Anti-Evolution in Georgia (Again)

I have not previously examined a bill like this before but to a lawyer, the proposed language is fascinating. In particular, the clause, "...factual scientific evidence supporting or consistent with evolution theory and factual scientific evidence inconsistent with or not supporting the theory shall be included in he course of study" is a juicy chunk of meat for the litigation grinder. The first issue being, of course, what is "factual scientific evidence" and who gets to decide. If Bridges's bill were to pass, it would be delicious irony to use the quoted language to slam the first person who tries to bring ID into a Georgia classroom.

The proposed bill is also incoherent, because it is logically impossible to teach both evidence consistent with a scientific theory and evidence inconsistent with that scientific theory. A scientific theory is a theory that is falsifiable. A theory is abandoned when there is scientific evidence that disproves the theory. The theory is then falsefied and no longer a valid scientific theory. So, if there is evidence inconsistent with a certain theory, that theory is no longer a valid theory (because it has been falsified).There is either a scientific theory, or prove against it, in wich case it is no longer a scientific theory.
It is of course possible to advance a scientifically valid argument that would disprove the theory if the argument could be proven, as the ID people are trying to do. But if their argument isn't proven, it isn't scientific evidence.

if there is evidence inconsistent with a certain theory, that theory is no longer a valid theory (because it has been falsified)

a) Whenever any theory on the historical origins of modern religions is included in a course of study offered by a local unit of administration, factual scientific evidence supporting or consistent with the existence of Mohammed and other major non-Christian religious figures, and factual scientific evidence inconsistent with or not supporting their existence shall be included in he course of study.

b) The method of instruction described in subsection a of this code section is intended to strengthen the analytical skills of students by requiring the presentation of a broad range of scientific evidence regarding theories of the origin of modern religions and the existence of their key founders. The requirements of subsection a) of this code are not intended to authorize or promote the presentation of religious beliefs.

What's the difference?

There is lots of (quantum) evidence that is inconsistent with General Relativity, and vice-versa; but those are probably the most successsful scientific theories ever, and certainly are valid theories in the domains in which they are known to apply.

A scientific theory is a theory that is falsifiable. A theory is abandoned when there is scientific evidence that disproves the theory. The theory is then falsefied and no longer a valid scientific theory. So, if there is evidence inconsistent with a certain theory, that theory is no longer a valid theory (because it has been falsified).There is either a scientific theory, or prove against it, in wich case it is no longer a scientific theory.

As usual most evolutionist have failed to grasp what the people who believe in ID are actually saying. Scientists that believe in ID do not have the 'evidence' that disproves evolution. We all have the same evidence - it's just how we interpret that evidence. People who believe in evolution just look at the evidence from a different perspective than I do. There will never be 'proof' for either side of the argument, but sometimes a different perspective fits better in what we are seeing in the here and now. There is a phrase that seams to apply here, "Seeing is not believing, believing is seeing". If more scientist actually start from a blank page when looking at evidence then they might just discover something new.

GodsOwn, your science is as good as your English.

There is no scientist who believes in evolution. Evolution is science, and science is a study of evidence that demonstrates things so no belief, no faith, is required.

If there is a scientist who believes in ID, it is a faith statement, and not a statement of science.

As usual, sadly, the IDists have failed to distinguish between hope of evidence for deity, and reality.

If more anti-evolutionists took the Boy Scout Law's imprecation to be trustworthy more seriously, we wouldn't have otherwise sane, rational and friendly people claiming that scientists are all deceived by the creation God made -- a statement which is ultimately the opposite of the faith the IDists claim to wish to promote.

What a tangled web, indeed.

As usual most evolutionist have failed to grasp what the people who believe in ID are actually saying.  Scientists that believe in ID do not have the 'evidence' that disproves evolution.  We all have the same evidence - it's just how we interpret that evidence. 

— GodsOwn

GodsOwn:

Steve Rueland: "It's true that one can interpret a given set of facts however one wishes, but it's not true that all interpretations are equally valid, or equally truth conducive."

