck with God, by default, whether you like it or not.
It's simply disingenuous for you or any other IDer to claim that there are no gods or creators or creations in ID. Well, actually, you said "the science of ID," but so far as can be seen there is no science in ID. I think it's fair to say that everyone's waiting - less patiently all the time - for you guys to produce some.
Pim van Meurs · 23 May 2004
*****At best, ID is disingenuous in this regard. It's all very well and good to talk about another race or an astronaut or my Uncle Frank. Stop dissembling.*****
Jerry: ID isn't disingenuous on this. Its just not necessary to know what it was in order to detect design. In fact, its irrelevant and a totally different subject.
Since you have failed to show that it is not necessary to know more about the designer to infer design and since it is obvious that ID's approach is without scientific merrit, it does not come as a surprise that Jerry is avoiding dealing with these issues.
Logically and scientifically speaking Jerry's claims are dead ends.
Jerry Don Bauer · 23 May 2004
*****I have no problem following your argument concerning the obvious intelligent design of those objects. With at least some of them though, I can't agree about not being able to arrive at the Designer's identity. Brand names and designer labels on most of them are a pretty good place to start, don't you think?*****
Well I'm not implying that most of the designers on those examples couldn't be tracked down if I wanted to. My point is that all I care about is whether that sucker will make toast or not. What good would it do me to know the design engineer is named Steve Jones? Why would I care? The design and function of these thing are what's important.
******And even if you were unable to track down the designer of your shirt, why on earth would you think I'd demand that you throw it in the trash? That'd be kind of stupid. You could at least keep it for a shop rag.******
Poor wording on my part. Let me rephrase: You do not have to throw your shirt in the trash just because you don't know the name of the design engineer. That shirt will still function well if I do, or if I do not know the name of the designer. The two subjects are not even logically linked. How mentally whacko would I be not be able to sleep in my bed until I find out the name of the guy that sawed out the legs? That's not just illogical, its obsessive/compulsive disorder.
*****Where you really lose me though, is when you you make that abrupt switch to biological entities and processes. Did I read you right - are you claiming you can prove scientifically that certain biological structures were intelligently designed? That would be a first, wouldn't it? Will you be using the EF? Or do you have another method? It's not going to involve toasters or designer shirts is it?*****
Nah . . . .no shirts or toaster in there, just mathematics involved in calculating amino acids forming and this type of thing. And I'm afraid that's not a first---Hoyle, Brewster, Roger Moore and Henry Morris (And I'm sure others if we researched it) have all beat me to it.
*****As has been amply stated before, the list of potential Designers is pretty short. I've always figured there were three - an alien race, God, or a natural process. I'm not sure I'd include your two additions. My Uncle Fred is definitely out, because he's nowhere near old enough, and your astronaut is accounted for by the alien - unless you meant John Glenn or the guy who went looking for the Ark, in which case they're not old enough either. So there's three, and the aliens aren't contenders because then you'd have to account for their designer. You're stuck with God, by default, whether you like it or not.*****
I was just spouting off at the keyboard. But I'm not stuck with God. Do you know how many Pansmermians are Idists. This goes all the way back Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle. And heck, they do have some good points, we have found amino acids in meteorites.
http://www.panspermia.org/hoylintv.htm
*****It's simply disingenuous for you or any other IDer to claim that there are no gods or creators or creations in ID.*****
It's not at all. I can think of 4 posters at ARN right off the top of my head who are agnostics, and many Panspermians are atheist. And where would gods fit in a test tube?
*****Well, actually, you said "the science of ID," but so far as can be seen there is no science in ID. I think it's fair to say that everyone's waiting - less patiently all the time - for you guys to produce some.*****
Well be patient. Once this debate gets under way you will see tons of science and math presented. If the debate doesn't come to fruition. I will continue to post my writings until everyone here is satisfied that they have a firm grasp of ID. This thread was started about me so I doubt anyone should have a problem with me posting in it. ;0)
Pim van Meurs · 23 May 2004
Jerry: Nah . . . .no shirts or toaster in there, just mathematics involved in calculating amino acids forming and this type of thing. And I'm afraid that's not a first----Hoyle, Brewster, Roger Moore and Henry Morris (And I'm sure others if we researched it) have all beat me to it.
And they all missed the point. But what is even more important is that their calculations provided for no real scientific hypotheses.
It should be obvious that Jerry's inability to show that ID is scientifically able to detect design combined with ID's failure to apply it's ideas to any non-trivial examples and its failure as a relevant scientific contributor all point to a overall failure of ID.
Jerry: Well be patient. Once this debate gets under way you will see tons of science and math presented. If the debate doesn't come to fruition. I will continue to post my writings until everyone here is satisfied that they have a firm grasp of ID.
That may take a while if the past is any reliable predictor of the future. So far in my many discussions with Jerry I have yet to see much science and while he presents a lot of mathematical statements, few tend to be relevant scientifically.
Johnnie C. · 23 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 23 May 2004
*****It's not an "attack" on you, Jerry Don*****
Why no, what would ever make me think this? <:0)
Pim van Meurs · 23 May 2004
Pim van Meurs · 23 May 2004
Johnnie C. · 23 May 2004
Bob Maurus · 23 May 2004
Jerry Don,
I want to know what YOU think, and what your evidence is for that, not what someone else on some other site thinks. Forget about the shirts and toasters and talk to me about sound science.
You claimed earlier today that you could scientifically prove ID. When I gave you the opportunity, you declined, claiming that once the debate got under way you would provide "tons" of it. I don't need tons of it, Jerry - a kilo or two as a token of good faith would suffice for starters. And it seems to me that the debate started quite a while ago and we're still waiting. It's in your court.
As for my bed, I assure you that I also don't toss and turn at all fretting about the Designer's name - that's pretty much irrelevant as far as beds go. But if I "knew" that I'd been designed, I'd probably have a little more interest in that tidbit, and that brings us right back to that short list, and I just can't get into a frame of mind where God's even a remote possibility. If you want to remove Him from the equation all that's required is to provide a few suggestions that don't require His input. Go for it.
Where would gods fit in a test tube? Great question, Jerry. But since that's what's required by what you propose, that question's probably yours to answer. Any time.
As much as it pains me, I must occasionally admit to a bit of ignorance - what the hell is a panspermian? The immediate mental image is rather mindboggling!
My first post in this thread referenced your statement that " . . . there's no empirical evidence to point to the identity of a designer and hence, we don't even muse in this area." My observation here would be that there's no empirical evidence to point to the EXISTENCE of a designer, so you'd probably ought to do some serious musing in this area. I'd suggest one possible area of musing - Genesis.
Have a good one,
Bob
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
******I want to know what YOU think, and what your evidence is for that, not what someone else on some other site thinks. Forget about the shirts and toasters and talk to me about sound science.*****
Thank you. This exactly what I want to do but certain people are so afraid to hear it that they don't want me to get away from the spirits, gods, fairies, leprechauns and pixie dust variety of origins. Idist don't do this, we only do science.
*****You claimed earlier today that you could scientifically prove ID. When I gave you the opportunity, you declined, claiming that once the debate got under way you would provide "tons" of it. I don't need tons of it, Jerry - a kilo or two as a token of good faith would suffice for starters. And it seems to me that the debate started quite a while ago and we're still waiting. It's in your court.******
And you ae going to wait awhile because there are several areas we need to discuss before we get there. Tell me, no one has addressed anything of substance in my three opening posts. I take it that thus far we are in agreement?
*****As for my bed, I assure you that I also don't toss and turn at all fretting about the Designer's name - that's pretty much irrelevant as far as beds go. But if I "knew" that I'd been designed, I'd probably have a little more interest in that tidbit, and that brings us right back to that short list, and I just can't get into a frame of mind where God's even a remote possibility. If you want to remove Him from the equation all that's required is to provide a few suggestions that don't require His input. Go for it*****
See, there you are again, trying to pull gods into science. I don't want to discuss gods, I want to discuss science. I'm not a creationist and if this is what you want to discuss, I might point you to some creationist sites that believe in something called 'creation science.' To me, this is an oxymoron. Because one is theology, and one is based on methodological naturalism which must exclude theology.
*****Where would gods fit in a test tube? Great question, Jerry. But since that's what's required by what you propose, that question's probably yours to answer.*****
LOL . . . .No it isn't. I would have no idea even which god to begin with. Jehovah, Christ, Allah, Zeus, Apollo, Mythris, Buddah, Krishna?? Who or what gods would I discuss? And how do you feel this is science?
*****As much as it pains me, I must occasionally admit to a bit of ignorance - what the hell is a panspermian? The immediate mental image is rather mindboggling!*****
Panspermians believe that they can show that the origins of life were seeded from outer space. Some go with astronauts, others point to the organic compounds, especially the amino acids we've found in meteorites that comprise proteins.
They reject Darwinism as just silly and since many of them are atheist or agnostic, this is about the only option they can come up with to explain origins.
*****My observation here would be that there's no empirical evidence to point to the EXISTENCE of a designer, so you'd probably ought to do some serious musing in this area. I'd suggest one possible area of musing - Genesis.*****
LOL . . . .If you want to read Genesis, it's a free country. Go for it. But I just don't buy much of anything in there. Anytime you want to discuss science and leave the realm of theology, I'm here.
Jack Krebs · 24 May 2004
For what it's worth, there is another Jerry Don Bauer thread over at ISCID which is a little more civilized than some others and reaches the same conclusion: Jerry's ideas about ID and calculations that prove ID and the roles of law and chance, etc., are hopelessly flawed.
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****Jerry's ideas about ID and calculations that prove ID and the roles of law and chance, etc., are hopelessly flawed.******
That's only one idea and calculation, Jack. Why don't you let me walk those interested through all them rather than skipping to the end without understanding how I got there. Can we debate this debate here?
I don't think the Elsberry Wilkins paper is going to add much clarity to the thermodynamics we are trying to get to here. The old posts that my detractors are trying to steer this thread toward is just smoke and mirrors attempting to deflect the argument away from where its going.
Reasonable people reading this will see this glaring fact.
Pim van Meurs · 24 May 2004
Jerry:I don't think the Elsberry Wilkins paper is going to add much clarity to the thermodynamics we are trying to get to here.
The Wilkins and Elsberry paper was already discussed on ISCID where it was shown that your interpretation of it was mostly fallacious
Jerry: The old posts that my detractors are trying to steer this thread toward is just smoke and mirrors attempting to deflect the argument away from where its going.
I do agree that these references to all postings of yours are smoke and mirrors. But they seem to be of your own creation. I am just pointing out to the many failed attempts of Jerry to present a coherent argument.
Jerry: Reasonable people reading this will see this glaring fact.
Reasonable people will observe the lack of much of an argument from Jerry.
Pim van Meurs · 24 May 2004
Jerry:I don't think the Elsberry Wilkins paper is going to add much clarity to the thermodynamics we are trying to get to here.
The Wilkins and Elsberry paper was already discussed on ISCID where it was shown that your interpretation of it was mostly fallacious
Jerry: The old posts that my detractors are trying to steer this thread toward is just smoke and mirrors attempting to deflect the argument away from where its going.
I do agree that these references to all postings of yours are smoke and mirrors. But they seem to be of your own creation. I am just pointing out to the many failed attempts of Jerry to present a coherent argument.
Jerry: Reasonable people reading this will see this glaring fact.
Reasonable people will observe the lack of much of an argument from Jerry.
~DS~ · 24 May 2004
Personally Jerry Don if I thought my bed or anything else was made by non-human intelligent entities, I'd be awfully damn interested in the identity of those creatures.
Now for the rest of yoose...feedback has still not been posted for April Talk-O, and the natives are getting restless. Some are starting to bother me about it, as if I had anything to do with it.
Russell · 24 May 2004
"April Talk-O"?
You lost me.
Russell · 24 May 2004
"April Talk-O"?
You lost me.
CD318 · 24 May 2004
Jerry typed: "Total chaos, minimum entropy, is just the opposite of maximum entropy---equilibrium."
Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer, but thanks for playing! Go! Learn something about free energy and enthalpy! You'll be glad you did!
You might start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium
...and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equilibrium
CD318 · 24 May 2004
Jerry typed: "Total chaos, minimum entropy, is just the opposite of maximum entropy---equilibrium."
Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer, but thanks for playing! Go! Learn something about free energy and enthalpy! You'll be glad you did!
You might start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium
...and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equilibrium
CD318 · 24 May 2004
Jerry typed: "Total chaos, minimum entropy, is just the opposite of maximum entropy---equilibrium."
Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer, but thanks for playing! Go! Learn something about free energy and enthalpy! You'll be glad you did!
You might start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium
...and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equilibrium
CD318 · 24 May 2004
Jerry typed: "Total chaos, minimum entropy, is just the opposite of maximum entropy---equilibrium."
Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer, but thanks for playing! Go! Learn something about free energy and enthalpy! You'll be glad you did!
You might start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium
...and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equilibrium
~DS~ · 24 May 2004
Russell: Talk Origins April Feedback. E-mail to the T.O. archive which is posted-often with comical remarks-each month. Many/most of the contributers here also contribute to answering that mail.
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****Personally Jerry Don if I thought my bed or anything else was made by non-human intelligent entities, I'd be awfully damn interested in the identity of those creatures.*****
Maybe, but that's another subject and if those creatures were unknowable, the fact that you DON'T have an idea of the designer does not preclude you from enjoying the bed and knowing it was designed. This is my point and to pursue this nonsensical argument seems to show the desperation of the other side in handling the issue. ;0)
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****"Total chaos, minimum entropy, is just the opposite of maximum entropy---equilibrium."******
Don't get your information about science from Web Sites. Get it from papers and reputable scientists or I fear you will never know truth or understand the science that surrounds our issues.
Ilya Prigogine and Erwin Shrodinger, both Nobel winning scientists have postulated this:
"Every process, event, happening---call it what you will: in a word, everything that is going on in Nature means an increase in entropy of the part of the world where it is going on. Thus a living organism continually increases its entropy---or as you might say, produces positive entropy---and thus tends to approach the dangerous state of maximum entropy, which is death."
