The Bathroom Wall

In reply to Gav, comment 6747, I must admit that as an atheist I am somewhat underwhelmed by Matthew 10:29

In reply to Wayne, comment 6750, my little tirade was against Theistic Evolution.I was suggesting that you can have one or the other but not both. Of course if God has been given (by believers), the attribute of being able to do anything at all, including the impossible and the illogical, then we can't discuss the matter sensibly; because then the simple answer to all problems is that God-did-it, like a sort of blanket cure-all. If on the other hand, God can only do what is possible, then 1. he is not Omnipotent,and 2. As we already have genetic Algorhytms and naturalalistic Evolution,-these provide a much more intellectually satisfying explanation than a kind of Paul Daniell, or Robbie Williams in the sky.

I'll take Steve's place of being the first post to say Creationist suck....ok I really don't think that way. I just feel sad that people can often be so willfully ignorant.

STATEMENT OF JOHN KERRY, VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR (Jan 31, 1971) "Mr. KERRY. Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington, Senator Pell. I would like say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic.. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony. I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare. WINTER SOLDIER INVESTIGATION I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." (http://www.wintersoldier.com . . . ) The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough. We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out." Creationists are often accused of "quote mining" and this demonstrates that Republicans are pretty good at it too. In their new ad, they conveniently take Mr. Kerry's remarks out of context. From: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=400 . . . "What they have done (in this ad) is they've taken a piece of John Kerry's testimony, left out the part that says he was reporting, repeating the testimony that was given in Detroit at the Winter Soldier hearings, and presented it as his. And that's wrong." My predictions: 1. Kerry will be elected with 58% of the popular vote. 2. Nader will drop out and turn his people over to Kerry. 3. McCain will turn on Bush and come out for Kerry. If you want to help, copy this information and post it on every newsgroup and on every weblog that you can Comment #6752 The Fourth Estate (the journalists) have let us down. The news media is controlled by powerful interests that control the agendas of reporting and investigative journalists. One has only to look at Fox News to see the truth. But it's more insidious when it happens on CNN or NBC (see http://www.dailyhowler.com . . . ) But we have the internet and it belongs to us. No one can censor us or deceive us here. Let's use this powerful tool to spread the truth. There are hundreds of newsgroups and blogs read by countless numbers of people. When you uncover a lie, or find an important truth, post it. Someone, somewhere will read it and maybe be informed. Post the URL's of responsible journalistic websites like salon.com and others who don't lie. It is not a time for timidity, but a time for action. We changed the course of history in Viet-Nam and we can do it again today. This is a turning point in history, whether you realize it or not. Make it go the right way. (And if you have any friends, relatives or even enemies in any battlegroud states, lean on them with the truth.)

For a good time, call Ed Conrad and MurphyInOhio at 800-555-WERNUTZ.

Good morning, Charlie. Right on.

Good morning, Charlie. Right on.

I didn't post it on the Bathroom Wall because the thread was too long and it would have gotten lost.

— CW

I remember coming across a copy of "2001 Insults for All Occasions" when I was about twelve years old.

I grew up and got over it.

It's weird to have to agree with Charlie. It's even weirder as a Republican to have to agree Charlie is dead on right that we have to fire the current WH. I feel so...unclean...

"It's weird to have to agree with Charlie. It's even weirder as a Republican to have to agree Charlie is dead on right that we have to fire the current WH. I feel so . . . unclean . . . "

STEWART: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven't been disputed for 35 years? CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days. STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established. CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontravertible fact is one side of the story. STEWART: But that should be -- isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion? CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' -- might wanna look it up some day. STEWART: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't? CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well -- sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] 'Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.' Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me. STEWART: So, basically, you're saying that this back-and-forth is never going to end. CORDDRY: No, Jon -- in fact a new group has emerged, this one composed of former Bush colleages, challenging the president's activities during the Vietnam era. That group: Drunken Stateside Sons of Privilege for Plausible Deniability. They've apparently got some things to say about a certain Halloween party in '71 that involved trashcan punch and a sodomized piñata. Jon -- they just want to set the record straight. That's all they're out for.

Wayne,
Purgery is when you stick your finger down your throat, a reaction the current WH occupant should cause in anyone who cares about, or fears for, the future of this country. Perjury is what he may or may not have commited. And there were never more than unsupported allegations, with no corroboration, of sexual harrasment.

Comment #6754 Posted by Steve on August 23, 2004 10:50 PM ID has made two big attempts to create a theory. Dembski's Clogged Filter and Behe's IC have been found extensively wrong. As a result, both persons have in the past promised future modified versions which would be successful. Can anyone tell me what the current "ID Theory"[sic] consists of? Have replacements been delivered? I haven't seen it, and I would guess they know they now have enough jargon and books and technical-sounding arguments to propel the actual, political, movement which is ID. But some of you follow it a lot closer than I do, so if you know of any further attempts to come up with a theory, please let me know.

There is a cure for Republicanism: come over to the better party.

Believe me Gary, I've considered doing just that. I feel the party has been sort of taken over by a neocon cabal and that if the present weak leader could be ejected there could still be hope for future admins ... And there is some value in being able to truthfully Blog and honestly comment that I'm a Republican, but that I'm voting for Kerry. It's frustrating that I sometimes get attacked, and I mean viciously, by either side when I do so. But I think it does some good.

And there were never more than unsupported allegations, with no corroboration, of sexual harrasment.

— bob

Perjury is what he may or may not have commited

— bob

Hi everyone,

I'm a politics junkie, but I have plenty of places to go to read about politics -- much as I love Jon Stewart, I think that you might drive away people who visit here to read about evolution theory. I myself just happened by, one night.

I recommend Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk for folks who are puzzled about how to read the news, as they are a bipartisan team who critically assess who is doing the best reporting, and who's doing it wrong (or shallowly).
(URL: http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/cat_spin_buster.asp for their "Spin Buster"; related sites available in the sidebar)

Surfin' Steve was the most recent on topic:

<< ID has made two big attempts to create a theory. Dembski's Clogged Filter and Behe's IC ... >>

NOT censoring, just a gentle suggestion that we remain on topic. My time, and maybe yours, is limited.

I have read very little about the Clogged Filter and would be amused to learn more.

Fiona

That's 'Scuba Steve', to my friends (who are bigger fans of Adam Sandler movies than I am, apparently).

Instead of reading more about Dembski's Clogged Filter, you might want to read Descartes and Aquinas instead. Their mathematical attempts to prove god, though also failures, were much more subtle and clever.

Actually, Wayne, he didn't have "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. The term refers specifically to intercourse, which did not occur. I expect he carefully crafted that statement to avoid telling the truth without actually lying.

For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes: Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing

He also testified that the inappropriate relationship began not in November 1995 when Ms. Lewinsky was an intern, as Ms. Lewinsky and other witnesses have testified, but in 1996.

Clinton's worst crime: justifying enough odium to get W (almost) elected in 2000.

Wayne, anything which is testified to under oath, which is untrue, is perjury. No quarrel there at all.

The "sexual relations" episode, which you pointed to, occurred at a news conference, so it wouldn't be perjury no matter how false it was. My point was, and is, that, generally speaking, the dictionary definition of "sexual relations" is "intercourse." Again, generally speaking, most people who point to that episode wrongly claim he said, "I did not have SEX with that woman - -." His statement was, in my opinion, carefully crafted to leave a specific impression without lying. It should have been obvious to anyone.

Jones' lawsuit wasn't a Sexual Harrasment suit - the statute of limitations had run out on that avenue. Peripheral testimony from others - Trooper Danny, etc - cast some doubt on Jones' claims. Haven't read his book, don't intend to, don't know what he says about it and don't care. It's over. What remains is the haunting spectre of the (how many?) millions of dollars spent by that Republican witchhunt of an impeachment.

I don't understand why you accuse me of defending him. I voted for him in '92 with great hopes, and was so sorely disappointed that I voted for the Libertarian in '96 as a protest.

My concern is more with pointing out and defending against the misuse and corruption of our language. "Nuculer" and "pundint" also come immediately to mind in this regard. As a lover of Rottweilers, I cringe every time I hear "Rockweiler."

The bottom line is, vote Democratic in November, if only to prevent the Shrub from giving us an Inquisition for a supreme Court and naming Clarence Thomas Chief Justice. That's my rant.

It is hard to not conclude that proper peer review procedures didn't take place with the publication of philosopher Stephen C. Meyer's "review"

My favorite example which shows what a moron Mr. Meyer is . . . Kudos to you guys for your extensive (and yet incomplete!) review, although it is far, far, far too kind to the simple-minded faker . . .

I love it. First we have the theory that there is a level playing field for ID in terms of publication. A theory that is manifestly false. As if to make my point for me, there is the De Rerum Natura trackback to this post, which states ... There you have it in a nutshell. The publication was a mistake. Peer review failed. After all, it's an ID paper.

— David Heddle

Reed, the point is that any ID paper (even this one that slipped through the cracks) will be deemed by the establishment to consist of "poor scholarship".

David Heddle: the point is that any ID paper (even this one that slipped through the cracks) will be deemed by the establishment to consist of "poor scholarship".

Don't you see the irony here? You've just complained that all ID papers will be deemed "poor scholarship" - regardless of content. But here you've pre-emptively dismissed all criticism of an ID paper, with absolutely no reference to the content of that criticism!

Reed, the point is that any ID paper (even this one that slipped through the cracks) will be deemed by the establishment to consist of "poor scholarship".

— David Heddle

You are missing the boat, and that is probably my fault, because I continued arguing from the level playing field post of a while back. My point stands regardless of the level of scholarship of the ID paper, of which I haven't had time to read. That point is the same level of poor scholarship (and I am not judging Meyer's paper, but let's assume you are right) will routinely make it into publication--as long as it drinks from the correct kool-aid. As I said in a previous post, I often read that organism X developed adaptaion Y in response to environmental stress Z--pure, unfalsifiable speculation. Or, in my own field, you can speculate that our good fortune is due to the fact that there are infinite parallel (incommunicado) universes and we live in a lucky one--such speculation will not be edited out--but you could never speculate (and rightly so, in scientific journals) that ID is behind it all. See for example this post which points out where this occurred in a recent Scientific American article.

David: Your speculations as usual remain unfounded in much evidence. In this case ID submitted a paper and it seems that it has a lot of problems.
Perhaps when ID proposes its hypothesis rather than a negative argument, it may gain some respectability.

This is unrelated. I saw this article through news.google.com. I think it is full of crap. Sad thing is it is on a news paper and a lot of people will actually believe it.
Can someone please reply to this guy and set the record straight?

http://www.cheboygannews.com/articles/2004/08/25/news/opinion/opinion1.txt

This is unrelated. I saw this article through news.google.com. I think it is full of crap. Sad thing is it is on a news paper and a lot of people will actually believe it.
Can someone please reply to this guy and set the record straight?

http://www.cheboygannews.com/articles/2004/08/25/news/opinion/opinion1.txt

Pim,

What speculation is unfounded? I can reference, with a little work, many tens (if not hundreds) of papers in refereed journals that speculate about parallel universes. I could reference none that speculate in ID. Both purport to explain the same thing, both fit the data, both are unfalsifiable, so why one and not the other? What evidence do you need? A signed confession?