I would add that the interpretation that counts in biology is the one held by a near consensus of professional biologists. Science is determined by experts in the field. For example, brain surgery techniques are determined by experts in that field.

But this bill is unnecessary! Biology teachers all across the country are already presenting all the factual evidence that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory. Presenting all the factual evidence that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory, in fact, is one of the easiest tasks in any biology course. All you need to do is maintain total silence for approximately zero seconds, and you're done!

It's true that one can interpret a given set of facts however one wishes, but it's not true that all interpretations are equally valid, or equally truth conducive. Some interpretations are illogical, ad hoc, question begging, untestable, inconsistent with other accepted interpretations, or at odds with other accepted facts.

Re the comments of "GodsOwn" -

Suggesting that scientist (sic) start with a blank slate flies in the face of how science is done. Scientists approaching this problem bring with them an extensive background in biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc. The "blank slate" approach ignores the working tools of scientists. Further, the notion that one can arbitrarily choose a set of assumptions (i.e., a "perspective") without testing their validity is also a wrong one. I detect the influence of AiG in your post.

The "blank slate" is a synonym for "bible", but cleaned up for legal purposes.

We evolutionists struggle in this argument because we fail to go far enough. Letting the ID proponents define evolution as a theory lets them aver the presence of doubt. What we need to point out is that evolution (lower case "e") is an indisputable fact: it is a fact that life on earth today is different than it was in the geologic (or in the case of antibiotic resistant bacteria, the recent) past. Any reasonably intelligent person who argues to the contrary lacks intellectual perspicacity, or intellectual honesty, or both.

The 'theory' applies to the proposed mechanism of this change, ID (like it or not) being a mechanism. The reason ID does not belong in the science classroom is that it's support is founded on the principle of "res ipsa loquitor." To it's supporters, ID must be factual as no other explanation is fathomable. A 'minor' flaw of ID is that there isn't a shred of data (or is it a particle of datum?) to establish the existence of an intelligent designer. "The thing speaks for itself," to them IS the fact. But to anyone who believes observation of evidence is a fundamental part of theorizing, theory in the absence of observation equals an article of faith; and that would be religion.

We very much need to define the parameters of this debate if we are to prevail. Insist on presenting the FACT of evolution. Examine dilligently the theories of its mechanism. Include as science those based on observation, and dismiss those which are based on the notion that "it couldn't have happened any other way.

A final note: when Darwin first proposed his theory of Natural Selection, his skeptical contemporaries criticized him: selection requires a Selector, they insisted....the more things change...

4. CREATIONISM: SHOULD WARNING MESSAGES BE REQUIRED ON BOOKS? Manufactures are required to include warnings on labels. Why not text book publishers? Besides, the stickers Cobb County wanted on biology texts weren't exactly wrong evolution really is "just a theory." http://www.aps.org/WN/WN05/wn011405.cfm Science is open. If someone comes up with a better theory, the textbooks will be rewritten. Although requiring warning labels on medicine bottles is vital, on books they become official doctrine. Several readers suggested stickers for bibles in Cobb County: "This book contains religious stories regarding the origin of living things. The stories are theories, not facts. They are unproven, unprovable and in some cases totally impossible. This material should be approached with an open mind, and a critical eye towards logic and believability."

Short and to the point - I love it.

To GodsOwn, When you talk to this group about Intelligent Design, you will be attacked. It brings to mind a comment I read that goes like this: "I am reminded of a Russian believer who said he always suspected that the Bible must be important because the government tried so hard to get them not to read it." I think that we have nothing to fear. Just as children in the fictional story saw that the Emperor had no clothes, children will see that where there is order, structure, and design, one must look around for a Designer. Evolution may be a word chosen to describe adaptation and change within a species, but it takes creation to bring matter into being. Creation suggests a Creator. We know that everything is made of matter, which consists of the basic natural elements, but where did matter come from? How did it cover the universe in the form of planets and stars? And how did the laws which govern matter originate? I do not believe that evolutionist have satisfactory answers to these questions and while they may be successful in keeping the mention of a creator or of intelligent design out of public schools, the intellectual processes will continue. The day will come, if not in this country, in other countries where the questions will arise and there will be those who will know and serve the Creator.