Erwin Schrodinger, What is Life, Chapter 8
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
Now. Everyone has been screaming for some science and in my next post we will get into it.
I know no other way to discuss it without posting it, and I cannot do it in three sentences or less.
So, moderators, if you prefer I do it another way, please just shoot me an email and I'll gladly comply.
To the forum. Please read all of this and post questions to anything you disagree with or have questions about.
These posts will all lead to several tenets of ID and you will see where I'm going when I finalize each tenet in the form of theories. Thanks fer yer support. <;0)
Johnnie C. · 24 May 2004
Russell · 24 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
I don't know how to start a new thread here and don't feel this is something any user can do.
John's post was about me and my comments on peer review. I refuted his post and he has failed to respond to this. I think we all know how Internet etiquet works in these types fora.Let's move on. I've been challenged in several areas and I wish to respond to those challanges. That's called free speech, is it not?
It will get verbose anywhere we go, so this is a good a place as any.
Panda_Bear · 24 May 2004
Jack Krebs · 24 May 2004
Jerry, only Panda Thumb contributors (see here) can initiate threads - this is a weblog, not a discussion forum. The Panda's Thumb is meant to provide an opportunity for people to discuss and comment on the topics offered by the contributors, but it is not meant to be a place to rehash interminable creationist arguments.
If you want to "debate," ARN or ISCID are better places for you, I think.
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
Well, I know how intellectually dishonest the secular humanist religionists can become and probably I'll just be gagged as I begin to make points you can't handle anyway.
Isn't it ironic that that no one is pointed out when they attack ID. Its just when someone knowledgeable in the subject wants to refute the charges that suddenly 'Oh no, we can't discuss this here. Only detractors can begin new posts. We don't want to talk about it any further.'Keep those blinders on tight, guys.
So much for intellectual honesty and 'let the chips fall where the may' with scientific truth here at Panda's Thumb. Any sensable person reading this can see that.
But Jack, you better get to know this stuff because it is all coming before your school board, and I can assure you that this time around there won't be a single person with a lick of common sense that won't vote to allow ID to be taught in Kansas schools.
So where do you want to go to discuss this and I'll bet not one of you will show up. Continue to live in ignorance, gentlemen, but I can assure you that the American public has decided not to join you in it.
john m lynch · 24 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****Don't confuse refuting with responding Jerry. Little you have said has refuted John's post.*****
I have responded to Dr. John's posits both here and on his site showing him the liturature and how it is peer reviewed. In any debate format I'm
familiar with if he fails to overcome my responses, or fails to respond to them, his posits stand refuted.
If he cares to respond we can go forward. If he does not, I'm afraid the matter is settled.
~DS~ · 24 May 2004
Jerry I don't want to get you sidetracked by any means. I'm more interested in hearing more about the science of ID.
But one tongue-in-cheek comment:
Maybe, but that’s another subject and if those creatures were unknowable, the fact that you DON’T have an idea of the designer does not preclude you from enjoying the bed and knowing it was designed.
Not so. I doubt I would peacefully slumber in a bed I knew was made by non human Intelligent Designers of any kind. I'd be extremely careful even going within a 100 km of it. Full MOP Gear.
I'd be fascinated to know the nature of designer and their motives for building anything.
On thread dupes, when posting be patient. Most dupes happen when you hit POST twice.
john m lynch · 24 May 2004
Panda Bear · 24 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
******He instead responds to my "friendly suggestions" to design advocates. As an opening foray, he states: "Oh, I can assure you that we are taken seriously. . . . You might be surprised at the large amount of Universities that welcome our lectures. And our books sell like hot cakes." Here we have the Dembski measure of being taken seriously - find a university, give a talk (usually not in a science department), congratuate yourself that the local chapter of Campus Crusade or somesuch has whipped up a crowd. Sell some books. Claim to be creatinging a legitimate scientific "revolution". This in no way equates with scientific seriousness.******
ME: Scientific Seriousness? Is this antithetical to scientific silly-ness? I would drive a Mac truck through that one if I were not such a hopelessly kind and gentle guy.
This is logical fallacy based on the ad hom argument. You have no evidence to show that we lecture only at campus crusades. In fact, I have never lectured at one and don't know anyone who has. Please start backing up some of your diatribe with fact, cites and references if you expect to be taken seriously.
The University of Georgia is not a 'Campus Crusade' is it:
http://www.uga.edu
And they carry Dembski lectures and tapes:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:drwg63gVVTsJ:www.uga.edu/cff/cff_ord_form.pdf+Lectures+%2B+Dembski&hl=en
But I'll admit its true that it is more difficult for us to speak at secular public universities and you know why this is don't you? Because religionists; atheists and agnostics have completely taken over our public institutions. Look at this survey where 93% of survey respondents who are members of the Academy of Sciences express a belief of secularism: "The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism."
Are you surprised that your religion you call 'science' schemes to keep any other avenues thoroughly buried?
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
*****On the former claim, publishing with SFI and publishing on design as a scientific methodology are two separate things. On the latter claim, see my previous posting on Behe's research record since 1994. Four papers (in PubMed) since in ten years. Four. (As a camparison, standard requirements for tenure track researchers at Arizona State University are a minimum of four papers per year). ******
ME: Who cares? I don't know anybody at the University of Arizona. You did not mention the amount of times ID is published. You claimed we never were properly published or peer reviewed now that it has been pointed out how wrong you are, suddenly you want to back up and change your argument.
ID is a very young science. I would love to see all the papers submitted on Darwinism ten years after it was conceived.
Of course, to you it makes no sense for engineers to publish in engineer journals or for geologists to publish in geology journals. It must not, because you stick up your nose at the idea of Idists publishing in ID journals. Where's the logic in this? Tell me, how do you publish your biology papers, in computer programming journals?
Besides. You've been shown how even our books are peer reviewed. The Design Inference
Was refereed by three referees of Cambridge University:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.10.Scott_Response.htm
BTW: Point me to all your papers on Pubmed. If you haven't published 4 per year up to your regular standards, then we must assume, via your own logic, that you are not a scientist.
*****if you are developing a description of a new theory, you need to explicitly text that theory. Since we have yet to see Behe, Wells et al provide a single explicit testable hypothesis that would separate evolutionary from design expectations, qua explanatory theory, ID is just not scientific.******
Stick around. You will see theory texted if they don't gag me before I can get there.
*****As evidenced by the "research" produced by the CSC?*****
Pray tell, what is CSC?
****At the risk of being repetitive, let me just restate what I wrote a few days back: Literature that "challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism (the prevailing theory of evolution taught in biology textbooks), discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider" is not de facto support for ID - to think such is to commit a logical fallacy.*****
The logical fallacy here is that you so misunderstand ID is to think that every tenet of it somehow is against Darwinism. That's not true, I'm afraid. We get many of our theories from chemistry and bios logos just as you do.
*****JDB skillfuly conflates macroevolution with a mechanism for same, and manages to slot in the bete noir of academic oppression. I personally know a number of individuals who have PhD's in evolutionary biology and are skeptical about exclusively Darwinian (i.e. selective) mechanisms for macroevolution.*****
Bet they didn't have those beliefs as undergrads. Else they would have never made it. I know several who changed majors because of bias against them by the 93% religionists who comprise the National Academy of Sciences
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
****Not so. I doubt I would peacefully slumber in a bed I knew was made by non human Intelligent Designers of any kind. I'd be extremely careful even going within a 100 km of it. Full MOP Gear*****
Um...good point. Bad analogy. I wouldn't either in case he came back to work on it. <;0
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****Speaking of ARN, will Jerry support his claim that Darwin based his entire argument on the fact that there are no limits in organisms.? We shall see . . . .*****
Can we stick with PT? You're going to have your hands full here.
But I got this from a Jerry Bergman paper. Ahhh . . . I know the circular reasoning. Jerry is a scientist, but only Darwinists are scientists, Jerry is not a Darwinist, therefore he is not a scientist even though he has more degrees than anyone on here.
I read too danged much and I'm not afraid to think outside the Darwinian box. Anyhow, read this and learn that if you challenge me in the future, I can and will back it up:
http://www.rae.org/natsel.html
Sean · 24 May 2004
JD,
Would you please isolate the text from Bergman's paper which you are relying on? My brief glance at the link showed that the article is mostly parbaked creationist spooge that I've read a hundred times before. Exactly where is the support for your (previously uncredited) statement that "Darwin based his entire argument on the fact that there are no limits in organisms"?
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
THERMODYNAMICS: THE ENERGY EXCHANGES OF LIFE
By Jerry Don Bauer
INTRODUCTION: In the following three informal papers I will show how macroevolution, as introduced by Darwin and defined later by others would go against one of the most well proven laws of science had it happened.
In this paper I will introduce thermodynamics as applicable to our subject.
Second, I will introduce the three major entropies and show how entropy interacts with energy.
Third I will show that the second law of thermodynamics does not only prevent complex macroevolution in theory, I will show that it causes just the opposite in the human genome as shown by scientific study: Devolution.
Finally, I will sum all of this up into an easy to understand theory text and this will become the first tenet of intelligent design.
*************************************************
Energy is the driving force of our universe. And order to disorder is the governing principle of this energy as it interacts within the universe. Fires burn out, they never become bigger over the course of time as they deplete their energy. Batteries exhaust their energy supply, they don't recharge themselves through usage. Air escapes from a tire when it is punctured, it never concentrates itself into the tire on its own. The gas tank of your car cannot fill itself as you drive. You will always run out of gas if you do not manually refill the tank.The sun will burn out over time, not get bigger and brighter through infinity. Organisms wane old and die, never will they get younger and healthier as they age. Shiny new cars will eventually end up as a pile of rust in the junkyard. Pristine new homes will always deteriorate as they age with time, if left alone.
Throughout nature we see this collective directive in effect that governs our universe in the process of new to old, order to disorder with almost every energy exchange. This law is one of the most fascinating laws of science and is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Isaac Asimov described this law rather succinctly: "Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself---and that is what the second law is all about." (1)
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics governs most basic principles we interact with in everyday life. Physical entities are not eternal. Everything will eventually change and from order, disorder will emerge.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a general law of decay; the ultimate reason why everything in due course falls apart and goes to wrack and ruin as it ages. Everything matures, wears out, breaks down, crumbles into rust, or dies. Yes, even death is a result of this law.
The morbid effects of the second Law are all around us, assaulting our very lives and touching every part of the universe. No physical item can stay as fresh as the day one buys it; metal buckets grow old, rust and develop holes in them rendering them useless. Food ages and spoils. Paint peels away from structures. Clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to the earth.
Each year around the world, vast sums of money are spent to neutralize the uncompromising effects of this law. Maintenance must be regularly performed on machines to keep them operable. Painters and plumbers are employed to overcome the effects of decay. Doctors and other medical personnel must work vigilantly to keep people free from the effects of the second law.
Yet, ultimately, everything in nature is obedient to it and will succumb to its commands.
You will never win. There is no way you can get out of the game and remain alive. You can't even break even.There are many applications and versions of this universal law in practice in diverse fields of study. Statisticians, philosophers, demographers, sociologists, traffic controllers, information specialists, biologists, chemists and physicists all use different applications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in their respective fields.
For our purpose we can define the second law as: "With any chemically spontaneous reaction or event, entropy (disorder) will tend to increase."
The key to understanding this definition lies in proper interpretation of the word "spontaneous."This simply means that the spontaneous reaction or event can happen on its own. The science of chemistry teaches that there are different types of chemical reactions called endothermic and exothermic reactions.
An exothermic reaction takes no energy to begin the reaction (it is [normally] spontaneous as it just happens with no outside force) and releases energy in the form of heat when it reacts. When heat increases in a system, things become more disordered. Conversely, an endothermic reaction requires an input of energy to begin the reaction and if it reduces the heat in a system by absorbing it so that it can react, disorder must go down. Thus, we can state that an exothermic reaction occurs spontaneously requiring no energy to "cause" it. It just happens. Non-spontaneous reactions require energy and cannot happen on their own, hence, they are outside the order>disorder requirement of the second law.
But we can also look at an event as spontaneous. Consider spontaneous combustion that can occur to a gasoline soaked rag in the waste dumpster with no help at all. It just seems to happen. Radioactivity in certain ores emphatically appears to occur on its own. Oil will spontaneously separate itself from water.
Therefore, very similar to chemical reactions, we can view macroscopic events as spontaneous/non-spontaneous.
Thermodynamicists term whatever matter/energy they are considering the second law to apply to, as: "the system." As example, if I were wishing to discover what effect the second law has on the reactants/products of any particular chemical reaction, then the chemical reaction itself becomes the system. However, I might also wish to see what effect a particular chemical reaction has on its surroundings, especially one that absorbs or releases heat. Therefore, I might wish to move the system I am considering up a notch and look at the liquid in a beaker holding the products/reactants and even the beaker itself as my system. Finally, I may be viewing the earth and it's atmosphere as my system while considering the freeze/thaw process of a lake on its surface. Thermodynamic systems are very diverse.
The second law is also applicable to a system according to the size of what particular system we are studying. If we are considering a chemical reaction, then this is very small in size relative to the other sizes of matter in the universe. Thus we can assert that we are studying a microscopic, or very small system.
However, the second law also holds for larger objects in our universe such as the sun the moon the stars and galaxies and even the universe itself. These are macroscopic, or large systems.
When we consider the universe as our system, we are watching disorganization occur throughout it in a most stark and significant manner.
Physicists estimate that in billions of years the universe will be so disordered as to be nothing but a randomly floating sea of atoms. Heat will be used up and the universe will cool, dying in a quite ignoble manner termed a heat death.
Time will no longer exist from the perspective of man in this universe as a big crunch replaces its antithesis, expansion; and of course, neither will man. The second law always gets its prey and its prey is virtually everything in the universe.