Mr. Heddle

ID creationism is, at various times, crank science, bad philosophy and religious fundamentalism.

There is no such thing as "ID scholarship" unless you count the fraudulent creation of bogus "review articles" (which do little more than disparage the work of scientists and distort the history and literature of evolutionary biology) and the nonsense mathematics of charlatans like Bill Dembski.

It's cute that you choose to believe that ID creationists and the inane concepts which they are trying to push into our public school system are scientifically legitimate. They are not. That is old news.

But you never answered my question to you, David, you deep thinking guy: what about erosion? Do you believe erosion is the most likely explanation for the Grand Canyon by far? The Grand Canyon is very big and very beautiful. Are you going to tell me that the same forces which cause the porcelein in my sink to wear away after a few years of being hit with water droplets carved out the Grand Canyon? Ha ha! That is absurd. Surely the Grand Canyon was designed! I mean, it seems at least as likely that it was designed and dug out by aliens. You know, the aliens who fly around in the UFOs which are as likely to exist as not, right? If only scientists weren't so eager to suppress discussion of UFOs in their scientific journals, we'd know so much more UFOs. And the Grand Canyon. And life on earth. Because aliens designed life on earth, right, David? I mean, you can't prove to me that they didn't, can you? So why aren't we teaching our kids about these intelligent aliens? If we wait to long, it will be too late to start worshipping them. We wouldn't want the aliens to be angry with us. After all, they might decide to dig another Grand Canyon to punish us. Do you suppose they'll take care to avoid knocking over any churches while they're digging?

This is unrelated. I saw this article through news.google.com. I think it is full of crap. Sad thing is it is on a news paper and a lot of people will actually believe it.
Can someone please reply to this guy and set the record straight?

http://www.cheboygannews.com/articles/2004/08/25/news/opinion/opinion1.txt

You know Reed, turnabout is fair play--David's just getting you back for going to Nuclear Physics blogs and calling QCD 'not science', demanding to see unconfined quarks, and implying that the entire nuclear physics community were a bunch of fools whose fundamental theory was a tautology.

GWW you make so many assumptions.

I believe erosion caused the Grand Canyon. Is there some place where I stated differently? Are you under the impression I am a young-earther?

Have you read ANYTHING I wrote? Which, for the gazillionth time, is NOT that ID is science just like evolution, but that evolution is not science, just like ID.

I am so glad that you are a spokesman for your cause. Not that my side of the debate doesn't have its share of embarassing apologists.

Steve,

I'd be happy to debate the testability and falsifiability of QCD in contrast to evolution.

Mr. Heddle

ID creationism is, at various times, crank science, bad philosophy and religious fundamentalism.

There is no such thing as "ID scholarship" unless you count the fraudulent creation of bogus "review articles" (which do little more than disparage the work of scientists and distort the history and literature of evolutionary biology) and the pointless worthless mathematics of crayon-clutching creationists like Bill Dembski.

It's cute that you choose to believe that ID creationists and the inane concepts which they are trying to push into our public school system are scientifically legitimate. They are not. That is old news.

But you never answered my question to you, David, you deep thinking guy: what about erosion? Do you believe erosion is the most likely explanation for the Grand Canyon by far? The Grand Canyon is very big and very beautiful. Are you going to tell me that the same forces which cause the porcelein in my sink to wear away after a few years of being hit with water droplets carved out the Grand Canyon? Ha ha! That is absurd. Surely the Grand Canyon was designed! I mean, it seems at least as likely that it was designed and dug out by aliens. You know, the aliens who fly around in the UFOs which are as likely to exist as not, right? If only scientists weren't so eager to suppress discussion of UFOs in their scientific journals, we'd know so much more UFOs. And the Grand Canyon. And life on earth. Because aliens designed life on earth, right, David? I mean, you can't prove to me that they didn't, can you? So why aren't we teaching our kids about these intelligent aliens? If we wait to long, it will be too late to start worshipping them. We wouldn't want the aliens to be angry with us. After all, they might decide to dig another Grand Canyon to punish us. Do you suppose they'll take care to avoid knocking over any churches while they're digging?

That point is the same level of poor scholarship (and I am not judging Meyer's paper, but let's assume you are right) will routinely make it into publication---as long as it drinks from the correct kool-aid.

— David Heddle

Wesley,

I did. The September 2004 Scientific American article entitled The String Theory Landscape by Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski. At one point in their article they discuss infinite universes. They sweep our good fortune (for having just the right vacuum energy to make our universe livable) under the rug. It's no wonder we live here, they argue, just like on a smaller scale we live in temperate climates on earth rather than in Antarctica, the Marianas Trench, or the moon.

But this is a flawed analogy and poor scholarship. It's not because of luck that we don't live in Antarctica, it's by design. There was intelligence behind the gross features of human migration, not random chance. These local inhospitable regions are observable. Other universes are not.

Their argument is a common one, always accepted, and patently unscientific: We should not be surprised how lucky we are, because if we wern't so lucky, we wouldn't be here discussing it. Ipso facto.

Have you developed a litmus test of errors that you propose should be adopted before a paper can be declared as poor scholarship? Sorry you don't get to impose such a test, that I must cite an example to fit "all" you points, a set that neatly fits your example.

And besides, it has nothing to do with my argument, which once again is: you can engage in wild ass speculation as long as it is the scientific equivalent of politically correct. Parallel universes? Go for it. As in the SciAm article I referenced. ID? Not a chance. The playing field is not level. But it is not skewed so that good ID research cannot get published--maybe there is no such thing as good ID research. It IS skewed so that poor party-line research can get published.

Wesley: I predict abandonment of [the claim that Heddle could identify a peer-reviewed science publication shoddier than Meyer's] is more likely, though.

I think your prediction was just verified.

Russell,

Attaboys to a local guru don't cut it.

This is fatuous and a red herring. I gave an example article. Who is to say, especially without bias from their presuppositions, that it is more, less or equally shoddy? The furthest I would go is to say what I said, that there are published articles guilty of some of the same crimes.

Please point me to where I claimed I could find a paper worse than Meyers? I believe I could, but that is irrelevant. It was never part of my argument.

C'mon Wesley, or your minions, where did I claim that I could find a paper that one could objectively compare with Meyer's?

My point stands, which nobody has refuted, that certain speculation is easy to find in publications even though it, just like ID, doesn't belong in scientific journals.

"My point stands, which nobody has refuted, that certain speculation is easy to find in publications even though it, just like ID, doesn't belong in scientific journals."

Even if this is the case, why is it relevant? Are you suggesting that the existence of other poor science somehow validates ID?

Steve F,

Of course not. Sigh. Once again, here is my claim:

There is NO level playing field.

That's it. I have stated nothing about ID. ID is good or bad based on its own merits, not whether it can get published.

I don't have to find an article as bad as Meyers (assuming it is bad, I havn't read it). I only have to show that aren'tisn't. No level playing field.

My point stands, which nobody has refuted, that certain speculation is easy to find in publications even though it, just like ID, doesn't belong in scientific journals.

David: [the] point is the same level of poor scholarship [as Meyer's]... will routinely make it into publication

Wesley: demonstrate that whatever you come up with is just as bad, if not worse, than Meyer 2004

David: Please point me to where I claimed I could find a paper worse than Meyers

QED

Moving on now:

David: I gave an example article. Who is to say, especially without bias from their presuppositions, that it is more, less or equally shoddy? .

Wesley gave you a long list of major deficiencies in the Meyer paper. You're simply dismissing them all as resulting from bias? That's my whole problem with your alleged argument here.

David: The furthest I would go is to say what I said, that there are published articles guilty of some of the same crimes

No. You said such poor scholarship routinely makes it into peer-reviewed science publications, pretty clearly implying that Meyer's piece was no worse than most. Or worse, that by your postmodernist "everyone's biased" argument, there's no way to judge one article as shoddier than another.

I daresay the ball is, in fact, still in your court.

(And, by the way, way-to-go, Wesley!)

My point stands, which nobody has refuted, that certain speculation is easy to find in publications even though it, just like ID, doesn't belong in scientific journals.

"There is NO level playing field.

That's it. I have stated nothing about ID. ID is good or bad based on its own merits, not whether it can get published."

So really you aren't saying much then, aside from a slight quibble about the review process. Anyways, we have a situation in which crap science (in your opinion) gets published. Alongside this we have an ID paper that has been published. Assuming you are correct, it sounds like the playing field is pretty (low) level.

Surely the only point here is over the quality of the science (particularly given that this paper HAS made its way into the literature). Why move from the key issues into this relatively irrelevant sideshow?

You are missing the boat, and that is probably my fault, because I continued arguing from the level playing field post of a while back. My point stands regardless of the level of scholarship of the ID paper, of which I haven't had time to read. That point is the same level of poor scholarship (and I am not judging Meyer's paper, but let's assume you are right) will routinely make it into publication---as long as it drinks from the correct kool-aid.

any speculation that that is remotely scientific has its place in scientific journals (though usually the more high-falootin' the hypothesis, the farther down in the paper's text it appears). ID is not remotely scientific, no matter how hard its apologists imagine it to be so. The idea that there are intelligent entities floating about the universe (in the "ether" or in spacecraft) who, from time to time, stop to "design" solar systems, planets, galaxies and life forms (how? we are told not to worry about those details by the creationists) is not a scientific theory. It is pure fantasy, to be shelved alongside the Wizard of Oz. It's proponents are about as worthy for inclusion among the ranks of serious scientists as the Trekkie who is convinced that Leonard Nimoy really is a Vulcan and spends his life debunking the "myth of the prosthetic ears."

Steve,

You are the first to accurately characterize my position. It is only that the contention that the review process is even-handed is a myth.

Oh those wacky pseudo-scientists who believed in a God that created the universe---Newton, Maxwell, . . . loony tunes one and all.

Are you introducing a brand new topic here, or is this somehow in response to something someone else wrote?

If ID is regarded by the establishment as fantasy, then it will never be reviewed objectively. And I actually do not have a problem with that.

Oh those wacky pseudo-scientists who believed in a God that created the universe---Newton, Maxwell, . . . loony tunes one and all.

It's not because of luck that we don't live in Antarctica, it's by design. There was intelligence behind the gross features of human migration, not random chance. These local inhospitable regions are observable. Other universes are not.

— David Heddle

"The "sexual relations" episode, which you pointed to, occurred at a news conference, so it wouldn't be perjury no matter how false it was."