To GodsOwn, When you talk to this group about Intelligent Design, you will be attacked. It brings to mind a comment I read that goes like this: "I am reminded of a Russian believer who said he always suspected that the Bible must be important because the government tried so hard to get them not to read it." I think that we have nothing to fear. Just as children in the fictional story saw that the Emperor had no clothes, children will see that where there is order, structure, and design, one must look around for a Designer. Evolution may be a word chosen to describe adaptation and change within a species, but it takes creation to bring matter into being. Creation suggests a Creator. We know that everything is made of matter, which consists of the basic natural elements, but where did matter come from? How did it cover the universe in the form of planets and stars? And how did the laws which govern matter originate? I do not believe that evolutionist have satisfactory answers to these questions and while they may be successful in keeping the mention of a creator or of intelligent design out of public schools, the intellectual processes will continue. The day will come, if not in this country, in other countries where the questions will arise and there will be those who will know and serve the Creator.

And how did the laws which govern matter originate?

To GodsOwn, When you talk to this group about Intelligent Design, you will be attacked.

It brings to mind a comment I read that goes like this: "I am reminded of a Russian believer who said he always suspected that the Bible must be important because the government tried so hard to get them not to read it." I think that we have nothing to fear. Just as children in the fictional story saw that the Emperor had no clothes, children will see that where there is order, structure, and design, one must look around for a Designer.

Evolution may be a word chosen to describe adaptation and change within a species, but it takes creation to bring matter into being.

Creation suggests a Creator.

We know that everything is made of matter, which consists of the basic natural elements, but where did matter come from?

How did it cover the universe in the form of planets and stars? And how did the laws which govern matter originate?

I do not believe that evolutionist have satisfactory answers to these questions and while they may be successful in keeping the mention of a creator or of intelligent design out of public schools, the intellectual processes will continue.

The day will come, if not in this country, in other countries where the questions will arise and there will be those who will know and serve the Creator.

Your acknowledgement brings us back to the beginning of my first question to an evolutionist. If evolution does not deal with the origin of the species, why are evolutionist fighting the mention of creation or the mention of intelligent design in a classroom? I believe you have given lengthy answers to the effect that none of the scientist who study either of the above are truly "scientist" regardless of the fact that many have doctorates. You have spent a great deal of time expounding your theories of how and why any scientific evidence or theories outside of evolution should be discounted and not allowed in a classroom. In your opinion, this means that the mere idea of anything outside of "evolution" is anathema. (Please, I really do understand your position, even with my limited intellect.) My thinking on this subject is that the origin of the species is indeed a worthy topic for a science class. If the presence of a Creator or the evidence of Intelligent Design in some way causes "evolution" to be brought into question, questions should be allowed in a science class.

Jan,

You said, "My thinking on this subject is that the origin of the species is indeed a worthy topic for a science class."

My thinking on this subject is that this is exactly what evolution addresses - the origin of new species through mutation and accumulated change over time, subsequent to the Origin of Life.

From the studies that I have read, I see evolution as change over time within a species. How do evolutionist explain the original species? Even so,I fail to see the origin of new species. I do not believe that mutations create NEW genetic material? To accept evolution as the origin of new species, you still have to deal with the origin of the original species. This must mean that at some point non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred OR a Creator called life into existence. If educators choose to just not address this issue due to the religious nature of the presence of a Creator, it will not stop students from wanting to know. I see absolutely no conflict with the first admendment and the mention of the possiblity of a Creator in a classroom. The idea that life could have been called into existence is not establishing a state religion. The first amendment stated in its entirety reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Perhaps we will someday have federal judges who are able to read and understand what this means. Until then, our children may have questions that we are forbidden to answer.

Your acknowledgement brings us back to the beginning of my first question to an evolutionist.

f evolution does not deal with the origin of the species, why are evolutionist fighting the mention of creation or the mention of intelligent design in a classroom?

I believe you have given lengthy answers to the effect that none of the scientist who study either of the above are truly "scientist" regardless of the fact that many have doctorates.