Indeed, the universe is the ultimate display of clockwork harmony and everything within the universe is governed by fixed laws. But, this order will not last throughout eternity because of one of those very same physical laws.
There are three laws of thermodynamics that constitute the science of thermodynamics (There are actually four, however Zoroth's law is so stating the obvious that few mention it.
The First Law of Thermodynamics is more or less the same article as the Law of Conservation of Matter. In fact, it mathematically expresses this latter law. The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter/energy can never be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed. Worded more scientifically: the total internal energy in a system is the sum of all the kinetic energies and potential energies of its particles. Formally, the Law of Conservation of Matter deals with energy exchanges between a system and its surroundings and states that all energy must be conserved--never is it created, lost or destroyed.
A brief review of energy would be relevant at this juncture. Potential energy is energy that is existent in an object that is yet untapped energy--stored energy. Kinetic energy, meaning energy in motion, is our observation of the potential energy within an object being tapped and used.
We can view this interaction of potential/kinetic energy in the shooting of a shotgun. If I take my shotgun and shoot it straight up into the air, I use the potential energy stored in the gunpowder inside the shell and transfer it to kinetic (motion) via an explosion. This kinetic energy is transferred to the lead shots, they fly out of the barrel and straight up into the air. The distance they will travel depends upon the potential energy that was within the gunpowder. But in any case, they will at some point reach a height in the air where, for a brief moment they will stop.
At this point all kinetic energy has been used up and we must once again look at the potential energy in the lead shot. We know this lead shot has potential energy, because it can now fall back to earth, and it soon does. As the shot begins to fall back to earth, potential is converted into kinetic and the process continues.
The Third Law of Thermodynamics is the simplest one of all. This also deals with entropy, (disorder) that we will discuss later. Entropy can be defined both as disorder (have I said this enough yet?? disorder. Never could I hope to get rich in the drinking glass manufacturing business by throwing disorganized shards of glass onto a concrete floor and hoping that when they hit they would organize themselves into an ornate drinking glass. This would never happen once in a million years because it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I mentioned above that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can sometimes be overcome with the addition of energy. How would this work in the case of the drinking glass? I would simply add energy into my system in the form of heat to melt the glass and energy in the form of work to pour this melted glass into a mold. This would be the only way I could overcome the second law in this example. So, it can be overcome, but it is never violated.
Sir Author Eddington, a contributor to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, puts it better: "If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." (2)
*************************************************
CONCLUSIONS AND MATH FOR THIS PAPER
CONCLUSIONS:
A) The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a law of general decay stating that with any spontaneous reaction or event, matter or information will tend to become more disordered.
B) Spontaneous is a term that states the reaction or event under study must occur on its own, with no help in the form of inputted energy. An exothermic chemical reaction can be defined as a reaction that takes no energy to begin the reaction, and lets off heat when it reacts. Thermo is a Greek word that means heat, and exo means to the outside. In other words this reaction produces heat into its surroundings. An endothermic reaction has to have energy to "cause" it to occur. Endo means to the inside, and this reaction is well named. Heat energy must be present in order for this reaction to occur, and when an endothermic reaction occurs, it absorbs heat form the system. Non-spontaneous reactions (endotherms) "eat" heat and lower heat in the system. Events are not reactions, therefore the term spontaneous only relates to them from the perspective that they must occur on their own, and not be "caused" by something.
C) A system is defined as whatever is under investigation by a thermodynamicist. This could be something as simple as an individual chemical reaction, or something as big and complex as a planet, a solar system, a galaxy, or even the universe.
D) A very small system is defined as a microsystem, and a very large system is defined as a macrosystem.
E) The First Law of Thermodynamics is more or less the same article as the Law of Conservation of Matter. In fact, it mathematically expresses this latter law.
F) The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter/energy can never be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed.
G) The Third Law of Thermodynamics states that at absolute zero, entropy is always zero.
F) Entropy can be defined both as disorder (in the manner we will use it), and the measurement of the second law.
G) Potential energy is energy that is existent in an object that is yet untapped energy--stored energy.
H) Kinetic energy, meaning energy in motion, is our observation of the potential energy within an object being tapped and used.
MATH (Some of you said you wanted to see it)
A) In this paper it is important that we understand Einstein's formula E=MC² as relating energy to matter. E is energy, M is the mass of matter. C is the speed of light squared. What is important to note is that mass is a quality of matter. On earth mass and the weight of matter is really the same thing. But if we were to take a rock to the moon, our weight would go down while the mass, the relative size of the matter wouldn't change at all. Thus, through Einstein's formula, we can see that energy and matter are really the same thing because both can be seen as equaling one another with some qualifications.
B) Potential energy can be calculated arithmetically. Through the formula PE = mgh, where PE is potential energy, m is mass in kilograms, g is a gravitational constant consisting of 9.8 m/s ² (meters/second--don't worry about this, as you always multiply by 9.8), and h is the height from which an object can potentially fall in meters.
We can use this formula to calculate PE, and it will come out in Joules which is the standard measurement of heat energy used in thermodynamics.
Let's calculate the potential energy that was converted from the brick when it fell as metaphorically illustrated in this chapter. I'm not really sure how much a brick weighs as I've never had reason to weigh one. However, we'll assume that we weighed this brick before it fell and it weighed 8.8 kilograms. Thus m = 8.8When the brick fell from the ledge, it fell a total distance of 11 meters. So, h = 11. And since, on earth, the gravitational constant is always 9.8, we now have all our data to plug into the formula:
PE = mgh
PE = (8.8)(9.8)(11)
PE = 948.64 Joules.
john m lynch · 24 May 2004
Pim van Meurs · 24 May 2004
Pim van Meurs · 24 May 2004
Jerry, you nonsensical meaningless spam is becoming annoying. If you cannot even present a coherent argument, and the past does strongly suggest this, then I ask you to show some courtesy as not to spam this website with your drivel. And yes drivel is what accurately describes your musings. In fact a courtesy link to the actual text online would have sufficed.
If you are trying to show the lack of logical and scientific arguments or even any claim on your part then I have to congratulate you. You have once again shown that ID is nothing more than meaningless drivel, lack of scientific arguments and lack of a coherent claim.
We all know you can cut and paste but can you actually present a coherent argument? Or is this drivel meant to hide the rebuttals of your claims?
Were it not for the fact that your drivel so clearly exposes the absence of any argument on your part, I would propose to move this drivel to a private area where Jerry can expand on his 'ideas'.
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****Frankly, I see this as futile, but here goes.*****
Yeah. I'm afraid it will be very futile on your part of you don't think your logic is not going to be challenged. Don't throw this stuff out it you cannot be challenged in what you posit.
*****You are the one that brought up ID being taken seriously. Being taken "seriously" by the public is very different that being taken seriously within the academy and by the intellectually community at large.*****
Right, and that's what I want. I think I said we are being taken seriously except by the religionists that have taken over scientific academia. You might be surprised how well the public accepts us since almost nobody has been gullible enough to buy the fact that Darwin sprinkled some magic pixie dust, Gouth said a prayer to Dawkins, Punk Eek jumped up as purple fairies living in my underwear drawer and suddenly,,,,etherally . . . .a protist magically morphed into men. Great 'science' you have going here. Especially since almost nothing you postulate IS science as proposed by the Popperian thought of the scientific method.
*****Since you haven't published anything (at all?) you're not particularly of interest in this****
Well sheeze. You're a PhD level biology professor and you don't seem to have published much either. And according to you, if you haven't published at least four papers a year, you're not a real scientist. You need to get off this unless your goal is to make yourself look silly.
****YEs, sold by the Christian Faculty Forum. For the love of God, read your own links before you post them.*****
Sorry. There are no gods in ID. ;)
****Speaking of ad hominem attacks . . . what do you know about my beliefs? Nada.*****
I don't care about your personal beliefs. But the beliefs of your peers are well known, surveyed and published. Please don't attempt to assert that your 'science' is not governed by secular humanists and atheists. It's religion; nothing else.
*****It's Arizona State University - big difference. ******
No big deal, I don't know anyone there, either.
*****A mathematical book. Where's the ID-inspired biological research being published by Cambridge?*****
What the heck is ID inspired work?
*****The four-per-year number is applicable to someone seeking tenure in a science department at ASU. I am not seeking tenure. Behe, however, is tenured. As it happens, I've published a good deal more scientific papers that you have - 23 peer-reviewed papers since 1992 in recognized journals. Again, do your research before you mouth-off.*****
I tried to find you on Pubmed. I couldn't and ask you to steer me there, Please provide the links. And I don't know of a professor not seeking tenure. If he isn't, he's fairly stupid, don't you think? Give us the links to your Pubmed papers. This is what you are demanding of others.
*****BUZZZZZZZZZZZ. Wrong.*****
Well my. What a logical refutation of THAT argument. Now attack the science I'm posing. John. We'll see if you got that PhD at Walmart or if you earned it. <;0)
Pim van Meurs · 24 May 2004
Jerry: Now attack the science I'm posing. John
What science is that Jerry?
And thank you for sharing your feelings on Darwinism. It should be clear by now that your rejection of evolutionary science is not based on scientific grounds but rather on religious grounds.
I somehow suspected as much.
Keep up the good work Jerry, ID would never be what it is right now without the hard work of a people like you exposing its scientific irrelevance.
Johnnie C. · 24 May 2004
Hmm. If an incinerated slice of toast can type, then maybe Darwin WAS wrong ...
john m lynch · 24 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****What science is that Jerry?*****
My, your posts are getting teeny weeny. Did you not see that large post I made on thermodynamics? Please add to it, detract from it, you know how this works.
*****And thank you for sharing your feelings on Darwinism. It should be clear by now that your rejection of evolutionary science is not based on scientific grounds but rather on religious grounds.*****
Oh, my no. I eat and breathe science. I can assure you that my rejection of macroevolution is based firmly on science. It is your side who are the secular humanist religionists, isn't it. Tell me, did anyone ever bother to teach you the scientific method in your education?
If so, surely you learned that nothing is a theory of science unless it can be falsified. How do you propose to go back 100 million years and falsify that ape and man had a common ancestor. How do you propose to falsify common descent? I'm curious to know. OTOH, I can assure you that every tenet of ID I will propose is based on science and can be falsified. We'll see as we progress just what is science and what isn't.
*****Keep up the good work Jerry, ID would never be what it is right now without the hard work of a people like you exposing its scientific irrelevance*****
Uh huh. Stick around and we'll see. ;)
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****No. Futile to argue with someone who seems to be unable to grasp the simplest concepts about scientific thinking and who likes playing the martyr with dark tales of "religionists that have taken over scientific academia."*****
Well, seems to have gotten you Einstein's off the religion of ID. It can go both ways, people. Now, let's get out of this and into science. We'll just ignore that it's true as I posted the survey. But,,,SHHhhh . . . we won't tell anyone, this is just between us.*wink**wink*
*****I'm not a biology professor - I'm a lecturer who teaches history of ideas at an honors college and who does biological research. Even without funding support, a laboratory, and teaching reductions (which Behe has), I still have published more scientific papers than him (and definitely you) in the past ten years. To be a scientist is to publish results of enquiries. I publish (though not enough to get me a tenured position - which is not something I want). Behe published but is not doing so now.*****
Er . . . .Come again? How the heck do you do biological research without a lab? This has got to be good. Let me guess, you are growing Drosophila Malanogaster in your kitchen sink and think you're doing Stanley Miller experiments? Hmmmm . . . .
The rest of that post seems pretty silly. Let's get you into thermodynamics and will see how advanced you are in science. How do you feel of that post?
Let's get off the insults, people, and into the science. What say? Any of the "scientists" on here capable of doing freshman science?
Dr. Murvyn Beardsworth · 24 May 2004
john m lynch · 24 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****Easy. I just hop in my time machine and castrate all the man-apes. I'm writing up the papers right now --- I have about six ready to publish on my adventures in the Valley of the Gwangi alone, all in peer-reviewed journals. Stick around, Jerry Don. You'll see.;)******
LOL...I think I'm already on your side. I castrate man-apes too. They make the grapes sour.
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
****OK, Jerry. I'm going to call you on this. What the hell do you do for a living?*****
Not very much. Mama brings the food everyday. I usually take a swim in the pool and pretty much do science the rest of the time. :0)
******you "eat and breathe science". If you're a lawyer, admit it (you're in good company here). I'm seriously doubting you have any experience about what you are talking about.*****
Hmmmm . . . .You just might look silly should you go that route. But, we'll see.
john m lynch · 24 May 2004
Thanks for no answer at all.
Since you haven't done anything to prove that I "just might look silly should you go that route," I can only assume that you're blowing smoke. At least Dembski and co are willing to let people know who & what they are. I'm guessing you're just your average Internet crank. Prove me wrong. What background do you have in science? Give me a paper, anything. Hell, I'll even take a paper accepted by PCID.
Since the only reference I can see for you is as "Publishing Editor, Christian Intelligence Center," (a page that kind of screws up you whole "no God in ID" claim), either put up or shut up.
Joe P Guy · 24 May 2004
Good show, John M. Lynch! Who's the religionist now, JDB? Just one brief glance at the page Dr. Lynch linked to kind of slams us in the face with your religionism.
Just an observation, but has anyone noticed that JDB struggles to maintain the position that he is a scientist, but keeps decrying science (as practiced by the majority of scientists) as a religion? In other words, he wants what he does and believes to be considered science, and what reputable, reputed scientists do and believe to be called religion. Well, sure, JDB, we could do that, but we'd have to swap the definitions of religion and science in every dictionary.
What a strange little man. Why does he keep avoiding answering direct questions? You were asked exactly what it is that you do with your life, JDB. You pretty much said, "Nothing." (Living at home with Mama?) Now we know that you're actually the Publishing Editor at the Christian Intelligence Center. Any particular reason you didn't want us to know that?
john m lynch · 24 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****Read the papers. Not all biological research requires a lab - it's called collaboration. Again, showing your ignorance doesn't help your argument.*****
Nah...its called making it up as you go and calling it science. Sorry, you're not doing much science here.I'm afraid if you keep up the diatribe and refuse to address the thermodynamics I presented, the readers might have no other option than to conclude that your daddy bought that PhD for you at Walmart.