— Bob

The September 2004 Scientific American article entitled The String Theory Landscape by Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski

— David Heddle

Is "design" and "intelligence" why other warm weather species (plants, etc.) avoid Antarctica too? Although you claim that ID is not science, your above quote, plus the lack of evidence that you give equal time to criticizing ID, suggests that you might favor the ID strategy to mainstream science, philosophically, if not scientifically. Please correct me if I am wrong. In addition, you claim not to be a young-earther. Have you then criticized the young-earth arguments, either for being falsified or for being unscientific?

Now as I understand it Scientific American while a good magazine the majority of the time is not subject to peer review.

For all I know, cosmologists may someday establish that there is and can only be one universe. If so, it will obviously be true that it's properties make life possible since in at least one case life did occur and if something does happen, it obviously was possible beforehand. Unfortunately, this rather sterile bit of modal logic is as far as you get. One would certainly be at liberty to be surprised at the fact that the world is friendly to life, but it would be quite illegitimate to claim that the fact implied to the existence of a transcendent creator. If you want to claim that the word "God" is simply a name for the surprising fact, that's your business--Spinoza also spoke about Deus sive Natura, God or Nature. Inferences beyond that point, however, are exercises in mythology unless you can come up with some other basis on which to deduce the existence of a creator. There's no cognitive gain in piling one mystery on another.

By the way, if there was a creator, he sure didn't do much creating. After all, the universe is mostly an enormous vacant lot. God is supposed to evince an inordinate fondness for beetles, but that's nothing compared to his obvious love for the Void.

Again, it was not my intention to argue ID v. evolution, but to argue against the rediculus, naive notion that there is a level playing field. Do any of you honestly think that a reviewer, given human nature, will actually look at an ID paper with the same open mind as a mainstream paper? I don't think so. If I ever get a article on cold fusion to review, I would be instantly biased. (Italics original)

RBH,

Fantastic! That was the simple point I have been trying to make. Only you had the cajones to admit it. Certainly not Wesley Elsbery and his minions who continue to insist that there is a level playing field.

I was getting bored with the "if the paper is acceptable then we will accept it" argument.

The truth, as RBH notes, is that most reviewers will view ID as garbage and not treat it seriously. Level. Right.

The truth, as RBH notes, is that most reviewers will view ID as garbage and not treat it seriously

while each of the two components (mutations and selection) is incapable of causing evolution alone, what makes evolution working is the combination of these two mechanisms. This combination gives rise to abilities absent in each of the components separately (as becomes obvious from the success of genetic algorithms).

while each of the two components (mutations and selection) is incapable of causing evolution alone, what makes evolution working is the combination of these two mechanisms. This combination gives rise to abilities absent in each of the components separately (as becomes obvious from the success of genetic algorithms).

Sorry for the double post. The first post didn't appear after 5 minutes, so I reposted. Unfortunately, you can see what happened...

What is missing is any kind of evidence that genetic algorithms model what actually happens in nature.

What about if a computer algorithm modeling an allele frequency in a biological population turns out to accurately predict the frequency of that allele (where the algorithm was run before the allele frequency is measured)? Would that count?

Charlie shows that his ID 'thesis' is little more than the typical appeal to ignorance. Many resources exist which show how evolutionary can lead to appearance of processes and systems.
Charlie hinted that Meyer's paper hardly representative of the quality of ID hypotheses but his own hypothesis seems to be not much different from the usual lack of details and appeal to ignorance. Combine this with an appeal to an unsupported 'law' and you have all the makings of poor science. IMHO of course. If Charlie wants to present his argument, let him do so on a suitable thread. This is not for discussions of Charlie's ideas.

Do any of you honestly think that a reviewer, given human nature, will actually look at an ID paper with the same open mind as a mainstream paper?

— David Heddle

I also have a weak spot for underdogs who like to challenge the status quo.

Ah, a fellow Deaniac! Welcome!

— Great White Wonder

Scientific inference is Bayesian, which is to say we properly assess the likelihood of a hypothesis in the light of what we already know. We have an immense amount of knowledge about natural processes, none of which supports the notion of intelligent design. Under the circumstances, an unlevel playing field is quite appropriate.

The ID folks have there own version of probability, a sort of pseudo-Bayesian inference that assesses probabilities not in the light of prior knowledge but in the light of prior faith. Their freedom of action is severely limited because they already know what conclusion they must come to. They are apologists, not discoverers, and doomed to the endless elaboration of increasingly baroque defenses of arbitrary mythological notions.

I reminded of an old joke: "Mommy! Mommy! Why do I keep running around in circles?" "Shut up, Billy, or I'll nail down your other foot."

A few more comments have been shifted to a more appropriate place.

I also note that no one was either willing or able to answer my assertions.

What am I? Chopped liver?

What am I? Chopped liver?

Why would Wes address your claims since they are purely eliminative and begging the question?

Hey Charlie,

Don't you just love it - once again we roll over and spread our cheeks. After making grave pronouncements and blowing the hell out of the place we pick up our guns and leave, and turn the place over to the Iraqi police or whatever. Deja vu all over again? Sadr seems to be getting pretty good at playing us like a fish on a line.

Something outside the realm of observation should likewise be outside the realm of science.

— David Heddle

RBH, Fantastic! That was the simple point I have been trying to make. Only you had the cajones to admit it. Certainly not Wesley Elsbery and his minions who continue to insist that there is a level playing field. I was getting bored with the "if the paper is acceptable then we will accept it" argument. The truth, as RBH notes, is that most reviewers will view ID as garbage and not treat it seriously. Level. Right.

— David Heddle

Don't you just love it - once again we roll over and spread our cheeks. After making grave pronouncements and blowing the hell out of the place we pick up our guns and leave, and turn the place over to the Iraqi police or whatever. Deja vu all over again? Sadr seems to be getting pretty good at playing us like a fish on a line.

Charlie,

A brief history:

The first election I could vote in I voted for Goldwater - guess I've come a long way since then. Twelve years in the AF, the last year or so working on an underground GI pub called The Short Times (I think- Altzeimers or CRS) in Columbia, SC that was aimed at troops at Fort Jackson and Shaw AFB. Discharged in Oct of '71 with pending orders to Thailand - was ready to go to jail before I'd get on the airplane. Obviously that's easy to say given the discharge date, but that's where my head was at.

I'm at a loss here - how in God's name are the polls still even? What the hell is wrong with this picture - or the voting population? God help us.

I'm at a loss here - how in God's name are the polls still even? What the hell is wrong with this picture - or the voting population? God help us.

Charlie,

If we look at the worst case, Kerry went under fire and padded his resume, W got perks and was either AWOL or a Deserter. Seems pretty clearcut to me. So much for service in the Vietnam years.

As for the past 4 years, I'm reminded of King Midas, except that everything our appointed prez has touched has turned to pappekak (check your dictionary for the Dutch derivation of "poppycock").

Hang in there - if there is a God, or a Goddess, we shall persevere. If not, come visit us in Costa Rica or British Columbia, or somewhere else where the Inquisition doesn't hold sway. Once again, God help us.

...if there is a God, or a Goddess...

Probably has a lot to do with patriarchies, Wayne.

Hmmm I can understand religions like Hindu having gods that have a gender but never could understand why the Hebrew/Christian/Muslam god would be a man.

Hmmm I can understand religions like Hindu having gods that have a gender but never could understand why the Hebrew/Christian/Muslam god would be a man.

Wayne, Steve, Russell,

Actually, I think it all started when men tumbled to the reality that babies weren't made when women danced naked beneath the full moon. That was, arguably, the single worst moment in the history of our species, and I'm afraid we'll never overcome the negative impact.

Does the immune system use random mutations to produce vast numbers of variant antibodies, some of which will then target the antigen?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040826085812.htm

If so, someone should tell the immune system it can't generate information like that.

Fyi, a possibly relevant and interesting book just popped up on my radar:

http://www.semcoop.com/detail/0674012860

Laws of Men and Laws of Nature
The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in England and America
Price: $49.95

by Tal Golan

Harvard University Press

Due/Published May 2004, 336 pages, cloth

ISBN 0674012860

Are scientific expert witnesses partisans, or spokesmen for objective science? This ambiguity has troubled the relations between scientists and the legal system for more than 200 years. Tal Golan tells stories of courtroom drama and confusion and media jeering on both sides of the Atlantic, until the start of the twenty-first century, as the courts still search for ways that will allow them to distinguish between good and bad science.

How would Creationists respond to the assertion that Creationism has mutated, and is in the process of evolving into Intelligent design?

You might find this interesting.
It's to the tune of "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" by Bob Dylan
Lyrics by me and apologies to Bob ;-)
------------------------------------

Osama bin Laden killed 3000 people
With planes that he sent to the New York island
To the World Trade center in early September
And the President came and swore he'd be punished.
And they hunted him down in the mountains of Asia
But they never were able to bring him to justice.
To answer the charges for the crimes he'd committed.
.
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your tears.

George W. Bush, who at fifty-four years
became the next President of the American nation
With rich wealthy friends who provide and protect him
And high office relations in the politics of America
Reacted to his deed with a high indignation
And words of retaliation and moral avengement
In a matter of months, with his neocon cronies
Invaded a country that never did nothing.

But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your tears.

All over America in towns and in villages.
Live desperate Americans and people in poverty
Who work every day and feed their poor children
And plenty of times have no meat on the table
Or medicines to give to the people in their household
Who just pray every day that they won't lose their jobs
And that their children will all get a good education
And maybe do better than their parents before them
Were stunned by the news, that they heard on the radio
That sailed through the air and came down through the room,
Doomed and determined to destroy all their confidence
And making them wonder how little they matter
To a country that's willing to dip in it's coffers
And send Eighty seven billion to the people of Iraq.

But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your tears.

In the schools and the courthouses, on the second of November
To show that we're free and that it's all on the the level
And that the votes in the precincts ain't pulled and persuaded
And that all of the candidates get properly handled
Once that their names are placed on the ballots
And that the American voter can voice his opinion.
Stared at the television and the nine o'clock newscast
And turned away quickly with sickness and anger
And he spoke from his newsbooth most deep and distinguished,
And praised the abundance of American democracy,
George W. Bush to a four year extension.

Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now's the time for your tears.

Comment #7180 Posted by Wadsworth on August 31, 2004 10:22 AM How would Creationists respond to the assertion that Creationism has mutated, and is in the process of evolving into Intelligent design?

Hilarious Regnery reference in This Modern World

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2004/08/30/tomo/index1.html

Finally, like the IDiots demand of evolution, an animal of one species has given birth to an animal of a different species. Darwin be praised.

http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=46825&cat=World

;-)

You might find this interesting. It's to the tune of "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" by Bob Dylan

Just as the conversation began to turn away from the side issues and towards discussion of Lysenko, Tim decided to end the discussion.

During the discussion I had erroneously read more into the essay than was actually there on the basis of some links Tim provided. My initial response should have indicated this difference. For the record, I believe that Tim's link to the debate on Sociobiology grossly misstates the issues and paints a false picture of anthropology.

Ironically, Tim did not make that correction, but instead went on at some length, in response to me about more or less the same points I had originally responded to. When I pointed out to Tim that his critique of the "left" was really not very well thought out, Tim pled in the alternative and decided I had read more into it than I saw. I was content to leave it at that.

But then, even as he shut down the discussion, Tim threw fresh meat in the form of new attacks against the "left", rather than against Stalin. So, now it seems, I must reiterate what I said at first:

I don't think it is appropriate to try and hijack Panda's Thumb as a means of attacking the "left" or the "right". I suspect in fact, most posters would rather avoid a "left" - "right" debate and focus on the science and the problems with ID on this forum.

Tim has every right to make his opinion known and to make extensions of his argument. The only problem is they are poorly reasoned and amount to little more than cliched and hackneyed accusations against the "left".

"I am sorry that the conversation on this thread has diverged from Trofim Lysenko, which is what I had hoped we might discuss."

To encourage a discussion of Lysenko, perhaps it would have been better not to begin the post with an explicitly political plea for funds.

In Tim's honor, I donated 10 dollars to the Communist Party of the United States. I sure hope they don't get too powerful, though. They might join up with Osama and Saddam and take over our country! So scary.

I also intend to rewatch Joseph Losey's amazing film, "The Prowler," on the last films he directed before he fled the US. Of course, the movie was ghost written by the blacklisted writer Dalton Trumbo who, in a great bit of amusing irony, plays a husband who is murdered by the corrupt "American Dream"-obsessed cop who is the film's antihero (portrayed by the great Van Heflin).

Will I think about the murders of 100,000,000 at the hands of Stalin and Co. as I watch the film? Nope. Why would I? Those murders had as much to do with communism as the Holocaust had to do with patriotism (America's favorite -ism, right above capitalism, which is right above religious fundamentalism).

Tim speaks oh so highly of the principle of freedom and yet could care less when innocent human beings are brainwashed by their parents to believe that unless one behaves in a certain way they are going to suffer excruciating pain from the moment they die until the end of time. Makes sense to anyone? Not to me.

just before this thread got switched to the Bathroom Wall, I got hit with a bunch of quotations from astronomers who think that the fine tuning of physical constants is evidence of some sort of providence. I don't agree with these worthies, but my point hadn't been about the design of the universe but the design of living things. And one would be hard pressed to find very many biologists who would claim that the biological evidence suggests design.

By the way, the proper place to discuss ultimate truths is a philosophy class, not a physics class; and to say so is not to brag up philosophy but simply to point out that physicists who make metaphysical claims are acting as philosophers and might as well move to the right department. Or maybe somebody will point out how God is properly symbolized in quantum field theory.

Since the vast majority of scientists don't think that intelligent design is a meaningful area for research . . . Everything points away from design so the believers have to redouble their contributions to further what is sheer propaganda

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural") plan.

A question that has always been considered a topic of metaphysics or theology has now become an area of active research in physics.

Amazing fine-tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word "miraculous" without taking a stand as to the ontological status of that word.

It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of a God who intended to create beings like us.

One would have to conclude that either the features of the universe invoked in support of the Anthropic Principle are only coincidence or that the universe was indeed tailor made for life. I will leave it to the theologians to ascertain the identity of the tailor.

As we survey all the evidence, the thought instantly arises that some supernatural agency---or rather Agency---must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?

A superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as the chemistry and biology.

The medieval theologian who gazed at the night sky through the eyes of Aristotle and saw angels moving the spheres in harmony has become the modern cosmologist who gazes at the same sky through the eyes of Einstein and sees the hand of God not in angels but in the constants of nature . . . When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.

Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline to the theological or design argument.

If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been waiting there for centuries.

[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all . . . It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe . . . The impression of design is overwhelming.

This is the worst fine tuning problem in physics

As I can attest to from my experience on this site, there is a near reflexive name-calling and generalization response to anything that deviates from accepted dogma.

Hey Russell,

You want me to go find places on this blog where IDers are called ignorant and stupid?

Oh wait--I know the response--but that's because IDers are ignorant and stupid.

Oh, then we have: IDers never publish in peer reviewed journals--and they would get a fair shake if they tried--but don't bother because ID is not science so no reviewer would take them seriously--but let's keep criticizing them for not publishing--except if they do publish let's criticize the journal, and disparage the institutions of the reviewers, and the beliefs of the editor.

As I can attest to from my experience on this site, there is a near reflexive name-calling and generalization response to anything that deviates from accepted dogma.

Fyi: Paul Davies is a moron.

David Heddle:

You want me to go find places on this blog where IDers are called ignorant and stupid?

No, I want you to show how that's the "near-reflexive" norm. I can also find places on ths blog where ID critics are called ignorant and stupid, proving.... what?

Oh, then we have: IDers never publish in peer reviewed journals---and they would get a fair shake if they tried---but don't bother because ID is not science so no reviewer would take them seriously---but let's keep criticizing them for not publishing---except if they do publish let's criticize the journal, and disparage the institutions of the reviewers, and the beliefs of the editor.

As I mentioned in the Meyer thread, ID celeb Michael Behe has just published an article in Protein Science. I find it an interesting paper; I'm glad Protein Science published it. It finally puts some of Behe's questions about evolution where they need to be, if they're going to be taken seriously: in the scientific literature.

Meyer's paper, on the other hand, has been meticulously dissected by Wesley, and rather than addressing the substance of that dissection, you've gone on this rather unseemly rant about how unfair we all are. The martyr pose is wearing a little thin.

I find David Heddle's list of quotes in post #7311 to be a facile way to make an argument. Many quotes (none of which is properly referenced) appear to be excellent examples of unadorned quote mining. That said, there is no doubt that a noticeable proportion of physicists believe that features of our universe (e.g. formation of stars or the evolution of life-as-we-know-it) would not have been possible unless certain fundamental parameters fell in narrow ranges. There is surely a fascination with this fact (if such it is) among physicists and some even think that it supports their favourite cosmogical model (e.g. a version of inflation) or favourite theistic belief (e.g. our universe was fine-tuned to enable the evolution of life).

I am willing to grant that it is reasonable to believe that features of our universe (like formation of stars and the prebiotic evolution of life-as-we-know-it) critically depends on fundamental parameters having values in narrow ranges. However, I find the cosmological fine-tuning argument for conscious design of our universe weak for the following reasons:

* Life is not necessarily the same as life-as-we-know-it (or life-as-we-think-we-know-it). Lacking a precise definition of life, or at least a list of precise necessary features of life, there is no way to validly conclude that fundamental parameters must have precise values. For instance, David Heddle has previously wanted to use L. Krauss' authority to convey the impression that life is only possible if the cosmological constant is fine-tuned to a precision of 10^-60 or 10^-120. (That's actually a misunderstanding of Krauss' comment, but I'll save this point for later.) It is impossible to reach this conclusion in the absence of an equivalently precise understanding of the necessary properties of life!

* There is no obviously reasonable way of defining a probability distribution over the parameters of the standard model of particle physics and the parameters of the cosmological models. We do not know which ranges actually make sense and how future theories of quantum gravity and cosmology will constrain these parameters. (N.B. Notice that I'm not making the silly argument that the probability of an event that has occurred must be 1. The probability distribution referred to is of course the probability distribution prior to conditioning on facts about our particular universe.)

* The thought of an anthropomorphized supernatural being capable of both designing universes and cognitive functions, like anticipation and caring for the inhabitants of the universe, is an extremely remarkable one. It would be unlike any cognition-as-we-know-it. Indeed, if such beings are possible, then our current understanding of life seriously underestimates the possible forms of life. This completely undermines the self-consistency of the fine-tuning argument for conscious design of our universe.

* Even suppressing the above qualms, there is something seriously defective about the fine-tuning argument. A universe-designer could choose to simply sustain life magically---designing a universe fine-tuned for the prebiotic evolution of life is just one of many options available to a universe-designer. There is a Bayesian argument to made that the fact that life is not magically sustained is a point against supernaturalism. This argument is made in detail by Ikeda & Jefferys here:

http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html

I would like to hear from just one IDer who is not a creationist

ID is synonymous with creationism.

Fyi: Paul Davies is a moron. If Paul Davies wants to debate me re evolutionary biology he knows where to find me. If Paul Davies wants to smoke ditchweed and write pop science garbage for Omni magazine, there are plenty of web sites that will help him achieve his goals.

— Great White Wonder

I find David Heddle's list of quotes in post #7311 to be a facile way to make an argument.

Life is not necessarily the same as life-as-we-know-it

David Heddle has previously wanted to use L. Krauss' authority to convey the impression that life is only possible if the cosmological constant is fine-tuned to a precision of 10^-60 or 10^-120. (That's actually a misunderstanding of Krauss' comment, but I'll save this point for later.)

Even suppressing the above qualms, there is something seriously defective about the fine-tuning argument. A universe-designer could choose to simply sustain life magically----designing a universe fine-tuned for the prebiotic evolution of life is just one of many options available to a universe-designer. There is a Bayesian argument to made that the fact that life is not magically sustained is a point against supernaturalism. This argument is made in detail by Ikeda & Jefferys here:

And we shall furthermore show that with certain theologies suggested by deities that are both inscrutable and very powerful, the more "finely-tuned" the universe is, the more a supernatural origin of the universe is undermined. (emphasis mine)

We suggest that any reasonable version of supernaturalism with such a deity would result in a value of P(F|~N&L) that is, in fact, very small (assuming that only a small set of possible universes are F). The reason is that a sufficiently powerful deity could arrange things so that a universe with laws that are not "life-friendly" can sustain life. Since we do not know the purposes of such a deity, we must assign a significant amount of the likelihood function to that possibility. Furthermore, if such a deity creates universes and if the "fine-tuning" claims are correct, then most life-containing universes will be of this type (i.e., containing life despite not being "life-friendly"). Thus, all other things being equal, and if this is the sort of deity we are dealing with, we would expect to live in a universe that is ~F. (italics mine)

Some time ago, I found myself walking along the beach. As I looked out over the ocean, sunlight sparkled on the gently rolling swells. At one point in my view, the beach, the ocean and the sky seemed to merge into one. There is something compelling about the ocean, and I was a lone water-gazer upon this beach. Mountains have a certain grandeur and likewise canyons and forests. I have seen them all. But the ocean is special, and I always feel the need to venture as close as I can without getting wet. But at some certain point in time, I am always constrained to remove my shoes and socks and place my feet into the swirling waters. It is a holy baptism of life. On this particular day, as I walked further down the beach, I saw a young boy who looked to be about five or six years old. He had dug a deep hole in the sand just above the water line and was going back and forth with a paper cup, dipping water from the ocean and pouring it into the hole. I watched him for some time and finally asked him what he was doing. He replied that he was going to empty the whole ocean into the hole. Since the water disappeared down the hole each time he poured, he assumed that it would only be a matter of time until his task was accomplished.
When I was a young boy, I looked out into the night sky and marveled at the beauty of the stars. I began to learn about the stars and the planets, and I soon took to the task of counting the number of stars that I could see. I would lie on my back on the beach and divide the heavens into sections, counting each one carefully and adding them up. Twenty, forty, eighty...one hundred! When I was older, my father bought me a small telescope and I soon realized that there were many more stars than I thought. I learned in school that there were almost 2500 stars that could be seen with the naked eye on a clear night. I soon realized that some of the points of light were not stars at all, but huge galaxies, filled with countless numbers of additional stars. Even today, with our most powerful telescopes, the farther we look, and the better we see, the numbers of stars and galaxies keeps ever increasing. Needless to say, I have given up trying to count the stars in the sky and just as surely, that little boy will someday realize that he has a better chance of getting the whole ocean into that little hole than he does of ever understanding the mysteries of the universe.