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
I'm sorry, Mama is my wife. And what in the world is the Christian Intelligence Center? <:0)
Pim van Meurs · 24 May 2004
Jerry: Sorry, you're not doing much science here.I'm afraid if you keep up the diatribe and refuse to address the thermodynamics I presented, the readers might have no other option than to conclude that your daddy bought that PhD for you at Walmart.
What thermodynamics Jerry? There is no argument, there is no science to rebut.
Which explains the ad hominem I guess.
So Jerry, when are you going to present an argument I wonder?
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
I'm sorry, Mama is my wife. And what in the world is the Christian Intelligence Center? <:0)
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
I'm sorry, Mama is my wife. And what in the world is the Christian Intelligence Center? <:0)
Pim van Meurs · 24 May 2004
It should be clear by now that Jerry is unable to address the issues raised by John and others. Which explains his somewhat rude spamming of this thread with nonsensical arguments. I will be addressing some of Jerry's more outrageous claims and provide the scientific evidence that rebuts his arguments in a contribution soon.
Keep your eyes on this website, evolution of complexity and information will be addressed soon exposing the fallacies in claims that the second law of thermodynamics disproves macro evolution. In fact I shall show that such arguments are not only unfounded but contradicted by scientific fact.
We shall see how Jerry deals with such revelations :-)
john m lynch · 24 May 2004
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry; I don't address "thermodynamics" (if that is what you are doing) for a very simple reason. I'm a biologist and don't claim to be an expert in physics or physical chemistry (though I took classes as an undergraduate). You (as a record producer) are obviously an expert in physics. Most Creationists (e.g. Morris & Johnson) and cranks (e.g. Velikovsky) claim to be able to cross disciplinary boundaries within the sciences with ease. I'm a little more humble than that.
Re: "making it up as you go and calling it science" - yes, Jerry. Yes. Designing hypotheses and statistical analysis of data that is collected by others (who have labs) is "making it up". I admit it, I'm a fraud. I've never done science in my life. I got seduced by evilutionists and the religionists that have taken over scientific academia. Save me.
Oh, and its "Drosophila Melanogaster" not "Drosophila Malanogaster". Details, Jerry, details.
If anyone is looking silly here it's you at the moment. Don't make me set PZ on you.
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****In which case, I bow to your scientific knowledge and experience.*****
LOL...Do anything you can do to avoid an argument in science. Man, you seem to just be lost in the subject. Go back. Look at the post on thermodynamics. Do you even know what this is?? Oh well... we can sing a song or something if you wish not to address your field.
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****In which case, I bow to your scientific knowledge and experience.*****
LOL...Do anything you can do to avoid an argument in science. Man, you seem to just be lost in the subject. Go back. Look at the post on thermodynamics. Do you even know what this is?? Oh well... we can sing a song or something if you wish not to address your field.
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****Jerry, Jerry, Jerry; I don't address "thermodynamics" (if that is what you are doing) for a very simple reason. I'm a biologist and don't claim to be an expert in physics or physical chemistry (though I took classes as an undergraduate). You (as a record producer) are obviously an expert in physics. Most Creationists (e.g. Morris & Johnson) and cranks (e.g. Velikovsky) claim to be able to cross disciplinary boundaries within the sciences with ease. I'm a little more humble than that.******
LOL...You are the first biologist I've ever met you does not understand that SLOT applies in his field. Let me guess, you just carry coffee to everyone in the meetings?
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****Jerry, Jerry, Jerry; I don't address "thermodynamics" (if that is what you are doing) for a very simple reason. I'm a biologist and don't claim to be an expert in physics or physical chemistry (though I took classes as an undergraduate). You (as a record producer) are obviously an expert in physics. Most Creationists (e.g. Morris & Johnson) and cranks (e.g. Velikovsky) claim to be able to cross disciplinary boundaries within the sciences with ease. I'm a little more humble than that.******
LOL...You are the first biologist I've ever met at the Phd level that does not understand that SLOT applies in his field. Let me guess, you just carry coffee to everyone in the meetings?
Jerry Don Bauer · 24 May 2004
*****Jerry, Jerry, Jerry; I don't address "thermodynamics" (if that is what you are doing) for a very simple reason. I'm a biologist and don't claim to be an expert in physics or physical chemistry (though I took classes as an undergraduate). You (as a record producer) are obviously an expert in physics. Most Creationists (e.g. Morris & Johnson) and cranks (e.g. Velikovsky) claim to be able to cross disciplinary boundaries within the sciences with ease. I'm a little more humble than that.******
LOL...You are the first biologist I've ever met at the Phd level that does not understand that SLOT applies in his field. Let me guess, you just carry coffee to everyone in the meetings?
john m. lynch · 25 May 2004
Well, since Jerry hasn't denied that his claim to fame as a "scientist" is to be involved with a record company, we can take that as being the truth (even if he "lives and breathes" science).
Re: "SLOT". Nice try, I've admitted I'm not a physicist (I'll leave that to Mark P. for example), so if we want to play reindeer games, lets do it on organismal biology. My field is not physics. Yours is (apparently) everything. Again, any qualifications in thermodynamics? Or did you just read a book a long time ago?
I've laid my scientific cards on the table. Areas I have (reasonable) expertise in. What do you bring to the table?
Jerry Don Bauer · 25 May 2004
What a bunch of pussy scientists.Sheeze...everyone in here seems to be at the Phd level. Ahem...Can anyone actually handle the ID argument? let's get it on. Where has everyone gone?
john m. lynch · 25 May 2004
I will, b.t.w., add that Jerry is playing a very old strategy that dates back to at least the scriptural geologists in the early 1800's, namely - claiming that you don't have to be a scientist to adjudicate scientific claims and non-scientists can do so with equal status as scientists. Nearly 200 years later, this has transmuted into the ID claim that "the majority" wants the controversy to be taught and that even a record company hack can talk about thermodynamics.
Jerry Don Bauer · 25 May 2004
I will,BTW add that the scientists are not scientists in here. Heck, they are not
Intellectually capable of arguing even the simplest laws of science. What's a guy to think? Look at Lynch....He's just a PhD in biology that cannot handle thermodynamics at any level. Sheeze...They didn't teach you this stuff?
Jerry Don Bauer · 25 May 2004
*****the scriptural geologists in the early 1800's****
Name these guys,
Son of Johnnie C. · 25 May 2004
http://www.urban.ne.jp/home/koa7/newsletter.htm
I still think Jerry Don is the guy with headphones in the photos at the end of the above link (note: turn down the volume on your computer!!)
But I am twice as amused by the other link someone provided which shows Jerry Don posting ads for his recording services sandwiched between "a 14 year old white girl who can rap" and Dr. Demento's lost son, Art Paul Schlasser (!) (who first made his appearance on State Street in Wisconsin where I was an undergrad oh so many years ago).
Ah, the memories.
Jerry Don Bauer · 25 May 2004
***But I am twice as amused by the other link someone provided which shows Jerry Don posting ads for his recording services sandwiched between "a 14 year old white girl who can rap" and Dr. Demento's lost son, Art Paul Schlasser (!) (who first made his appearance on State Street in Wisconsin where I was an undergrad oh so many years ago).****
LOL...Well there you go,dude.Please present all this you lying astronaut.Lies can work. Just get it right.
Jerry Don Bauer · 25 May 2004
The concept of entropy goes back to the early 1800's and can be attributed to a gentleman with a very curious mind named Sadi Carnot. Carnot was the eldest son of Lazare Carnot and was born in the Palais du Petit-Luxembourg, in 1796.(3) Carnot grew up to become an engineer and became fascinated with energy, especially in the form of heat, and its interaction with its surroundings, the environment.
In 1824, Carnot invented an engine in which a gas is put to work expanding, and absorbing heat in the process of this expansion. The gas is then recompressed, heat being given off in this reverse process, and finally it is returned to its original condition. This series of expansions/compressions, known as Carnot's cycle, showed in the early 1800's that even under ultimate conditions a heat engine cannot use as mechanical energy all of the heat energy supplied to it. Some of the heat energy is rejected as energy and must be something else other than energy. Nothing is 100% efficient in the real world and his experiments showed this to be a fact.
Carnot mused that "heat" was very similar to a fluid that flowed between the parts of a system that were "hot" and those parts of a system that were "cold." This could almost compare with the mannerism of water as it flows from the top of a hill to the bottom of a hill, or over a dam. Similar to the water, this "fluid heat" could be used for work as in turning a water wheel, or revolving a piston through the cylinder of an engine. But only some of this energy could be used for this, because he had shown earlier that all of it cannot. So what does one call this energy that is not really energy to the system because it is unavailable for use in the system?
Carnot took this vision even further via imagination. If one could imagine a dam that was twice the width of the water wheel underneath it. All of the falling water could not hit the wheel in order to perform work.
Imagine a dam that is six feet wide and a water wheel sitting right in the middle of it but only three feet wide. One would have a situation where only three feet of the water flowing over the dam is hitting the wheel and one foot and a half of water to the left of the wheel, and one foot and a half of water to the right of the wheel is completely missing the wheel as it falls. This water that misses this wheel is still energy, but again, it is not energy available for work in that particular system, the water wheel. What is it?
Unfortunately, the principles that Carnot discovered were never applied during Carnot's lifetime; he died un untimely death of cholera at the age of 36. He would go the grave with many of his questions yet unanswered.
In 1848, scientist Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius took Carnot's work and formalized it into the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Clausius considered that part of energy which is never available to do work and called it entropy, a word very similar to the word energy. Clausius defined this energy as follows: Entropy: energy unavailable for work.(4)
Very well, let's jump to our modern world and contemplate how energy relates to entropy in an automobile.
The automobile engine runs off explosions of gasoline detonated by the spark from a spark plug and heat is produced in this explosion. All combustion reactions are exothermic. Remember that exo--to the outside--means heat is released. And endo--to the inside--means heat is absorbed by the reaction. So does the car run off heat? In a way, because it could not run without this exothermic reaction. Some of this heat energy is used directly in the car. For example, the car will not run well until the engine is brought to a temperature that is favorable to gasoline exploding, and is kept there.
Some of this heat is also used in this system to keep the passengers warm in the winter. But some of this heat, although useful to the car, is produced as waste heat and either is dissipated directly to the atmosphere, absorbed by the radiator to later be dissipated to the atmosphere, or simply expelled out the back of the car through the exhaust pipe.
This waste heat is called entropy because it is energy unavailable for work in the car. Yes, it is still energy. I could theoretically harvest this heat from an exhaust pipe and use it to perform work in another system. Yet, this energy is permanently removed from the car and is no longer available for work in that particular system. This energy is converted to entropy from the perspective of that system.
Thermodynamics is concerned with three major systems in its overall body of study. An open system is a system that can exchange both matter and energy with its surroundings. A closed system is one that can exchange energy, but not matter. An isolated system is one that can interact with neither matter or energy.(5)
We can see earth is an open system as the sun freely provides a continued source of energy, and the earth interacts with matter from outside its boundaries as well. It is not unusual for a meteor or a meteorite to crash onto its surface. The earth reacts with both matter and energy.
We could look at an artificially constructed biosphere to see a closed system. If this biosphere is enclosed all around with a Plexiglas dome, then energy, in the form of sunlight would be able to enter, but matter, atomic structures in the configuration of wood, metal, water, etc. would not be allowed to enter.
Finally, an isolated system is only conceivable by the mind in the real world. This system is not allowed to exchange energy or matter with anything. There is no such thing on earth, of course.
Many feel that the universe might be the only real isolated system because it theoretically cannot exchange matter or energy with other universes. Obviously, no one know this as fact, but it is very likely to be true. But here on earth, you could attempt to construct the world's most efficient thermos and would come back at some time later to discover you have failed at your work. Could you imagine that man could construct a thermos that would keep his coffee hot forever? I'm afraid this is impossible. There is no thermos out there on the market that I could place my coffee in and come back a hundred years later to find that my coffee is the exact same temperature as when I first poured it into the thermos. Yet, thermodynamicists have a very vivid imagination.
So let's join them in this imagination and see if we can find a system that could be developed to turn 100% energy into 100% entropy. We can do this, but only in an imaginary isolated system that cannot interact with matter or energy.
We could imagine that a hot body (say a steel box) at 1000 degrees Celsius comes into contact with a cold body (another steel box) at 0 degrees Celsius. If this were an isolated system, none of this heat would be allowed to escape the system. Thus we would see a heat flow from the hotter body to the cooler body until the system comes to equilibrium and the entire system is at a uniform temperature.
Work can be boiled down to neat and tidy formulae for mathematical purposes. The simplest formula for work is: Force x Distance. I can do work on a brick by simply carrying it across the street. I can then figure the weight of the brick to get my force, consider the distance I carried the brick, multiply the two together and come out with the amount of work I have accomplished. I could even calculate the amount of calories I had expended in this work.
The important thing to remember here, is that I have transferred energy from me to the brick in this process.
Heat is distinguishable from work, yet closely related. Because heat, like work, is a measure of the amount of energy transferred from one body to another because of the temperature difference between those bodies. In fact, most thermodynamics use the terms heat and work interchangeably. We just need understand the technical differences between the two terms.
So, back to our little heat exchange experiment. The heat is heating things up throughout the system until the moment the system came to perfect equilibrium. In this particular situation, once the system of steel boxes reach 500 degrees there is nothing left in the system to heat and no further work can be performed. So, do we have any energy left in the system? No, not from the perspective of that system. We now have only entropy: energy unavailable for work.
Since we are playing games of imagination here, we might as well take it all the way. Of course, by the very definition of an isolated system, you could never do this, but we are going to pretend that you can. Now open up one of those steel boxes and stick your hand in it. 500 degrees Celsius is hot! In fact you would probably draw back a stub rather than a hand. You have just been burnt by entropy, but only entropy from the perspective of that one system. You really are constructing a second system once you stick your hand in it.