In what way is Paul Davies a moron?

Have you considered that if you actually believe their result then you you should embrace evidence for design because it rules out a creator!

that little boy will someday realize that he has a better chance of getting the whole ocean into that little hole than he does of ever understanding the mysteries of the universe.

Fyi: Paul Davies is a moron. If Paul Davies wants to debate me re evolutionary biology he knows where to find me. If Paul Davies wants to smoke ditchweed and write pop science garbage for Omni magazine, there are plenty of web sites that will help him achieve his goals.

Is there some portion of Davies' views with which you disagree and would you care to eleborate on this disagreement and state your justification for it?

No one or the other shows any signs of emerging triumphant and winning the day.

The pot does not question the potter.

I've read most of Davies' work

It's all up there in black and white, Charlie.

Um, evolutionary theory has "won the day" to the extent any theory can "win the day." Let's be accurate about the state of affairs. You can disagree with the outcome, but the fact is that evolutionary theory (and we needn't quibble about the meaning) works for scientists and it has worked for over a hundred years and (I predict) will continue to work until language is irrelevant because there are no more humans.

What do you mean "just the same"?

Of course you have. His work is very popular with creationists.

Evolutionary theory (and we needn't quibble about the meaning) has been soundly debunked.

Evolutionary theory (and we needn't quibble about the meaning) has been soundly debunked.

— charlie wagner

Maybe in some alternate universe you come from Charlie but sorry evolution still holds true for 99% of the biologists out there.

Charlie . . . . you and you aliens don't answer anything. I have yet to see you address where your designing aliens came into being.

And as far as GWW comments on Paul Davies . . . .

I wasn't making an argument, but a point---that the idea of design evidence is not anathema to many well know physicists. I can give the references for each quote if you like. The quotes make that point, manifestly so, I would say.

— David Heddle

Please explain, and in particular explain whether life requires complex chemistry, which then severely limits the possibilities. BTW, it's irrelevant for this discussion, because most of the quotes are directed to "mere" fact that galaxies/stars/planets exist at all, not to the question of how many earth like planets exist. In other words, the question of what-kind-of-life is secondary---unless you are arguing that any universe, even one composed of only hydrogen gas, might support life.

I missed were you addressed this. Please explain how Krauss, not David Heddle, refers to it as "the worst fine tuning problem in physics" if I am misquoting him and he does not, in fact, consider it a fine tuning problem.

If there is a supernatural creator, then the question of why he chose to create in the manner that he did is, in some sense, impertinent, and certainly immune to Baysian analysis. The pot does not question the potter.

As for the paper you refer, let's see that in a refereed journal. I don't have to analyze it at all---their claim "And we shall furthermore show that with certain theologies suggested by deities that are both inscrutable and very powerful, the more "finely-tuned" the universe is, the more a supernatural origin of the universe is undermined." (emphasis mine) is beyond salvage.

Look at this amazing assumption that their analysis depends (critically) upon: [quotation cut out /Erik] They are stacking the deck, as their absurd conclusion (the more fine-tuned, the less likely a designer) should have alerted you.

Have you considered that if you actually believe their result then you you should embrace evidence for design because it rules out a creator!

David Heddle has previously wanted to use L. Krauss' authority to convey the impression that life is only possible if the cosmological constant is fine-tuned to a precision of 10^-60 or 10^-120. (That's actually a misunderstanding of Krauss' comment, but I'll save this point for later.)

— Erik

I missed were you addressed this. Please explain how Krauss, not David Heddle, refers to it as "the worst fine tuning problem in physics" if I am misquoting him and he does not, in fact, consider it a fine tuning problem.

— David Heddle

"The problem with this from a fundamental perspective is that a cosmological constant----associated in modern parlance with a non-zero vacuum energy density in the universe---on a scale which would be cosmologically relevant and yet still allowed today would take a value which is roughly 125 orders of magnitude smaller than the naive value one might expect based on considerations of quantum mechanics and gravity (see for example [4]). This apparent discrepancy would involve the most extreme fine tuning problem known in physics, and for this reason many particle physicists would prefer any mechanism which would drive the cosmological constant to be exactly zero today." and "At present, it is clearly too early to choose one cosmological model over the other. It is clearly getting increasingly difficult to find accord with a flat universe without a cosmological constant. The question then becomes: Which fundamental fine tuning problem is one more willing to worry about: the flatness problem, or the cosmological constant problem? The latter involves a fine tuning of almost 125 orders of magnitude, if the cosmological constant is non-zero and comparable to the density of clustered matter today, while the former involves a fine tuning of perhaps only 60 orders of magnitude if one arbitarily fixes the energy density of the universe at the planck time to be slightly less than the closure density. Numerological arguments might thus suggest that one should be more prepared to give up flatness than a zero cosmological constant. I claim however, that this argument is incomplete. We have a perfectly good theory, involving physics well below the planck scale, for why we might live in a flat universe. As long as there was an inflationary regime in the early universe, the universe generically is driven to be approximately flat to many more decimal places than are required to resolve the flatness problem. Moreover, when considering possible particle physics models of the early universe, inflation seems to be ubiquitous. The difficulty seems to be not how to get enough inflation, but rather how to end it. On the other hand, we have absolutely no theory of the cosmological constant at all. Other than vague a priori prejudice, there is no well defined physical argument at the present time suggesting a zero, rather than arbitrarily small value of this quantity. Moreover, the energy scale associated with a non-zero cosmological constant which dominates the universe today is not unusual. It corresponds to the characteristic mass scale which is discussed for neutrino masses which might solve the solar neutrino problem. Also interesting, recent arguments suggest that if the laws of physics predict a distribution of universes, with randomly chosen values for the cosmological constant, then quantitative anthropic arguments make it not implausible that it should be observed to be comparable to the matter density in the universe today [36]. Whatever one's views toward anthropic arguments, it is not clear that the same reasoning could be applied to the flatness problem. Precisely because we have physical laws which suggest the universe should be flat, I would argue the a priori probability distribution for the curvature parameter one might reasonably consider should be strongly peaked about zero, in which case anthropic arguments along the lines applied to the cosmological constant might not be as suggestive, to the extent such arguments are suggestive." from Krauss L.M. (1997) "The End of the Age Problem, And The Case For A Cosmological Constant Revisited", preprint astro-ph/9706227

Your comments, I can't decipher, and I am a physicist -- you can differentiate between models and the "real" universe, obviously, but the bottom line as Krauss's own words clearly indicate is : with our present knowledge of cosmology (and more data has become available that differentiates and favors the cosmological constant option) "This apparent discrepancy would involve the most extreme fine tuning problem known in physics, and for this reason many particle physicists would prefer any mechanism which would drive the cosmological constant to be exactly zero today."

and

"The latter [which is the one that is now favored by recent data]involves a fine tuning of almost 125 orders of magnitude,"

So argue semantics all you want, but answer this: Did Krauss misrepresent himself?

So, did Krauss not mean "an extreme fine tuning" or "fine tuning of 125 orders of magnitude" when he wrote "an extreme fine tuning" and "fine tuning of 125 orders of magnitude" ?? Dis he actually mean something else? Please answer that before giving nebulous wordy apologies.

Really, the best you can say is that perhaps someday we'll have a better understanding and the fine tuning will turn out to be only apparent fine tuning. Perhaps. But even this wish is not relevant, for my point was that non creationists, many of them, see fine tuning or design. They might not see it as evidence of God, but they do see and acknowledge it and even find it fascinating.

The fact that you guys are willing to state that Krauss did not mean 120 orders of magnitude fine tuning when he writes exactly that makes the mind reel.

Why do you think that life requires complex chemistry

So argue semantics all you want, but answer this: Did Krauss misrepresent himself? So, did Krauss not mean "an extreme fine tuning" or "fine tuning of 125 orders of magnitude" when he wrote "an extreme fine tuning" and "fine tuning of 125 orders of magnitude" ?? Dis he actually mean something else? Please answer that before giving nebulous wordy apologies.

— David

The fact that you guys are willing to state that Krauss did not mean 120 orders of magnitude fine tuning when he writes exactly that makes the mind reel.

— David

God is a red herring in arguments about cosmology. If the state of basic physical constants is mysterious, dragging in an empty name from traditional human mythology isn't going to make it any less mysterious.

How is it less arbitrary to explain the fine tuning of fundamental physical concepts by refrence to Yahweh than to explain them as resulting from the occult power of a pimple on my butt? I mean I don't understand how the pimple could have retroactively created the universe, but then nobody seems to have even the most elementary idea of how a God could have done it either and the pimple is at least real.

Pim,

No Erik did not give a good explanation, he threw some words together and now the lemmings are delighted that they can claim Krauss was misunderstood. Doesn't work guys. Krauss's own words are too straightforward. They were not plucked out of context. Nor have they been disputed by Krauss.

You guys have your panties bunched up just because some scientists acknowledge that fine tuning exists---because you are afraid that IDers will use that as evidence for design, and of course they will. You would rather deny the obvious (that those scientists see and acknowledge fine tuning) than provide fodder for the IDers. Krauss, and the other scientists I quoted (I guess each and every one are misunderstood) are (a) much more honest and (b) much more confident in science, for their response is not "oh no, i didn't mean that!" but "this is fascinating, lets study more to see if we can make what appears now to be miraculous actually be the necessary result evident in a deeper understanding."

The fairest reading I can make of Erik's explanation of Krauss's writings is that he [Krauss] is saying that the currnet findings show that the current models are very wrong because they give a result 120 orders of magnitude too large. (He is not, for one thing you have to look at the dual significance of the huge reduction and the fact that the result is not identically zero.)

Now if this all about our current best estimated turning about to 120 magnitudes off, then Krauss would have been expected to write (and other cosmologists would have to have agreed) that "looks like we don't know anything, and our our current models are crap."