We need not let this energy/entropy relationship confuse us. I now need introduce a classic thermodynamics formula to show the difference between this type of entropy and energy.
Entropy is expressed as S in mathematic formulae. In this classic formula S=Q/T, S is entropy, Q is the amount of heat energy present (or could be heat energy changing), and T is the absolute temperature of the system we are studying.
Q is normally expressed in Joules or calories, and T is expressed in degrees Kelvin or degrees Celsius. So we can readily see that entropy cannot be the energy of the system in which it forms. The heat energy of the system is Q expressed in Joules and S, entropy, is an expression of this energy as it relates to the absolute temperature of the system. S is simply not Q. Thus entropy cannot be energy to that system.
Now back to our automobile. I cannot measure the entropy coming out of the exhaust pipe of this car, waste heat, as heat energy expressed in Joules (Q) from the perspective of our system, the car. To the car, this is entropy, S, never energy.
But let's step out of this system, into the next one up from the car, the system of the atmosphere of earth. Can I measure this entropy as heat energy (Q) as I consider the system that this heat is dumping itself into, the atmosphere of earth? Sure I can. So we can see from these writings that there is a very close relationship between energy and entropy, but they are not the same thing within the same system.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN POSIT #1: ENTROPY TO ONE SYSTEM CAN BE ENERGY TO ANOTHER SYSTEM.
Yet, this is only one version of entropy; some versions have to do only with heat and others do not at all. Many people have added to Carnot's work over the years and the second law has become much more intricate.
One perspective is that I can also view entropy as concentrated/diffused. If we consider perfume in a bottle evaporating, this would be an event that the second law tells us will go from order to disorder. When I take the cap off a bottle of perfume, I will observe the aroma of the perfume spreading into the room. Never would I expect to be able to carry a sterile bottle into a room filled with the aroma of perfume, open the bottle and have the aroma in the room concentrate itself back into the bottle.
When something is nicely concentrated in a bottle, it is much more ordered or organized than when the molecules are randomly spaced throughout a room. We can see this in a glass of water. I would expect that when a glass of water spills, it will become more disorganized in that it will spill all over the table and drip randomly onto the floor. Could I ever expect to sit an empty glass in the middle of a water puddle and watch the water jump into the glass? No, this would violate the second law.
The above examples are entropy in the form of the second law's "times arrow." Times arrow does not deal with heat, it deals with time as if we were watching a video of an event. Sir Author Eddington was a major contributor to the theory of times arrow and the man who tied it all in with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Eddington posited that rocks never roll uphill, a diver will never spring up backward from the water, the Titanic will always form a hole in her belly when she hits an iceberg, never will she hit an iceberg and repair a hole that was already there. The perfume will never concentrate itself into the bottle and the water will never jump backward into the glass.
Thus, we can see entropy as energy unavailable for work, we can view entropy as increasing as things spread out, we can view entropy as increasing Full>Empty when something is using up its resources, such as the sun depleting its hydrogen, or we can see entropy increasing when something such as a shiny new car bumper crumbles into a pile of rust over a period of time.
Entropy is not always disorder in some instances, but it is usually disorder as the creationist/evolutionist discusses it. Therefore I feel it is acceptable to use increased entropy synonymously with disorder for the subject material of this book. As entropy increases, things tend to disorder and disorganize. As entropy decreases, things tend to order and organize.
Let's briefly examine a case of entropy decreasing in the real world around us. When water freezes, it becomes more ordered. Consider the beautiful delicate snow flake as it forms from a more disorganized water droplet. The snow flake when viewed under a microscope is simply magnificent in its crystalline structure. Especially when we examine what it formed from; a simple blob of water.
When the snow flake forms, it orders, and entropy decreases. When it melts, it disorders and entropy increases. Thus the main tenet that one must glean out of this chapter is that increased entropy = disorganization, and decreased entropy = organization. As we work our way through the course of this book, understanding will solidify.
*******************************************************
CONCLUSIONS AND MATH FOR THIS PAPER
CONCLUSIONS:
1) Nothing is 100% efficient in the real world concerning energy exchange. In any reaction or machine, some of the energy will be lost to entropy.
2) Thermodynamics is concerned with three major systems in its overall body of study. An open system is a system that can exchange both matter and energy with its surroundings. A closed system is one that can exchange energy, but not matter. An isolated system is one that can interact with neither matter or energy.
3) Work can be defined as Force x Distance.
4) Energy and entropy cannot be the same thing in the same system. In fact, they are exact opposites. In the same system, entropy is always S, and heat energy is always Q. Yet, sometimes I can view the entropy in one system as energy to another.
5) Times arrow does not deal with heat, it deals with time as if we were watching a video of an event.
6)Entropy is not always disorder, but it is usually disorder as the creationist/evolutionist discusses it.
MATH:
Work = Force x Distance is usually expressed as W = F x D. We can see by moving the formula around algebraically, D = W/F and that F = W/D. Force is usually expressed in newtons, distance in meters, and work will come out in Joules. Now we can see why heat and work are so closely related. The heat energy as expressed in the formula S = Q/T is Q, which is also normally expressed in Joules. Both heat and work are Joules.
If I have 5 newtons of force (x) 3 meters of distance, I will come out with 15 Joules of work.
_________________________
The formula S = Q/T, where S is entropy, Q is heat energy normally expressed in Joules, and T is the absolute temperature of the system normally expressed in degrees Kelvin, is a classical formula of thermodynamics.
The Greek symbol Delta: D, is normally used in this formula. Delta, in chemical formula, means change. So, if we are figuring a change in entropy or heat energy the formula is expressed as DS = DQ/T. In fact, this is the more ordinary expression of the formula.
A common example of usage would be as follows. If I had a beaker of water at 24 °Cand placed it in a room at 23.5 °Cthis beaker would begin to come to equilibrium with the room and eventually, it would come to rest at room temperature. In other words, it will loose .5 degrees of temperature to the room.
I can easily figure the change in entropy by inserting this change of temperature into the formula. DQ is -.5 °CBut rememeber we need to express this in Joules. 0.5 Celsius heat unit = 949.55025 Joules, however, we have lost this energy, so it must be expressed as a negative: -949.55025.
T is the temperature of the system, which in this case, would be the beaker and the room. Since the beaker is so small, the room so big, and the energy change so small (only .5 °C), there will be negligable temperature change in the room. Thus, for all practical purposes we can assume our absolute temperature of the system to be 23.5 °C. But, since T is normally expressed in °We must convert Celsius to Kelvin. 23.5 degrees Celsius = 296.65 Kelvin
Now we can plug these figures into the formula and find out what our change in entropy works out to: DS = -949.55025 / 296.65: DS = -3.
We see a negative entropy change. Did the water just order? Yes!
~DS~ · 25 May 2004
Jerry,
I tried to read your longish post about thermodynamics, but admittedly I couldn't read it all. Perhaps I'll try again later, when your post appears more tempting than the work I'm being paid to do :)
I'm by no means any kind of authority on Thermodynamics. I never really liked thermo. I hold mediocre undergraduate degrees in math and physics acquired almost 20 years ago.
However, apparently you aren't either Jerry.
No doubt this has been patiently explained for your exclusive benefit many times:
The 2nd law of Thermo is not The Law of Decay or Disorder.
There are many ways to state the SLoT.
I personally like "The sole and sum result in a closed and bounded system cannot be the transfer of thermal energy (heat) from a cold object to a hot object absent an external input of work".
Another way to state that is "the Entropy S of a closed system can not decrease absent an input of external work".
Entropy S is the heat change in an object divided by the total heat energy of the system under considerations.
Change in Entropy (DS) = Change in heat (DQ) divided by the total temp of the system T.
1. DS=DQ/T
In SI units this comes out as Joules per Kelvin.
When you claim that natural proccesses on the earth can't happen because they would locally decrease entropy and decreasing entropy is impossible, what you're stating is that DQ/T can never be negative. Since T is always postive, you're essentially stating that it's imposible on Earth for anything to cool off giving a value of
DQ < 0.
This is clearly false. Moreover, it stands to reason that if your refridgerator can decrease the temp of a tray of liquid water with an input of a mere 120V, 60 cycle, outlet, that the sun delivering enough energy to produce tornados and move entire oceans every day, might be able to do that same trick?
It also stands to reason that if you wish to show that a proccess violates the SLoT, that you're going to need to state the thermodyanmic parameters of that proccess with precision. What is the heat change of evolution? What is the temperature of natural selection?
Terms such as 'disorder' are quite simply uselss Jerry. Disorder is a term used for the benefit of the uninformed layman. Scientifically, it's about as accurate as calling a magnificent opera 'loudish'.
So yes localized decreases in entropy are entirely plausible and indeed we observe them routinely everywhere we look in the natural world.
Your followup, attempting to link up informational Intropy with thermal Entropy, which again I could barely stand to skim, was I'm sorry to say so disjointed it defies formal criticism.
Suffice it to say that in mathematics, terms are often used which mean entirely different things in other fields. E.G. the term 'element' as used in mathematics does not mean the same thing when used by chemists.
In the same manner, material physicists use the term entropy to refer to a property of substance related to heat and work, mathematicians use the term Intropy to refer to an abstract property of a metric used to measure various forms of information contained in sets of (usually) data which have a topology.
Maybe a real example employing such a term under the double usage would be helpful here?
I show formally that any set of Natural Numbers has a least member. This means that any set of Natural numbers which does not have a least member is the Null Set.
The Null Set has no elements, (bait and switch here) which means the elements of the periodic table are nonexsistent. Ergo, nothing exists which is made of chemical elements because I've shown that such a set can be empty.
(BTW I'm pretty sure I can also demo that the number of 'Prime Elements' is unbounded.)
See how hopelessly fucked up all that is Jerry?
That's the game you're playing with informational Vs thermal entropy. It's duplicitous Jerry. It's lying.
Pim van Meurs · 25 May 2004
I agree, Jerry's comments once again fail to present any relevant arguments. I have started a thread in which I will show how Jerry's claims are misinformed.
Mark Perakh · 25 May 2004
This guy Bauer shows all the characteristics of a crank as defined by Gardner. His puerile treatise on thermodynamics is a good example. He is confused about entropy, energy, the laws of thermodynamics etc., but feels qualified to teach all of us. Besides his half-literacy in thermodynamics he is obviously a very impudent and over-self-confident bloke in that he has the gall to stubbornly litter this site with his lengthy dissertations which, as he was told more than once, others are not really interested in. Does he have no other things to do? He spends so much time on this site so he should hardly have time for anything else. Please, guys, stop replying to him - he is hopeless and this senseless discussion is taking too much space without any reason.
Jerry Don Bauer · 25 May 2004
******No doubt this has been patiently explained for your exclusive benefit many times:
The 2nd law of Thermo is not The Law of Decay or Disorder.
There are many ways to state the SLoT.
I personally like "The sole and sum result in a closed and bounded system cannot be the transfer of thermal energy (heat) from a cold object to a hot object absent an external input of work".
Another way to state that is "the Entropy S of a closed system can not decrease absent an input of external work".******
Should we choose to view it this way you are correct. But why would we? We are dealing with the open systems, Gibbs, Schrodinger and Prigogine made famous. Not closed or isolated ones that are irrelevant to macroevolution.
It is very valid in the way I use it as well: "Second Law of Thermodynamics: in any spontaneous process, there is always an increase in the entropy of the universe"
http://www.learnchem.net/glossary/s.shtml
******Entropy S is the heat change in an object divided by the total heat energy of the system under considerations.
Change in Entropy (DS) = Change in heat (DQ) divided by the total temp of the system T.
1. DS=DQ/T
In SI units this comes out as Joules per Kelvin.
When you claim that natural proccesses on the earth can't happen because they would locally decrease entropy and decreasing entropy is impossible, what you're stating is that DQ/T can never be negative. Since T is always postive, you're essentially stating that it's imposible on Earth for anything to cool off giving a value of
DQ < 0.
This is clearly false.******
This is true only if I'm discussing thermodynamic entropy. How would you deal with logical or information entropy using this concept? BTW, That last long post was the wrong one as I was wanting to point out those three distinct entropies. But I don't think many of you guys are reading them. Why don't you read Brig Clyce's page here on this:
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
*****Moreover, it stands to reason that if your refridgerator can decrease the temp of a tray of liquid water with an input of a mere 120V, 60 cycle, outlet, that the sun delivering enough energy to produce tornados and move entire oceans every day, might be able to do that same trick?*****
No, because the sun is not a refrigerator. And while the photosynthetic process DOES reduce entropy in plants, it only provides energy to organisms that eat those plants. Energy, is not entropy. Stick a person out in the sun and he won't get any younger. Instead, he will die if you leave him out there long enough.
*****It also stands to reason that if you wish to show that a proccess violates the SLoT, that you're going to need to state the thermodyanmic parameters of that proccess with precision. What is the heat change of evolution? What is the temperature of natural selection?*****
We are not dealing with temperature. We are dealing with logical or information entropy depending on the way we decide to view it (they are very similar in this vein). Logical entropy is the W in Boltzmann's S = K log W. Boltzmann described this entropy as "the opposite of information."
******Terms such as 'disorder' are quite simply uselss Jerry. Disorder is a term used for the benefit of the uninformed layman. Scientifically, it's about as accurate as calling a magnificent opera 'loutish'*****
They are in many ways of interpreting SLOT but disorder is very real considering the way we are viewing entropy. Read Asimov's definition of it again:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself---and that is what the second law is all about."
*****Suffice it to say that in mathematics, terms are often used which mean entirely different things in other fields. E.G. the term 'element' as used in mathematics does not mean the same thing when used by chemists.*****
No kidding? And this would not be known . . . .by whom?
*****(BTW I'm pretty sure I can also demo that the number of 'Prime Elements' is unbounded.)
See how hopelessly fucked up all that is Jerry?*****
LOL . . . .I can see how hopelessly you are trying to **** it up. Not going to work, my friend, engage the subject directly.
Jerry Don Bauer · 25 May 2004
******No doubt this has been patiently explained for your exclusive benefit many times:
The 2nd law of Thermo is not The Law of Decay or Disorder.
There are many ways to state the SLoT.
I personally like "The sole and sum result in a closed and bounded system cannot be the transfer of thermal energy (heat) from a cold object to a hot object absent an external input of work".
Another way to state that is "the Entropy S of a closed system can not decrease absent an input of external work".******
Should we choose to view it this way you are correct. But why would we? We are dealing with the open systems, Gibbs, Schrodinger and Prigogine made famous. Not closed or isolated ones that are irrelevant to macroevolution.
It is very valid in the way I use it as well: "Second Law of Thermodynamics: in any spontaneous process, there is always an increase in the entropy of the universe"
http://www.learnchem.net/glossary/s.shtml
******Entropy S is the heat change in an object divided by the total heat energy of the system under considerations.
Change in Entropy (DS) = Change in heat (DQ) divided by the total temp of the system T.
1. DS=DQ/T
In SI units this comes out as Joules per Kelvin.
When you claim that natural proccesses on the earth can't happen because they would locally decrease entropy and decreasing entropy is impossible, what you're stating is that DQ/T can never be negative. Since T is always postive, you're essentially stating that it's imposible on Earth for anything to cool off giving a value of
DQ < 0.
This is clearly false.******
This is true only if I'm discussing thermodynamic entropy. How would you deal with logical or information entropy using this concept? BTW, That last long post was the wrong one as I was wanting to point out those three distinct entropies. But I don't think many of you guys are reading them. Why don't you read Brig Clyce's page here on this:
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
*****Moreover, it stands to reason that if your refridgerator can decrease the temp of a tray of liquid water with an input of a mere 120V, 60 cycle, outlet, that the sun delivering enough energy to produce tornados and move entire oceans every day, might be able to do that same trick?*****
No, because the sun is not a refrigerator. And while the photosynthetic process DOES reduce entropy in plants, it only provides energy to organisms that eat those plants. Energy, is not entropy. Stick a person out in the sun and he won't get any younger. Instead, he will die if you leave him out there long enough.
*****It also stands to reason that if you wish to show that a proccess violates the SLoT, that you're going to need to state the thermodyanmic parameters of that proccess with precision. What is the heat change of evolution? What is the temperature of natural selection?*****
We are not dealing with temperature. We are dealing with logical or information entropy depending on the way we decide to view it (they are very similar in this vein). Logical entropy is the W in Boltzmann's S = K log W. Boltzmann described this entropy as "the opposite of information."
******Terms such as 'disorder' are quite simply uselss Jerry. Disorder is a term used for the benefit of the uninformed layman. Scientifically, it's about as accurate as calling a magnificent opera 'loutish'*****
They are in many ways of interpreting SLOT but disorder is very real considering the way we are viewing entropy. Read Asimov's definition of it again:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself---and that is what the second law is all about."
*****Suffice it to say that in mathematics, terms are often used which mean entirely different things in other fields. E.G. the term 'element' as used in mathematics does not mean the same thing when used by chemists.*****
No kidding? And this would not be known . . . .by whom?
*****(BTW I'm pretty sure I can also demo that the number of 'Prime Elements' is unbounded.)
See how hopelessly fucked up all that is Jerry?*****
LOL . . . .I can see how hopelessly you are trying to **** it up. Not going to work, my friend, engage the subject directly.
Jerry Don Bauer · 25 May 2004
******No doubt this has been patiently explained for your exclusive benefit many times:
The 2nd law of Thermo is not The Law of Decay or Disorder.
There are many ways to state the SLoT.
I personally like "The sole and sum result in a closed and bounded system cannot be the transfer of thermal energy (heat) from a cold object to a hot object absent an external input of work".
Another way to state that is "the Entropy S of a closed system can not decrease absent an input of external work".******
Should we choose to view it this way you are correct. But why would we? We are dealing with the open systems, Gibbs, Schrodinger and Prigogine made famous. Not closed or isolated ones that are irrelevant to macroevolution.
It is very valid in the way I use it as well: "Second Law of Thermodynamics: in any spontaneous process, there is always an increase in the entropy of the universe"
http://www.learnchem.net/glossary/s.shtml
******Entropy S is the heat change in an object divided by the total heat energy of the system under considerations.
Change in Entropy (DS) = Change in heat (DQ) divided by the total temp of the system T.
1. DS=DQ/T
In SI units this comes out as Joules per Kelvin.
When you claim that natural proccesses on the earth can't happen because they would locally decrease entropy and decreasing entropy is impossible, what you're stating is that DQ/T can never be negative. Since T is always postive, you're essentially stating that it's imposible on Earth for anything to cool off giving a value of
DQ < 0.
This is clearly false.******
This is true only if I'm discussing thermodynamic entropy. How would you deal with logical or information entropy using this concept? BTW, That last long post was the wrong one as I was wanting to point out those three distinct entropies. But I don't think many of you guys are reading them. Why don't you read Brig Clyce's page here on this:
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
*****Moreover, it stands to reason that if your refridgerator can decrease the temp of a tray of liquid water with an input of a mere 120V, 60 cycle, outlet, that the sun delivering enough energy to produce tornados and move entire oceans every day, might be able to do that same trick?*****
No, because the sun is not a refrigerator. And while the photosynthetic process DOES reduce entropy in plants, it only provides energy to organisms that eat those plants. Energy, is not entropy. Stick a person out in the sun and he won't get any younger. Instead, he will die if you leave him out there long enough.
*****It also stands to reason that if you wish to show that a proccess violates the SLoT, that you're going to need to state the thermodyanmic parameters of that proccess with precision. What is the heat change of evolution? What is the temperature of natural selection?*****
We are not dealing with temperature. We are dealing with logical or information entropy depending on the way we decide to view it (they are very similar in this vein). Logical entropy is the W in Boltzmann's S = K log W. Boltzmann described this entropy as "the opposite of information."
******Terms such as 'disorder' are quite simply uselss Jerry. Disorder is a term used for the benefit of the uninformed layman. Scientifically, it's about as accurate as calling a magnificent opera 'loutish'*****
They are in many ways of interpreting SLOT but disorder is very real considering the way we are viewing entropy. Read Asimov's definition of it again:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself---and that is what the second law is all about."
*****Suffice it to say that in mathematics, terms are often used which mean entirely different things in other fields. E.G. the term 'element' as used in mathematics does not mean the same thing when used by chemists.*****
No kidding? And this would not be known . . . .by whom?
*****(BTW I'm pretty sure I can also demo that the number of 'Prime Elements' is unbounded.)
See how hopelessly fucked up all that is Jerry?*****
LOL . . . .I can see how hopelessly you are trying to **** it up. Not going to work, my friend, engage the subject directly.
Johnnie C. · 25 May 2004
~DS~ · 25 May 2004
They are in many ways of interpreting SLOT but disorder is very real considering the way we are viewing entropy. Read Asimov’s definition of it again:
“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.”
Egads Jerry. I mean my hat's off to the late sci-fi and sci-fact writer Dr Assimov for trying to deliver an esoteric concept into the intuitive grasp of the layman. I read all of Assimov's non-fiction series as a kid myself and learned a great deal from his efforts.
But Assimov clearly failed in your case if that's all you got from it.
I believe one of the articles Assimov used that phrase in, and perhaps the very one you lifted it from, was a non-fictional piece debunking the creationist SLoT argument. The same basic argument you're pitching here minus the half ass trickery into tying the SLoT into information theory.
Maybe you didn't actually read him.
Be that as it may, in your own way, I think you've stated the flaw in the argument that Assimov explained.
The sun fuses hundreds of millions of tons of H per second, some of which escapes as various forms of energy and/or energetic particles, and a tiny fraction of that impacts the earth.
Yes, green plants make goodies using that sunlight which we parasitic metazoans steal. A similar cycle is found using less well known chemical cycles in methane seeps and hydrothermal vents, providing the basis for those communities.
You could have saved everyone a great deal of time if you'd just fessed up sooner.
On your attempted use of information metrics and the bait-n-switch with thermodynamics...please Jerry. That's enough. You're not fooling anybody and you're making an ass out of yourself.
Jerry Don Bauer · 25 May 2004
*****Egads Jerry. I mean my hat's off to the late sci-fi and sci-fact writer Dr Assimov for trying to deliver an esoteric concept into the intuitive grasp of the layman. I read all of Assimov's non-fiction series as a kid myself and learned a great deal from his efforts.
But Assimov clearly failed in your case if that's all you got from it. *****
Look. Why don't you get an education and start actually refuting something I post. You ignorant troll. HOW is Asimov wrong. Why is he not qualified as a thermodynamicist. Do you even know who he is?
*****Be that as it may, in your own way, I think you've stated the flaw in the argument that Assimov explained.*****
No, Jethro, I didn't state any flaw in his argument at all. Les see, nought and nought equals nought and carry the nought.
Gee, Jed, that boy sure can cipher!
****The sun fuses hundreds of millions of tons of H per second, some of which escapes as various forms of energy and/or energetic particles, and a tiny fraction of that impacts the earth.****
Um . . . well yes it does and this is most religious. This causes Darwin to sprinkle some magic pixie dust, Gouth says a prayer in the spirit to Dawkins, Eldridge and the purple alligator gods living in my underwear drawer do a new age dance and suddenly . . . .ethereally . . . .right before our very eyes . . . .****POOF**** . . . .protists magically morph into men.
*****Yes, green plants make goodies using that sunlight which we parasitic metazoans steal. A similar cycle is found using less well known chemical cycles in methane seeps and hydrothermal vents, providing the basis for those communities.******
LOL
*****please Jerry. That's enough. You're not fooling anybody and you're making an ass out of yourself******
Nah . . . I want to examine this Einsteinian IQ I've suddenly discovered that thinks Asimov is best known as a science fiction writer. COMING SOON: Schrodinger's Cat---Its There but it Ain't---Go Cipher! Brought to you by yer friendly neighborhood Neo-Darwinists.
~DS~ · 26 May 2004
I'm sorry if I upset you Jerry. Settle down. Hit the gym, run some laps, drink a beer, or take a xanax for crying out loud.
It's really not my fault you're confused on some basic aspects of thermodynamics. I'm just trying to help clarify some of the issues. And I'm about all you've got left here. You've managed to systematically alienate most everyone else.
It's not a personal attack to point out what the precise definition of Entropy is and how far off that mark your own version lays.
And criticizing your use of an analogy written for laymen by Asimov 30 years ago-which likely first appeared as a non-fiction piece in a sci-fi pulp magazine-over any number of explicitly quantified, formal definitions available with the click of your mouse, because it makes a better fit with your Creationist mythology, is not trolling.
Your initial objection to evo on this thread was that it violates the SLoT. It's been shown to you why that particular position is scientifically untenable. And you've even aknowledged, albeit grudgingly, that there is no entropy crisis on earth due to an external input of energy.
BTW, I enjoyed your initial comments that there might be a useful and intriguing field of secular study which grew out of ID.
But if you're going to whine like a 10 year old sissy, call me names, and go off on tangential rants about bacteria turning into men,
I'll just move on to the next swindled creationist victim or IDC apologist. It's not like the Internet is short on those folks.
Bob Maurus · 26 May 2004
Jerry Don,
Could you clear a few things up for me?
You've said elsewhere that you used to be a Young Earth Creationist,until college, but now you're a Christian Creationist/IDer.
On the 29th at 1104 John Lynch provided a link to your Christian Intelligence Center page, which looks to have been of a seriously fundamentalist nature (none of the article links work so I assume it's defunct)and where you identify yourself as the Publishing Editor and, I believe, author. At 1126, 1127 and 1128 YOU responded, "...what in the world is the Christian Intelligence Center?"
You've replied to some of my and others' posts with variations of "I don't do Sunday School," "There are no gods or creators or creation in ID," "we IDers don't even muse about the identity of the Designer," etc. Those statements are certainly inconsistent with your stated Creationist beliefs
You've been accused of not remembering what you say from post to post, and of pattling and babbling from total ignorance of the subject at hand.
So tell me, are you truly certifiably schizophrenic or just totally dishonest? Or is there some combination of the two that you claim as your own?
Pim van Meurs · 26 May 2004
Jerry: This is true only if I'm discussing thermodynamic entropy. How would you deal with logical or information entropy using this concept?
Check out the evolution of complexity thread in which I have shown how to deal with Shannon entropy. When applying these concepts correctly authors have found consistently that entropy decreases under the workings of variation and selection.
Jerry is hiding his discomfort with mathematics under a lot of 'tough talk' but little science.
Johnnie C. · 26 May 2004
Joe P Guy · 26 May 2004
Bob Maurus · 26 May 2004
Johnnie C,
Relax, I have no intention of trying to steal your thunder on that one. I'm just over having someone who writes stuff like "Why I Believe in God," Understanding Prophecy," How The Rapture Will Unfold," and "Identifying AntiChrist & 666"
and who identifies himself as a Christian Creationist AND/OR IDer expects to be taken seriously when he keeps insisting that there's no God in ID.
I'd be perfectly happy to agree that every living thing on earth might well have been created by super intelligent extraterrestrials conducting planet seeding expweriments, but of course, that wouldn't solve his problem of who. besides God, had created the aliens.
Ed Darrell · 26 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 26 May 2004
******You've said elsewhere that you used to be a Young Earth Creationist,until college, but now you're a Christian Creationist/IDer. *****
I don't mix religion with my science, Bob. My views on religion, morality or anything else will not further this discussion.