If an experimental result is simply showing your theory is off my 120 orders of magnitude, you humbly jettison the theory, you don't call your failure "fine tuning".

He would not have characterized such a circumstance as "extreme fine tuning".

Wading through this string of duelling parameters and magnitudes, claims and counterclaims, and sometimes disdainful retorts and rejections, this layman's fundamental question remains.

"Fine tuning" is only fine tuning if it can be demonstrated that the observed result was the specific intended consequence of a willful action by a known intelligent entity. It cannot be demonstrated by after-the-fact Faith-based suggestions by the resultant organism that, since hesheitwe exist and could only exist if certain conditions were present, those conditions were therefore intentionally provided by an imagined unknown and unidentified "Designer."

The "Designer" argument seems to me at least dangerously close to a tautology (I'm being kind here) and not worth serious consideration without credible evidence for the before-the-fact existence of any potential Designer or Creator God.

We are here, and the universe is here. That the conditions required for that do exist is self-evident. What, beyond that simple statement, can be legitimately inferred - and why? Lookingback is not an option.

So argue semantics all you want, but answer this: Did Krauss misrepresent himself?

— David Heddle (post #7382)

So, did Krauss not mean "an extreme fine tuning" or "fine tuning of 125 orders of magnitude" when he wrote "an extreme fine tuning" and "fine tuning of 125 orders of magnitude" ?? Dis he actually mean something else? Please answer that before giving nebulous wordy apologies.

The fact that you guys are willing to state that Krauss did not mean 120 orders of magnitude fine tuning when he writes exactly that makes the mind reel.

The fairest reading I can make of Erik's explanation of Krauss$(Bs (Bwritings is that he [Krauss] is saying that the currnet findings show that the current models are very wrong because they give a result 120 orders of magnitude too large. (He is not, for one thing you have to look at the dual significance of the huge reduction and the fact that the result is not identically zero.) Now if this all about our current best estimated turning about to 120 magnitudes off, then Krauss would have been expected to write (and other cosmologists would have to have agreed) that "looks like we don't know anything, and our our current models are crap." If an experimental result is simply showing your theory is off my 120 orders of magnitude, you humbly jettison the theory, you don'$(Bt )Bcall your failure "fine tuning". He would not have characterized such a circumstance as "extreme fine tuning".

— David Heddle (post #7389)

Hi Dr. Krauss. I am arguing with someone about what, exactly, you meant by the phrase "the most extreme fine tuning problem known in physics" in the article Krauss L.M. (1997) "The End of the Age Problem, And The Case For A Cosmological Constant Revisited", preprint astro-ph/9706227, arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9706227 One of us thinks that this refers to the difficulty in formulating a model of the microscopic phenomena that give rise to a cosmological constant with a reasonable value. That is, the mentioned "fine tuning problem" is a problem concerning the construction of microscopic models in which a cosmological constant arises naturally. The other one of us thinks that it is an example of the kind of fine tuning that is often used to argue that our universe was consciously created by some supernatural entity. That is, the mentioned "fine tuning problem" is a problem related to the construction/origin of our universe through non-divine means. So which one of us, if any, is right? Thanks in advance, Erik PS. With your permission, I would like to post your reply to a discussion thread (www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000445.html) at the Panda's Thumb blog (www.pandasthumb.org). DS.

— Erik (e-mail sent to Krauss)

----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence Krauss" To: "Erik" Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 6:32 PM Subject: Re: Question about your preprint astro-ph/9706227 > Hi... I was referring to the difficulty of formulating a microscopic > model where the vacuum energy is fine tuned to be 120 orders of > magnitude smaller than one might expect it to be. It has nothing to do > with any supernatural entity... it is a > fundamental physics issue. > > LMK > > On Sep 5, 2004, at 11:27 AM, Erik wrote: > > > Hi Dr. Krauss. > > I am arguing with someone about what, exactly, you meant by the phrase > > "the > > most extreme fine tuning problem known in physics" in the article > > > > Krauss L.M. (1997) "The End of the Age Problem, And The Case For A > > Cosmological Constant Revisited", preprint astro-ph/9706227, > > arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9706227 > > > > One of us thinks that this refers to the difficulty in formulating a > > model > > of the microscopic phenomena that give rise to a cosmological constant > > with > > a reasonable value. That is, the mentioned "fine tuning problem" is a > > problem concerning the construction of microscopic models in which a > > cosmological constant arises naturally. The other one of us thinks > > that it > > is an example of the kind of fine tuning that is often used to argue > > that > > our universe was consciously created by some supernatural entity. That > > is, > > the mentioned "fine tuning problem" is a problem related to the > > construction/origin of our universe through non-divine means. > > > > So which one of us, if any, is right? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Erik > > > > PS. With your permission, I would like to post your reply to a > > discussion > > thread (www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000445.html) at the Panda's > > Thumb > > blog (www.pandasthumb.org). DS.

Ouch.

Thanks Erik, that clarifies it and supports your interpretation.

Heddle: With the best guess based on the most recent data regarding the geometry of the universe (open-flat) it looks like the overall fine tuning is even better (worse?) than one part in 10^60, but one part in 10^120. ... It is not a probability but a required precision. ... Notice Krauss does not say that the value is not what we expect which would be interesting enough, but he characterizes it as the worst fine tuning problem. Steve: Precision refers to decimal places of significant digits, and we don't have any significant digits on the cosmological constant, let alone 10^60 of them. Heddle: Steve you made a catastrophic error etc etc Pim: So far we have seen how contrary to David's claim, Krauss does not argue that the cosmological constant has to be accurate to within 120 decimals for life or universes to arise but rather that given a particular model and observations, the cosmological constant is constrained in such manner. Heddle: No Pim, it doesn't matter how many times you deny it. Krauss (thanks to Erik): I was referring to the difficulty of formulating a microscopic model where the vacuum energy is fine tuned to be 120 orders of magnitude smaller than one might expect it to be.

If I had any sense I'd be studying for the physics GRE. But this is just so entertaining. I think we should refer to the happening above as a Dembski Wolpert Event. That's when a creationist uses cutting-edge science to make their argument, then the cutting-edge scientist says the creationist is wrong.

Okay. Back to studying boring-ass Fermi stats. I can't imagine anything better than Erik's post happening for awhile.

Rule #1 why IDers should stick to misrepresenting quotes of scientist that are dead and can not clarify them.

I was rereading a bit of "The Mind of God" by Paul Daives this weekend. Seems to me that, while he believes in god, he doesn't promote our universe as being specially made by god for life. He explicitly states that he does not think that we are the reason the universe is here but just a piece of the overall picture. I'll pull exact quotes and referenses tonight when I get home.

Nothing I've seen from him actually indicates he doesn't support cosmological models that don't require an input from a devine creator. He states that no matter what models we use there will always be something we can not answer and that is best left to theology.

Why did we evolve to
become evil?
Or is evil not
real because
you don't have a model showing what for, why, and how?
Thank you.

I'm confused by your post Charlie. What do you mean? We don't evolve to become evil. We evolve. Some people may be more evil then others. Evil is very subjective. What is good for some is evil for others. Not everything is totally scientific. Psychology and biology may find answers to why some people might have certain tendencies.

And I wonder how we are becoming evil. Depending on what you qualify as evil you will probably find a number of people to argue with that. I think what we see is that we are far more exposed to the world around us through the media but I don't know if there are more evil acts done these days.

I'll take a topic that I'm concerned with as I have a 8 year old son. That topic is child abduction and sexual abuse. Now being 34 myself and thinking back to 1976 when I was 6 and walked about a mile to school we didn't think anything of it. Many kids did the same thing at the same age. I, as much as I've said I wouldn't be like this, hate to think of having my son walk alone to the corner shop. Is there any difference from 1978 when I was 8 and 2004 when my son is 8? We look at the numbers and they are surprisingly similar. Child abduction hasn't risen. It's our awareness of the issue that has. Does that mean there are more evil people out there. Nope, just that more people are aware of the evil people out there. Sadly those that we used to feel safest around are now those that you need to fear the most. My child is more likely, just as I was 26 years ago, to be kidnapped by someone they know then by a stranger. Neighbors and priests are the ones you have to worry about not the stranger driving down the road.

Errr I've once agian come across a reason I don't visit creationist web sites very much.

I pulled this from Dawkins Watch With Commentary by Dr. Richard Paley

Perhaps I should look into getting a doctorate in Evolutionism from one of the many Evolutionist diploma mills that are used to routinely inflate the reported numbers of supposed scientists who believe in that supposed science.

Well, I didn't know that most universities around the world where just "diploma mills". I guess I should go get my degree at some place real via mail order where all I need to do is accept Jesus and I get a P.H.D.

Is it weird that I'm more scared of people like Dr. Richard Paley then a thug in a dark alley?

Erik,

I can hardly believe what I am reading, regarding the question you sent to Krauss. Talk about stacking the deck. This debate was not about supernatural fine tuning, but whether the quotes show that mainstram scientists see fine tuning--supernatural or not--Krauss's answer does not deny that.

You completely couched your question as between a secular scientist and a IDer. Of course Krauss will come down on the side of the non-ID spin.

You should have asked a question that did not reveal any bias. A simple:

"Does the recent evidence in the universe's geometry and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe present a fine tuning problem for cosmology?"

I predict he would have answered YES, as I have been saying.

Instead you said, more or less, "Hey Krauss, I'm arguing with one of those nutso God believing IDers, am I right or is he?"

And you know, Krauss answered exactly as I said he would -- that yes there is fine tuning, but no it has nothing to do with the supernatural but a physics issue(as we all would have expected him to say)

He din't refute what I was claiming about him (Krauss) or the other non-ID scientists who see fine tuning, he only said it wasn't ID.

Waste of time, but I am sure it will at least allow you guys to pat each on the back and declare victory.

Is it weird that I'm more scared of people like Dr. Richard Paley then a thug in a dark alley?

— Wayne Francis

Wayne,

I am not sure if your rule number one refers to my list of quotes, but I'll point out most (I think all but one) of those scientists are still alive.

What's your point about Davies? This debate (if you are in this debate, apologies if you are not) is whether mainstream scientists see fine tuning--even while not attributing it to God. If Davies does not see divine input, then that strengthens my case, given his quote, which is accurate.