*****On the 29th at 1104 John Lynch provided a link to your Christian Intelligence Center page, which looks to have been of a seriously fundamentalist nature (none of the article links work so I assume it's defunct)and where you identify yourself as the Publishing Editor and, I believe, author. At 1126, 1127 and 1128 YOU responded, " . . . what in the world is the Christian Intelligence Center?"******
Well, What is one? Post a link to it so we can see? <:0)
*****You've replied to some of my and others' posts with variations of "I don't do Sunday School," "There are no gods or creators or creation in ID," "we IDers don't even muse about the identity of the Designer," etc. Those statements are certainly inconsistent with your stated Creationist beliefs*****
How so? Do you think Jews are incapable of being scientists? May I remind you that Newton, Faraday and Lord Kelvin were avid creationists? What do you think science has to do with theology or morality?
*****You've been accused of not remembering what you say from post to post, and of pattling and babbling from total ignorance of the subject at hand.*****
Yeah, I've been accused of this. I've also been accused of being Satan incarnate and the one single person who caused 911.
*****So tell me, are you truly certifiably schizophrenic or just totally dishonest?*****
LOL . . . ..You couldn't even wait for a couple of posts to get into neodarwinistic logic?
Jerry Don Bauer · 26 May 2004
*****Er . . . actually, JDB, despite being the first writer to have books published in every Dewey Decimal System category, Isaac Asimov is best known as a writer of science fiction. Ask the average person on the street who Isaac Asimov is, and (if they've even heard of him, which, sadly, far too many these days haven't) they'll reply, "A science fiction writer."******
Sheeze . . . .I can't believe I'm having to take this discussion down to this level. The average person on the street are not scientists. Asimov is a biochemist and well known for his expertise in the field of thermodynamics:
http://acnet.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/thermodynamics.html
Jerry Don Bauer · 26 May 2004
*****On a planet that is geologically and biologically active, yes, that's right.*****
So your point is . . . ..um . . . .what? That planet earth is not geologically and biologically active?
****But most of what creationists claim as "breaking down" or "entropy" is just biological function having nothing whatsoever to do with entropy.*****
What on earth are you talking about. Biologists use thermodynamics all the time in studying apoptosis, necrosis, destruction of mDNA in the mitochondria and many other things.
Do you think Schrodinger was a creationist when he applied -S = K log 1/D to study SLOT on the human body?
"Every process, event, happening---call it what you will: in a word, everything that is going on in Nature means an increase in entropy of the part of the world where it is going on. Thus a living organism continually increases its entropy---or as you might say, produces positive entropy---and thus tends to approach the dangerous state of maximum entropy, which is death . . . "
Erwin Schrodinger, 'What is Life,' Chapter 8.
******If I leave my desk, turn-off the fan and close the door, my papers don't get out of order by themselves. If I return to my office and find my papers out of order, I know someone or something has applied energy to move the stuff.*****
Well, there ya go. You've obviously mastered thermodynamics. ;)
*****A dead bird disappears quickly, but not as a function of entropy.*****
I'm afraid this is just another example of Feynman's logical entropy in action.
*****And though Asimov may have said it, that doesn't change the laws of thermodynamics or any other rules of the universe. If Asimov's toss-off paragraph is the deepest understanding one ever gets of thermodynamics, one may not be able to fathom why thermodynamics poses no problem whatsoever to evolution.*****
Let's hope not, since he's an evolutionist.
*****I'm still waiting for a creationist to tell me just how a trait's being hereditary violates SLOT. I'll be waiting until the universe cools, I suppose.*****
Why, this seems to pose a profound problem for you. Might I just suggest that you go to a creationist site and ask one. Would that not solve the problem?
Bob Maurus · 26 May 2004
Jerry,
Christian Intelligence Center, what is it? You tell me - it's your website. You need a link to get there? Multiple personalities, or lousy memory? I gave you the location of the link. Track back to John Lynch's post on May 24 at 1104. Or stop playing your stupid games. By your own account you're a creationist who denies that God had anything to do with anything, or an IDer who believes God caused everything.
Russell · 26 May 2004
Navy Davy · 26 May 2004
Jerry,
That Asimov link you gave was outstanding! Clear, concise explanation of fundamentals of thermodynamics.
Do you find any flaws in his points or are you aware of any legitimate critiques? If not, I'd like to use it as an authoritative source.
Cheers,
Navy Davy
Joe P Guy · 26 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 26 May 2004
*****Christian Intelligence Center, what is it? You tell me - it's your website.*****
No it isn't. I'm afraid I don't have a site by that name.
*****I gave you the location of the link.*****
No you didn't. Give us something we can click on. You know how to do this, don't you?
*****Track back to John Lynch's post on May 24 at 1104.*****
Nah..It's your point (whatever that point may be) you provide the references.
*****By your own account you're a creationist who denies that God had anything to do with anything, or an IDer who believes God caused everything.******
LOL . . . .I think I'll toy with you awhile. This is fun.
Jerry Don Bauer · 26 May 2004
*****That Asimov link you gave was outstanding! Clear, concise explanation of fundamentals of thermodynamics.
Do you find any flaws in his points or are you aware of any legitimate critiques? If not, I'd like to use it as an authoritative source.*****
I didn't even read it, Dave. I just couldn't believe that everyone on here seemed to think that the guy was just a science fiction writer.
But, no. Don't use anyone including me as an authoritative source. Thermodynamics is rather a diverse science as, depending on ones field, everyone seems to be taught just a little different version of it. I have to change the argument depending on if I'm debating a chemist, a biologist or a physicist.
What some of us in ID are attempting to do is to bring all of the thoughts out there under one umbrella. This is a daunting task, but I think we're making some inroads.
Bob Maurus · 26 May 2004
Forget it Jerry. You're not worth the effort. You have nothing to offer but lies and bullshit. You have my sympathy.
Jerry Don Bauer · 26 May 2004
******You have my sympathy.******
Thanks for your posts! Continue to live in ignorance and think its science. If you can get your kids to drop out of school in the third grade, they will be with you on this.
Just something you should think about.
Taylor Stevens · 27 May 2004
No, Jerry, you see, here's the thing--it's only if they drop out of school in third grade that they might be with YOU on this subject. See, schools don't teach creatio--err, sorry, ID. They teach evolution (and for the most part, evolution through natural selection a la Darwinism). Contrary to what you seem to believe, there is a reason for this--evolution is a scientific theory which has stood the test of time. The research supports the hypothesis. The same cannot be said of ID, in large part because there hasn't really even been any research to support a hypothesis--and for that matter, there is still (as far as any of us can determine) no hypothesis to begin with. You sure don't seem to be able to present one. So until you can wrap yourself around the fact that you have a "theory" while the evolutionists have a "scientific theory"--a hugely significant distinction--you are the one who has "something to think about."
And aside from the lack of substance or relevance in your posts, you seem to lack any ability whatsoever to debate in this forum. You think it is unreasonable for someone to refer to a previously-posted link rather than to waste space by reposting the same link? Get a grip. Learn to scroll up. It isn't that hard. But since we all know that you'll do anything you can to avoid acknowledging a link to the CIC, I'll go ahead and post the link again anyway.
HERE IS THE LINK for those who cannot scroll up.
And here's another link providing documentation that Jerry Don Bauer was the editor for the Christian Intelligence Center. This one is a Wayback Internet Archive link, and unfortunately they don't seem to have archived any of the articles linked to on the page. Still, pretty solid evidence that JDB is coming at this from a--let me quote that page here, specificaly the title of a series of articles he authored--"Science VS. God" point of view.
Interestingly enough, that site is now simply a message from Jerry wishing us all a GREAT day.
And, perhaps the best part of all, Google cached the first part of the list of articles in that first link: Why I Believe In God, Part One. Note that, according to the site the article was posted on (linked to again HERE in case Jerry forgets that it really does say this, or does not want to scroll back up a few paragraphs), "All course material [is] by Jerry Don Bauer, Publishing Editor, Christian Intelligence Center. ©2001-Jerry Don Bauer"
I think I'll stop now. We've all shown now, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Jerry is a compulsive liar, regardless of what it is that he's attempting to argue. Believe it or not, Jerry, when your personal beliefs have such a huge impact on the subject you're debating, they ARE relevant. And when you show that you can do nothing but lie, deceive, ignore, and repeat the same argument time and time again despite its having been refuted, you take away any semblance of credibility you may have brought to the table.
Go back to your gospel. Perhaps preaching to the choir is something you'd be more successful at than this.
Taylor Stevens · 27 May 2004
Sorry, bad etiquette to post twice in a row, but there's a lovely little gem in that article that I meant to post but forgot. Shows a wonderful grasp of the concepts of evolution, I think:
In one study I read about how a scientist set out to investigate this new evolutionary theory that was sweeping our schools.
He designed an experiment using white mice. Scientists like white mice because the short span between generations makes it easy to study their genetics--their DNA--the building blocks of life that passes on individual traits to offspring.
This particular scientist began to cut off the tails of every white mouse born in his laboratory. He reasoned that if evolutionary theorem were accurate, and it is indeed possible for environmental phenomenon to have a direct influence on genetic material, after several generations mice should begin to be born without tails.
After all, when the primitive life-form first developed that wart with which it pushed off rocks and developed muscles sufficient to eventually evolve the wart into a leg, it must have changed its genetic material as a result of that environmental stimuli. If the genes weren't changed, the offspring could not receive a leg at birth and the evolutionary process would come to a halt.
For years and years and generation after generation the scientist cut off the tails of those mice. And guess what? Not a single mouse was ever born without his tail.
So can environmental stimuli effect genetic material? This man proved just the opposite.
::insert much rolling of eyes::
Bob Maurus · 27 May 2004
Hey Taylor, I like it! Good job.
Oh, and Jerry, my kids are 38 and 40. It's my grandkids I'm dedicated to keeping out of your clutches. I'll pray for you, if you don't mind me asking the Goddess to intercede on your behalf. Hope you get your life together.
Bob
CD318 · 27 May 2004
Jerry typed:
"Don't get your information about science from Web Sites. Get it from papers and reputable scientists or I fear you will never know truth or understand the science that surrounds our issues."
-----
Don't get your undies in a wad, Jerry. I hold a doctorate in molecular biology, my current research is in the field of biochemistry, and I took the relevant courses before there was such a thing as a web site.
The links I pointed to have good, college-level, quantitative descriptions of entropy and equilibrium, as does any good undergraduate physical chemistry or physics text.
equilibrium != maximum entropy (except under certain conditions). Equilibrium is determined not only by entropy change, but also by enthalpy change and by temperature. A common formulation used by chemists is:
change in FREE ENERGY =
change in ENTHALPY x (TEMPERATURE - change in ENTROPY)
or: deltaG=deltaH-TdeltaS
The physicists you mention certainly understand this. they understand it so well the thay are comfortable leaving out major details and assumptions. They assume that their target audience will fill in the blanks. You obviously are not part of Schrodinger's target audience, because you don't know enough to fill in the blanks. You are in no position to advance any sort of argument on the basis of your lack of understanding.
Don't get your ideas about thermodynamics from pamphlets (even great ones like _What is Life?_) written by eminent physicists to provoke their colleagues. Start with textbooks, web-based or paper. Linus Pauling's _General Chemistry_, still published by Dover, would be a reasonable place to start.
Joe P Guy · 27 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 27 May 2004
******And, perhaps the best part of all, Google cached the first part of the list of articles in that first link: Why I Believe In God, Part One. Note that, according to the site the article was posted on (linked to again HERE in case Jerry forgets that it really does say this, or does not want to scroll back up a few paragraphs), "All course material [is] by Jerry Don Bauer, Publishing Editor, Christian Intelligence Center. ©2001-Jerry Don Bauer"*****
LOL...These posts are classics that I'll keep. I feel rather vindicated that not one scientist on here will even attempt to argue the science of ID.
Got to pull gods and demons and fairies into the test tubes. By gum that'll do it.
Jack, you better hope no one in Kansas is reading this. Because if the strongest argument you people have is that an IDist used to run something called the Christian Intelligence Center, Darwinism is dead in the water.
shiva · 27 May 2004
Jerry is now beginning to sound like that cartoonist in AiG - Dan Lietha. Dan and his fans think he is witty, smart, funny, cool etc., For those who know better we see a poor attempt to extract reverse humor out of a pseudoscience that sends us into guffaws every time we read about it. JDB seems to hink he has all the answers and for a time tried to sound like he actually knew some science. Enough to say he doesn't and that he actually believes he does.
Johnnie C. · 27 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 27 May 2004
Last chance on this thread, people. I propose that ID is a science based on probability employed to detect design. If no one can refute this, it stands. And if you guys are afraid to address the subject, I'm afraid there is little chance you will ever refute it.
Bob Maurus · 27 May 2004
In your dreams. Bye bye. Jerry.
Pim van Meurs · 27 May 2004
Funny how Jerry leaves when things get too hot for his comfort only to pop up elsewhere making the same erroneous arguments. Due to the fact that these confusions are not limited to the Jerry Bauers of this world, I am motivated to work on a step by step journey through entropy to show how Shannon Entropy correctly describes the entropy in the genome. In fact using Boltzman entropy or Feynman entropy similar formulas can be derived only differing in constants.
Fascinating. ANd using Jerry's 'logic' I can presume that his lack of response to Shannon entropy applied means that he cannot refute it or is afraid to address the issues.
Such grandstanding shows how tenuous Jerry's position really is and he seems to know it.
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
******Funny how Jerry leaves when things get too hot for his comfort only to pop up elsewhere making the same erroneous arguments.*******
Oh, I ain't going anywhere unless the moderators disagree with this. <;0)
shiva · 28 May 2004
Jerry,
Last chance on this thread.
ID is not science, not even pseudoscience, just plain junk, because its advocates take off their scientifc caps when they begin to hold forth.
Prove this wrong or else accept failure.
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
*******ID is not science, not even pseudoscience, just plain junk, because its advocates take off their scientifc caps when they begin to hold forth.********
How can I prove a negative? I can only disprove a positive. ID presents itself to you via science and math as you can see in the other forum I'm participating in here at Panda'a Thumb.
When a body of thought presents itself in this manner it becomes illogical to conclude that it is not based on science and math.
It is your side who tries to cloud the issue by cloaking it with angels, fairies, leprechauns and purple alligator gods living in your underwear drawer.
You cannot even address the science and math inherent in ID. Therefore when you are presented this stuff we become liars.
When we ask you what we lied about, you don't know. Was that math I just presented you based on lies? Well, you can't refute it, so it must be.
Carry on the cause with your blinders on, gentlemen. You tarnish real science with this religious agenda. And it will take us decades to pull science back into governance via the scientific method. But we will do this, because some of us are determined to do so.
Bob Maurus · 28 May 2004
Jerry, for starters, you've lied about your Christian Intelligence Center and you've lied about your religious background - were you an Agnostic or a Young Earth Creationist when you entered college? You've claimed both.
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
*****Jerry, for starters, you've lied about your Christian Intelligence Center******
LOL . . . .copy those posts. I've just asked you to post a link to it. Can you? Do you bother to point out that no one has posted on that old site for years? If that was me, how would you know that I have not converted to Buddism or atheism since then?
******and you've lied about your religious background *******
What religious background?
-*******were you an Agnostic or a Young Earth Creationist when you entered college? You've claimed both.******
Who cares? What could this possibly have to do with ID, science, evolution or anything else we are discussing? Has it occurred to anyone here that I have not asked them their view on anything religious or moral. It's irrelevant and I could care less. Besides, its probably none of my business.
Bob Maurus · 28 May 2004
Jerry, for starters, you've lied about your Christian Intelligence Center and you seem to have lied about your religious beliefs. I'll hold off on making that a direct accusation until I verify a detail or two.
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
******I'll hold off on making that a direct accusation until I verify a detail or two.******
That would be wise on your part.
Now is there anything you would care to discuss that is even remotely germane to the subject?
Barbara · 28 May 2004
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
*****The only purple god in my underwear drawer has a button at its base that causes it to vibrate in a most pleasant way. However, I haven't seen it used in any debates here. Yet.*****
Could you, please??
Barbara · 28 May 2004
Bob Maurus · 28 May 2004
Jerry, your dishonesty and lies are directly germane to the subject.
The links to your Christian Intelligence Center were provided by Taylor Stevens four posts after you denied it was your site - multiple personalities? deteriorating memory? He also provided a few more links to some of your other nonsense. So, tell us - was it you? Or maybe it was a case of identity theft, huh? Some satanic evolutionist set you up to destroy your reputation? Honesty, Jerry, honesty - it goes a long way.
As to addressing the science and math inherent in ID, those eminently more qualified than you or I have done that, in spades, and the verdict is that there is neither.
Again, your lies and misinformation campaign have everything to do with what's being discussed, as does your disgusting suggestion of racism on the part of those who dismiss your babbling as garbage.
Cheers,
Bob
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
*****What if Mama finds out, Jerry Don?******
She's usually very understanding. I'll have to run this by her, but I don't forsee any problems.
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
*****Jerry, your dishonesty and lies are directly germane to the subject.******
Really? How so? What does my distain for truth have to do with whether a math formula is correct or if an experiment works in a lab.
******The links to your Christian Intelligence Center were provided by Taylor Stevens four posts after you denied it was your site - multiple personalities? deteriorating memory?******
LOL . . . .Now here is an outright lie. Cut and paste those conversations. You're just making this up as you go. And there were no links posted to that site as it does not even exist.
******He also provided a few more links to some of your other nonsense.******
My other nonsense? He didn't even know what the heck was being discussed in those nonsensical posts.
******So, tell us - was it you?******
Its your party, you tell us.
*******Some satanic evolutionist set you up to destroy your reputation? Honesty, Jerry, honesty - it goes a long way.********
And you would know what honesty is . . . ..um . . . . . . .how?
******As to addressing the science and math inherent in ID, those eminently more qualified than you or I have done that, in spades, and the verdict is that there is neither.******
LOL . . . ..IOW, you cannot. Why don't you just say this? Honesty--remember?
*******Again, your lies and misinformation campaign have everything to do with what's being discussed, as does your disgusting suggestion of racism on the part of those who dismiss your babbling as garbage.******
You must find my lies quite fascinating. Else, why would you be pursuing this silliness?
Pim van Meurs · 28 May 2004
Jerry: You must find my lies quite fascinating. Else, why would you be pursuing this silliness?
Do you mean to say that you have lied?
Bob Maurus · 28 May 2004
Jerry,
You posted
(BOB) ******The links to your Christian Intelligence Center were provided by Taylor Stevens four posts after you denied it was your site - multiple personalities? deteriorating memory?******
(JERRY) LOL . . . .Now here is an outright lie. Cut and paste those conversations. You're just making this up as you go. And there were no links posted to that site as it does not even exist.
Just scroll back to May 27 0130 by Taylor Stevens on this thread.
You're making this disgustingly easy. Your lies just keep compounding. As soon as I finish pasting up your statements I'll post, in your words, your YEC/Agnostic double life.
Don't you just love it?
Bob
Bob Maurus · 28 May 2004
Note: "JEP" is one of Jerry Don's multiple chat/discussion/forum id's
"Jep: LOL. Haven't been a YECist since I learned the universe was 15 billion years old in college. Perhaps you would need to read my papers on the pre-adamic race to understand this, But I'll bet you have retained every post I have ever made on the Internet. And yet you accuse me of self- aggrandizement. _____ ____ has always seemed quite fascinated to meet a person that can actually defend his faith."
For the whole thread, go here-
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum11/HTML/000051-15.html
And here is an excerpt from JDB's "Why I Believe in God, Part 1"
"I must admit I was not always a believer in this book. Indeed, previous to and during my college years, I was an agnostic to the nth degree. I'm not proud of that fact, neither do I apologize for it."
The entire thing can be perused here-
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache%3AFPnLort35PQJ%3Awww.angelfire.com%2Ftv2%2F_christian%2Fsearch1.htm+&hl=en
As can be plainly seen, Jerry is at least very confused about what he was during those years. Is it too extreme to charge him with lying? Nah -he said it. So once again, Jerry, what is it? Multiple personalities? Faulty memory? Identity theft? Evolutionist conspiracy? If that hole gets much deeper you're not gonna be able to climb out without someone throwing you a rope, and I'm not sure there's anyone left here that would make the effort.
Regards,
Bob
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
*****Your lies just keep compounding. As soon as I finish pasting up your statements I'll post, in your words, your YEC/Agnostic double life.*****
LOL....OK, this sounds like fun.
Bob Maurus · 28 May 2004
Oh Jerry,
While I'm on a roll, there's this:
(ME)*****Jerry, your dishonesty and lies are directly germane to the subject.******
(YOU) Really? How so? What does my distain for truth have to do with whether a math formula is correct or if an experiment works in a lab.
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, why do you insist on making this so easy, Jerry? Your disdain for the truth cancels everything you have to say. Don't you realize that? And if that's the case, I truly pity you and will pray to the Goddess for you doubletime, in the hope that She will, by applying brute force, extract your head from your ass. I only hope that She has the strength, for it will need to be formidable, and, not being a guygod, she might not have the testerone levels needed to accomplish such a Herculean task. Ah well, such is life. We can only hope.
May the Goddess bless you,
Bob
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
*******"Jep: LOL. Haven't been a YECist since I learned the universe was 15 billion years old in college. Perhaps you would need to read my papers on the pre-adamic race to understand this, But I'll bet you have retained every post I have ever made on the Internet. And yet you accuse me of self- aggrandizement. _____ ____ has always seemed quite fascinated to meet a person that can actually defend his faith."
For the whole thread, go here-
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum11/HTML/000051-15.html
And here is an excerpt from JDB's "Why I Believe in God, Part 1"
"I must admit I was not always a believer in this book. Indeed, previous to and during my college years, I was an agnostic to the nth degree. I'm not proud of that fact, neither do I apologize for it."
The entire thing can be perused here-
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache%3AFPnLort35PQJ%3Awww.angelfire.com%2Ftv2%2F_christian%2Fsearch1.htm+&hl=en
As can be plainly seen, Jerry is at least very confused about what he was during those years. Is it too extreme to charge him with lying? Nah -he said it. So once again, Jerry, what is it? Multiple personalities? Faulty memory? Identity theft? Evolutionist conspiracy? If that hole gets much deeper you're not gonna be able to climb out without someone throwing you a rope, and I'm not sure there's anyone left here that would make the effort.*******
***********************************************************
Well boy. This is your ammunition? This confuses you? LOL . . . .from our previous communications I'm not surprised. I was raised in a YEC denomination. However, I left the faith as a teenager and became agnostic. Shortly after college I reconverted, but I could no longer be a YEC because of the science I had studied. This is difficult for you to understand? <:0)
NOTE: The groupies that collect my stuff (like Bob & PvM need to grab these fast as they won't be in cache long.
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
*******Your disdain for the truth cancels everything you have to say. Don't you realize that? And if that's the case, I truly pity you and will pray to the Goddess for you doubletime, in the hope that She will, by applying brute force, extract your head from your ass. I only hope that She has the strength, for it will need to be formidable, and, not being a guygod, she might not have the testerone levels needed to accomplish such a Herculean task. Ah well, such is life. We can only hope*******
My, you seem to almost deify me. I appreciate your vote of confidence, but I can assure you that my musings will never refute Boltzmann's constant, or even algebra, for that matter. They might refute trigonometry but I always hated that subject anyhow and I could really care less. Tell me, do you believe I have refuted trigonometry?
But how do you know my spouse is not a guy-god. Do gods have penises? I've always wondered about this.
Let's continue this. You are a fun troll.
Bob Maurus · 28 May 2004
No Jerry, what's difficult to understand is how you could be both an agnoastic and a YECer at the same time
CD318 · 28 May 2004
Hey, Jerry:
You still think that equilibrium is a state of maximum entropy?
Just asking.
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
LOL...I wasn't an agnostic and a YECer at the same time. Re-read that post. And its incredibly stupid that you would believe this is even possible as the two scenarios are opposite poles of a spectrum. Do you know what the words mean?
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
*****You still think that equilibrium is a state of maximum entropy?******
Well I wouldn't argue with Prigogine and Schrodinger over that point, would you?
"Thus a living organism continually increases its entropy---or as you might say, produces positive entropy---and thus tends to approach the dangerous state of maximum entropy, which is death."
Erwin Schrodinger, What is Life, Chapter 7
Bob Maurus · 28 May 2004
Jerry, I have documented that you are a liar. Since you cannot refute it, it stands. There is nothing to continue.
I will resist the opening you give me by your question concerning whether your spouse is a guygod. I would suggest though that you merely peer between his/her legs and ascertain that for yourself.
The Goddesss' blessing,
Bob
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
********Jerry, I have documented that you are a liar. Since you cannot refute it, it stands. There is nothing to continue.********
LOL . . . .Oh yeah, people, I forgot about this. Forget that Schrodinger quote posted above. Since I'm a liar, Schrodinger stands refuted. Hey Bob, do you think we can manage to get back that Nobel Prize from this evil, crafty cur?
******I will resist the opening you give me by your question concerning whether your spouse is a guygod.*****
Why? Jump right in the middle of it. That's why I threw it your way.
******I would suggest though that you merely peer between his/her legs and ascertain that for yourself.******
How would I appear between the legs of gods. Do you think they might let me use the C.O.B.E sattilite for this?
Jerry Don Bauer · 28 May 2004
LOL...Please change that to "peer" between the legs of gods. Sheeze.
Pim van Meurs · 28 May 2004
Bob, given Jerry's 'success' in defending his entropy calculations, why not refrain from making comments unsuitable for this forum. Remember that the bathroom wall does not distinguish sides. A 'unisex' forum so to speak.
Please...
Pim van Meurs · 28 May 2004
Bob, given Jerry's 'success' in defending his entropy calculations, why not refrain from making comments unsuitable for this forum. Remember that the bathroom wall does not distinguish sides. A 'unisex' forum so to speak.
Please...
Bob Maurus · 28 May 2004
Pim,
Point taken, though in my defense Jerry Don did offer a hard to resist opportunity, and I rose(or sank) to it. I will do my best to resist any such opportunities in the future.
Bob
Bob Maurus · 29 May 2004
Good morning, Jerry
You said, "LOL . . . I wasn't an agnostic and a YECer at the same time. Re-read that post. And its incredibly stupid that you would believe this is even possible as the two scenarios are opposite poles of a spectrum. Do you know what the words mean?"
The real question is, do you know what the words mean? Your statements are unambiguous. Scroll back up and reread them. You do in fact claim to have been an agnostic and a YECer at the same time. It's incredibly stupid that you would claim such a thing, don't you think? They are, after all, opposite poles of a spectrum.
And I love that bit about cutting the tails off mice, too - quite a scientific experiment, eh? Fraught with potential, that one.
Bob
CD318 · 29 May 2004
Jerry typed:
"Well I wouldn't argue with Prigogine and Schrodinger over that point, would you?"
Idiot. There is no argument. They would agree with me, and laugh at you. Pick up a chemistry or physics textbook and learn something about statistical mechanics, entropy, enthalpy, and free energy, you pathetic troll.
Or perhaps you can come up with a cogent argument that
deltaG != deltaH - T * deltaS ?
[Hint: != means "does not equal". The correct formula is:
deltaG = deltaH - T * deltaS.]
Thought you couldn't. Now go home, troll.
rs · 29 May 2004
This is like the scene in "Monty Python & the Holy Grail" where the bellicose knight loses his limbs one at a time and still thinks he's winning the fight
Robert O'Brien · 26 July 2004
Robert O'Brien · 26 July 2004
G3 · 26 July 2004
sl page · 7 October 2004
On a side note, Darel R. Finley, one of the contributing 'authors' to PSID, is a computer programmer.
timi · 21 October 2004
NavyDavy's email address (ddsteele@...) reminded me of a D. David Steele who wrote a few articles from the "HIV dissenters" point of view. Funny to see the same arguments rehashed in 2001 here.
I think they're the same person (see here and scroll down to "Who is David Steele?").
I didn't think anybody took that dissent stuff seriously anymore (at least, not since the early 1990's).