I should like to make my own position clear at the outset. As a professional scientist I am fully committed to the scientific method of investigating the world. I believe that science is an immensely powerful procedure for helping us to understand the complex universe in which we live. History has shown that its successes are legion, and scarcely a week passes without some new progress being made. The attraction of the scientific method goes beyond its enormous power and scope, however. There is also its uncompromising honesty. Every new discovery, every theory is required to pass rigorous tests of approval by the scientific community before it is accepted. Of course, in practice, scientists do not always follow the textbook strategies. Sometimes the data are muddled and ambiguous. Sometimes influential scientists sustain dubious theories long after they have been discredited. Occasionally scientists cheat. But these are aberrations. Generally, science leads us in the direction of reliable knowledge. I have always wanted to believe that science can explain everything, at least in principle. Many nonscientists would deny such a claim resolutely. Most religions demand belief in at least some supernatural events, which are by definition impossible to reconcile with science. I would rather not believe in supernatural events personally. Although I obviously can't prove that they never happen, I see no reason to suppose that they do. My inclination is to assume that the laws of nature are obeyed at all times. But even if one rules out supernatural events, it is still not clear that science could in principle explain everything in the physical universe. There remains that old problem about the end of the explanatory chain. However successful our scientific explanations may be, they always have certain starting assumptions built in. For example, an explanation of some phenomenon in terms of physics presupposes the validity of the laws of physics, which are taken as given. But one can ask where these laws come from in the first place. One could even question the origin of the logic upon which all scientific reasoning is founded. Sooner or later we all have to accept something as given, whether it is God, or logic, or a set of laws, or some other foundation for existence. Thus "ultimate" questions will always lie beyond the scope of empirical science as it is usually defined.

— Paul Daives

I have come to the point of view that mind, i.e., conscious awareness of the world, is not a meaningless and incidental quirk of nature, but an absolutely fundamental facet of reality. That is not to say that we are the purpose for which the universe exists. Far from it. I do, however, believe that we human beings are built into the scheme of things in a very basic way.

— Paul Daives

This debate was not about supernatural fine tuning, but whether the quotes show that mainstram scientists see fine tuning---supernatural or not---Krauss's answer does not deny that.

— David Heddle

I was referring to the difficulty of formulating a microscopic model where the vacuum energy is fine tuned to be 120 orders of > magnitude smaller than one might expect it to be.

You said that Krauss was talking about some creator fine tuning

The Krauss comment is the THEORY needing fine tuning not the UNIVERSE.

Do realize how silly that is?

— David

I give up--

Is rhetoric taught anymore?

I won't be returning to this thread.

Promise?

As I said, back to the drawing boards. You're always welcome to return. We tend to be a forgiving crowd. After all, we all make mistakes.

I would like to invite you all to grill Kent Hovind!

He will be appearing live on the internet talk show Live With The Infidel Guy this coming Friday, September 10^th, starting at 8 PM Eastern. The topic is "Can Evolution Be Falsified, and Is Christianity True?" The show will last two hours, and has a toll-free number to call in.

For more details, please visit http://www.infidelguy.com.

Please join our community in this great opportunity!

Thanks for your time.

I would like to invite you all to grill Kent Hovind!

The mid-eastern world, it is explodin'. Violence flarin', bullets loadin' You're old enough to kill, but not for votin' You don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin' And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin' But you tell me Over and over and over again, my friend Ah, you don't believe We're on the eve of destruction. Don't you understand what I'm tryin' to say Can't you feel the fears I'm feelin' today? If Bush is elected, there's no runnin' away There'll be no one to save, with the world in a grave Take a look around you boy It's bound to scare you boy And you tell me Over and over and over again, my friend Ah, you don't believe We're on the eve of destruction. Yeah, my blood's so mad feels like coagulatin' I'm sitting here just contemplatin' I can't twist the truth, it knows no regulation. Handful of senators don't pass legislation And marches alone can't bring liberation When human respect is disintegratin' This whole crazy world is just too frustratin' And you tell me Over and over and over again, my friend Ah, you don't believe We're on the eve of destruction. Think of all the hate there is in Fallujah Then take a look around to Gaza and Kabul You may leave here for 4 days in space But when you return, it's the same old place The poundin' of the drum, the pride and disgrace You can bury your dead, but don't leave a trace Hate your next-door neighbor, but don't forget to say grace And . . . tell me over and over and over and over again, my friend You don't believe We're on the eve Of destruction Mm, no no, you don't believe We're on the eve of destruction.

Hey Charlie,

Bad moon a'risin' maybe? I'm a bit uneasy around the edges. He's proven a liar and his numbers hold. What'it all about, Alfie?

War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning "Well myth is always part of the way we understand war within a society. It's always there. But I think in a peacetime society we are at least open to other ways of looking at war. Just as patriotism is always part of the society. In wartime, the myth becomes ascendant. Patriotism, national self-glorification infects everything, including culture. That's why you would go to symphony events and people wave flags and play the "Star Spangled Banner." In essence, it's the destruction of culture, which is always a prerequisite in wartime. Wartime always begins with the destruction of your own culture. Once you enter a conflict, or at the inception of a conflict, you are given a language by which you speak. The state gives you a language to speak and you can't speak outside that language or it becomes very difficult. There is no communication outside of the cliches and the jingos, "The War on Terror," "Showdown With Iraq," "The Axis of Evil," all of this stuff. So that whatever disquiet we feel, we no longer have the words in which to express it. The myth predominates. The myth, which is a lie, of course, built around glory, heroism, heroic self-sacrifice, the nobility of the nation. And it is a kind of intoxication. People lose individual conscience for this huge communal enterprise. I think the myth is remarkably similar from war zone to war zone. At least, as it pertains to how the nation that prosecutes a war looks at itself. We become the embodiment of light and goodness. We become the defenders of civilization, of all that is decent. We are more noble than others. We are braver than others. We are kinder and more compassionate than others -- that the enemy at our gate is perfidious, dark, somewhat inhuman. We turn them into two-dimensional figures. I think that's part of the process of linguistically dehumanizing them. And in wartime, we always turn the other into an object, and often, quite literally, in the form of a corpse. Well, we've come frightenly far in this process. And this has been a long progression. It began at the end of the Vietnam war. The defeat in Vietnam made us a better nation and a better people. We were forced to step outside our own borders and see how other people saw us. We were forced to accept very unpleasant truths about ourselves -- our own capacity for evil. I think that that process, especially during the Reagan years, or at least that state, began to disintegrate. War once again became fun: Grenada; Panama, culminating in the Persian Gulf War. So that we're now at a process -- Freud argues that all of life, both for the individual and within human society, is a battle between Eros, or love, and Thanatos, or the death instinct. And that one of these instincts is always ascendant, at one time or another. I think after the Vietnam war, because of the terrible costs that we paid, because of the tragedy that Vietnam was, Eros was ascendant. I think after the Persian Gulf war, where we fell in love with war -- and what is war, war is death -- Thanatos is ascendant. It will, unfortunately, take that grim harvest of dead, that ultimately those that are intoxicated with war must always swallow, for us to wake up again. Well, I think war is probably the supreme drug. War -- first of all, it is a narcotic. You can easily become addicted to it. And that's why it's often so hard for people who spend prolonged times in combat to return to peacetime society. There's a huge alienation, a huge disconnection, often a longing to go back to the subculture of war. War has a very dark beauty, a kind of fascination with the grotesque. The Bible called it "the lust of the eye" and warned believers against it. War has a rush. It has a hallucinogenic quality. It has that sort of stoned-out sense of -- that zombie-like quality that comes with not enough sleep, sort of being shelled too long. I think, in many ways, there is no drug, or there are no combination of drugs that are as potent as war, and one could argue as addictive. It certainly is as addictive as any narcotic." Chris Hedges http://tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6657

Bad moon a'risin' maybe? I'm a bit uneasy around the edges. He's proven a liar and his numbers hold. What'it all about, Alfie?

Hi Charlie,

It strikes me that the Hedges piece is apretty much about self-initiated war, in which case I would generally agree with what he's saying, in the same context that I would agree that in order to sight down on someone and squeeze the trigger you must first dehumanize them and label them other, or enemy, or evil.

At any rate, much too heavy to get very far into after several glasses of wine. Take care.

I don't know if I agree with Chris Hedges. While being in combat can get adrenaline flowing quiet quickly I don't believe most people would get addicted to it. For many they may get desensitized. From my own experiences and those I've served with combat/war is an unpleasant experience that is at time necessary.

While I agree that we need to look at how the rest of the world looks at us I would have to point out that America is not alone in this regard. This is a issue around the world. Countries have their self interest first and others 2nd. Australia, Russia, France, UK, Zimbabwe, Saudi, Brazil, Japan and every country between them act in self interest and often to the detriment of others around them. The problem is that the most powerful countries end up adversely affecting the most people in the name of self interest. Most people ignore these situations when their country does them because to question/act against them means they would be affected and usually affected economically. How man people in the US would agree to pay $3+ a gallon for gas to make life easier in the middle east for the average Joe? How many people around the world complain that their job has been outsourced to India or some other country?

While we, as Americans, need to look at ourselves and figure out how the rest of the world view us we also need to look at the rest of the world and figure out how we should view it. Some things we can control and work on others are outside of our control. There will always be people that hate those that are financially better off then they are, we can not control that. What we can control to some extent is the amount we actual exploit other countries for our own benefit. At the end of the day you have to be able to accept your effect on the world with open eyes. I know I could do a lot more for those around the world then I do. I realized that my TV, DvD, Computer, Hi-Fi, and other luxuries that I have could have saved a number of lives elsewhere in the world if I channeled the funds to them instead of buying said item for my own enjoyment.

When comments like Chris Hedges I wonder why he makes them. He's a reporter and I'm sorry but most don't tell it like it is. They tell it like they think a certain demographic wants to hear it. Talk to someone that was in combat and see what their general feel for it is. The dark side is something we don't like to reveal. War changes people and not for the better but it is still often needed because we are human and without it you would have those that abuse the masses. A just war in best described as the lesser of 2 evils. What makes me sad is when, and it is often the case, we break our own values in the name of war. US is not the only one that does this. Every country would be guilty of it to some degree.

Personally I think the UN should be much stronger. The amount of atrocities going on around the world is ridiculous and peoples attitudes of "out of sight out of mind" is appalling. So when I see the US going into a situation as a bit of a police action while I admit that it is not often because of the most just reason if it serves the end I'll accept the lesser of 2 evils.

Is over 1000 American lives worth the changes in Iraq? Only time will tell. If at the cost of my life 2 others could be saved that otherwise would be lost then that is a sacrifice I would make. A problem is the quantities and how we measure them. Yes we put S.H. into power but we where not the only ones. There where many other countries that where willing to let him in because they benefited too. The difference I believe here is that most Americans acknowledge our part in the whole affair while the other countries site quietly back and ignore their history in the matter.

Maybe I and those I've served with are different from those that Chris Hedges knows but I'm not addicted to war. War is to me a gross tasting medicine with bad side effects that is sometimes needed to cure an ailment and I'm glad to be not taking it but if I had to again I would.

Has anyone seen the Protein Science advance article by Michael Behe? John Bracht clued me into this last night. Find it by PubMed or Searching the articles of Protein Science (it's the only one he's written in that journal). The co-author is David Snoke at U. Pittsburgh. The model applies theoretically only to haploid, asexual organisms. Even requiring several mutations, they don't require unreasonable population sizes to achieve fixation of a new function by this very limited mechanism. Furthermore, I think it's good that they mention in their discussion the fact that they're only looking forward at the chance of getting dealt a particular hand before you have to leave the game, not backward at the many hands that could have won. But, since you're discussing Steve Meyer's junk, you might want to turn some attention to Michael Behe's more modest statements. Since I do protein docking, the fact that Michael Behe is trying to make a case for protein interfaces being irreducibly complex piqued my interest.

T Sandefur is a looneytarian - do not believe in his insane drivel! By the way, wasn't it a shame that the USA got their asses whipped in the ICC trophy yesterday? http://www.rackjite.com/9looney.htm
R Feder

By the way, it's actually 8.42 am! Is there something wrong with your clock?
R Feder

What the hell is going on here? We're undergoing an onslaught of spam and porn crap. Whoever has the axe duty this weekend needs to wield it.

Wesley--

As an evolutionary biologist interested in novelty, it seems to me that you are missing the point when someone criticizes Darwinism for not explaining the origin of new genes. Scientific articles that report genes with i) an isolated distribution and ii) distinctive properties provide _prima facie_ evidence for a historically important process of the origin of new genes. However, they do not address the sufficiency of theories about the mechanism for this process. A theory about the mechanism of origin of features does not simply reiterate the historical inference that this or that specific thing happened.

Last summer I attended the European Society of Evolutionary Biologist meeting in Leeds, UK, and one of the speakers, James Cheverud, the eminent quantitative geneticist, showed a slide with the standard quantitative genetics equation for change (deltaZ = G*P^-1*Beta), and pronounced "This is neo-Darwinism". Indeed, there is a close correspondence between this formal model of evolution and the intuitive/verbal neo-Darwinian view that we read about in textbooks, in which change literally takes place by infinitesimal increments ("gradualism") due to selection on abundantly available variation. However, this view does not give us a way to address discrete sudden changes like the origin of new genes.

It is a double mistake to think that we can craft a Darwinian explanation simply by invoking 'mutation and selection', which is neither Darwinian nor an explanation. A century ago, the so-called "mutationists" invoked mutation and selection, the way that many molecular evolutionists do today, but precisely because of this they were not Darwinists. The dominant view today is not derived from the mutationists, but from neo-Darwinists who said that natural selection utterly controls the course of evolution and does not need to wait for new mutations to arise, but instead acts on the basis of abundant infinitesimal variation; mutation was not seen as creative because (it was claimed) new features never arose in one mutational step, but were molded from infinitesimal variation at many loci. In this view, it was the highly improbable nature of this coming together that made natural selection creative. This is why today evolutionary biologists in most fields attribute organismal features to natural selection-- because they have fundamentally accepted and internalized the neo-Darwinian view that natural selection is creative, rather than the mutationist view that it is not.

But jumping to the mutationist view to explain new genes does not immediately solve the problem either. Until we begin to have a predictive theory of the origin of novelty (something more than just, mutation happens by 'chance' and then its selected), we do not have real explanation in terms of principles, but just a reiteration of historical inferences. And, in the absence of formal principles that account for the non-random tendencies of the creative process, some naive people will fall prey to the idea that there is one giant principle of 'design' that explains all of these tendencies.

Arlin

mutation was not seen as creative because (it was claimed) new features never arose in one mutational step, but were molded from infinitesimal variation at many loci.

this view does not give us a way to address discrete sudden changes like the origin of new genes

Hi friends, I see that the pesky word " 'neo'Darwin'ian' or - 'ism' has popped up, and no good is coming of it as usual. Who needs the umpteenth strawman definition of such a word? In Darwin's time, no one knew about DNA so one could argue that anything about it is unDarwinian.

What is of interest here, I think, is contemporary evolutionary biology. Does it matter that the first thing you see in the morning, the LED of your digital alarm clock, is non-Newtonian? I don't think so. Meanwhile, duplications of parts of genomes, from very short segments to genes to chromosomes to whole genomes are very much part of biological knowledge and part of evolutionary biology including our understanding of new protein function. By using the imho right term 'evolutionary biology', perhaps an unnecessary argument may be avoided.

Best wishes to all.

Pete

Nick--

Darwinism and its successor, neo-Darwinism, are substantive theories about how evolution works, not necessarily true deductions from first principles (e.g., variation + heredity + reproductive excess --> selective change), nor open-ended research programs. And if we define Darwinism as a substantive theory, its substance must connect with what "Darwinism" has meant for the past 140 years-- we can't just assign the word "Darwinism" arbitrarily to the theory of whatever-seems-reasonable-at-the-present-moment.

The substance of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, which (if you can stand it) you can get from reading Gould's giant 2001 book, is that evolution takes place by infinitesimal changes ('gradualism'), that natural selection is creative, and that natural selection controls the rate and direction of evolution. That is, Darwinism has a doctrinal basis that does not depend on specific mechanisms but instead makes rather general claims. That is how we can have a "New Synthesis" theory with a completely re-engineered mechanism that is still referred to as "Darwinian". The continuity comes from the continuity of doctrines, not specific mechanisms.

The doctrinal position of Darwin and his successors was understood explicitly by them to be in opposition to the view that creativity and direction were at least partly due to internal propensities of mutation (often, but not necessarily, Lamarckian propensities). Most biologists at the time did not accept Darwin's doctrines, so they did not accept his theory of evolutionary causes. This included some of Darwin's closest scientific colleagues such as Huxley and Galton. Just as now, it was quite reasonable for scientists not to be Darwinists on the issue of gradualism vs. saltationism or on the issue of exlusively-external-selective control vs. internal-variational control of the course of evolution.

Finally, even if it were true, it would be no excuse to say that Darwin didn't know about mutation. Are you saying that a general theory D for some process E can't be expected to accomodate facts about E that are not known at the time D is proposed? This is exactly the opposite of what we expect a good theory to do.

But its not true, anyway. Darwin and the neo-Darwinian architects of the modern "New Synthesis" DID KNOW ABOUT MUTATION. For Darwin a mutant was called a "sport". Darwin denied the relevance of sports to evolution. Its right there in Darwin's Origin of Species, repeated multiple times, if you care to read it, that evolution takes place by infinitesimal changes due to 'fluctuations' or 'variations', and not to 'sports'. For the architects of the New Synthesis, mutation was merely a material cause, a source of "raw material" for "evolution" , a "random" process, a matter of "chance", and not something that gave shape or direction to evolution. Instead it just built up the kind of infinitesimal 'variation' on which evolution was really based, in their view. Denying the importance of rare "sports" was doctrinally necessary for Darwin, because how could external natural selection be the source of creativity and direction if evolution happened in the mutationist manner, by natural selection individually accepting or rejecting distinctive mutants that arise discretely by some internal process? For the same doctrinal reasons, the architects of the New Synthesis, in order to earn the right to be called "Darwinist", had to keep repeating the old saw about mutation being "random", and had to insist that evolution simply did not occur in the mutationist manner, that features never arose in one or a few distinctive steps, but always by selection molding features creatively by the highly improbable drawing together of infinitesimal variation at many loci. Here is how Stebbins (1966. Processes of Organic Evolution. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 29) says it, in a typical bit of over-the-top neo-Darwinian rhetoric:

"mutations are rarely if ever the direct source of variation upon which evolutionary change is based. Instead, they replenish the supply of variability in the gene pool which is constantly being reduced by selective elimination of unfavorable variants. Because in any one generation the amount of variation contributed to a population by mutation is tiny compared to that brought about by recombination of pre-existing genetic differences, even a doubling or trebling of the mutation rate will have very little effect upon the amount of genetic variability available to the action of natural selection. Consequently, we should not expect to find any relationship between rate of mutation and rate of evolution. There is no evidence that such a relationship exists."

No well informed evolutionist would draw this conclusion today, because it is so clearly counter-factual. And of course, trying to apply this view to the origin of new genes just doesn't work, as you seem to realize. Thus you are not a neo-Darwinian either. You are a mutationist.

Arlin

Darwin denied the relevance of sports to evolution. Its right there in Darwin's Origin of Species, repeated multiple times, if you care to read it, that evolution takes place by infinitesimal changes due to 'fluctuations' or 'variations', and not to 'sports'.

Here's some research with much better experimental data than the Meyer paper. Is it worth submitting to Physical Review?

Lightning Strike Injures About 40 Players, Coaches Near Texas High School Field The Associated Press GRAPELAND, Texas Sept. 15, 2004 --- About 40 players and coaches with the Grapeland High School football team in East Texas were injured, two of them critically, when lightning struck near their practice field Tuesday evening, authorities said.

How funny would it be, to be on the other team, and in the after-game interviews, repeat that cliche of sports victory, "I'd like to thank Jesus for helping us win out there today, and overcome our difficulties . . . ."

The failure of Capitalized Creationist Terms is delightful, but I want to see what's left of them amidst the rubble--have they said anything that's not been utterly demolished? Calling the human clotting cascade IC obviously fails because there are several processes which can activate clotting. The system can be effective with several parts removed. Calling eyes IC obviously fails. Bees can see ultraviolet--are our eyes less IC then? Dogs can't see much color. Are their eyes less IC than ours? etc.
Some ID claims, like IC, have been beaten so hard it's boring and painful to watch. Like SLOT arguments, like information theory arguments, like protein odds arguments. We all know that. But does anyone know any ID claims which have been insufficiently destroyed?

Heh Les: For a few years now there's been a running joke with some friends--"Fig. 1: Check this shit out." Like Jeff K, and Kent Hovind's 'education', that never ceases to amuse.

Everyones favorite creationist (and probably the most 'in'famous) nu-creationist Michael Behe has a new article published. Anyone care to read and discuss? It's a bit too technical for me..

http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps.04802904v1

Several tens of thousands of papers are published every year just in biology. It takes a couple hours to read a paper. Can you give me a good reason for reading this one, instead of one of the others?

"Today I found myself following a car with the license plate NJK 143. What were the odds of that?"

BTW, if anyone's thinking about upgrading Firefox to 1.0 Preview Release, you might want to wait a few days. Many great extensions have not yet been upgraded to work with it, but should soon.

Everyones favorite creationist (and probably the most 'in'famous) nu-creationist Michael Behe has a new article published. Anyone care to read and discuss? It's a bit too technical for me..

There will be a whole separate post on that soon. Meanwhile, I have read it and I would say it's remarkable in that it is (so far as I know) the first and only serious [/] paper in a serious scientific journal by an explicitly "Darwin-skeptical" author.

While, of course, it is part of the "Wedge strategy" to try to wedge ID visibility into mainstream science, I say Behe is to be commended for putting his questions in the only forum where their merits can be assessed sensibly: the standard, peer-reviewed scientific literature. (NOT PR campaigns, school-board putsches, opinion polls and Sunday school pep rallies.)