You have spent a great deal of time expounding your theories of how and why any scientific evidence or theories outside of evolution should be discounted and not allowed in a classroom.

In your opinion, this means that the mere idea of anything outside of "evolution" is anathema.

(Please, I really do understand your position, even with my limited intellect.)

My thinking on this subject is that the origin of the species is indeed a worthy topic for a science class.

If the presence of a Creator or the evidence of Intelligent Design in some way causes "evolution" to be brought into question, questions should be allowed in a science class.

From the studies that I have read, I see evolution as change over time within a species.

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.

How do evolutionist explain the original species?

Even so,I fail to see the origin of new species. I do not believe that mutations create NEW genetic material? To accept evolution as the origin of new species, you still have to deal with the origin of the original species. This must mean that at some point non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred OR a Creator called life into existence.

If educators choose to just not address this issue due to the religious nature of the presence of a Creator, it will not stop students from wanting to know.

I see absolutely no conflict with the first admendment and the mention of the possiblity of a Creator in a classroom.

The idea that life could have been called into existence is not establishing a state religion. The first amendment stated in its entirety reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Perhaps we will someday have federal judges who are able to read and understand what this means. Until then, our children may have questions that we are forbidden to answer.

If evolution does not deal with the origin of the species

— Jan

. . . why are evolutionist fighting the mention of creation or the mention of intelligent design in a classroom?

— Jan

If the presence of a Creator or the evidence of Intelligent Design in some way causes "evolution" to be brought into question, questions should be allowed in a science class.

— Jan

Perhaps we will someday have federal judges who are able to read and understand what this means. Until then, our children may have questions that we are forbidden to answer.

— Jan

Wayne, you said, "We do object to answering your religious beliefs in science class". (What does that mean, anyway?)

You misunderstand me on the statement concerning the interpretation of the first amendment. Because of the wording of the first amendment, I stand by my statement that it has been misinterpreted. I am not a lawyer, but I did minor in Political Science and I do feel that I am able to read and interpret written material. First let me say that I do not approve of government schools. I believe that private schools, when affordable and competitive, can be much more effective and less political. But for now, we must work within the framework of government schools. When I speak of the interpretation of the first amendment, I am not referring to the 'free exercise thereof' reference. Personally, I do not feel that Hinduism, Buddism, the religion of Islam, Judaism or any other religion is a threat to Christians. I am not advocating that any religion be taught per se in a classroom, Christianity included. It is my belief that the first amendment was never intended to prevent a teacher from acknowledging the presence of God. It rather was intended to: a.) make sure our schools do not endorse a particular religion b.) prevent our government from requiring that we belong to any particular religion or worship in any way prescribed by government and c.)ensure that our tax dollars not be used to support any particular religion.

You stated, "Abiogenesis and how it happened which we admit we know very little about..."

Because so little is known and so little can be known outside of faith, is it not wrong to deprive children of the fact that many believe in a Creator? This is not teaching religion or prescribing a particular religion, it is telling students the truth. It is not instructing them in how they should believe, it is stating a fact; the fact that many people do believe in creation. I realize that my simple statements here cause others to write volumes, and I plan to get off and leave this website to others, but I do hope that those who read this will consider what I have written and maybe just one will rethink their position on this.

[Wayne] stated, "Abiogenesis and how it happened which we admit we know very little about . . . " Because so little is known and so little can be known outside of faith, is it not wrong to deprive children of the fact that many believe in a Creator?

— Jan

Because so little is known and so little can be known outside of faith, is it not wrong to deprive children of the fact that many believe

— Jan

Because of the wording of the first amendment, I stand by my statement that it has been misinterpreted.

— Jan

You stated, "Abiogenesis and how it happened which we admit we know very little about . . . "

— Jan

So please once again don't confuse Abiogenesis and how it happened which we admit we know very little about with Evolution for which there is a mountain of data for.

— Jan

Because so little is known and so little can be known outside of faith

— Jan

test before I double post because of cgi error

Wayne, You think I am confused?? I am not meaning to be unkind, but look at your sentence structure and grammar. Example: "Nice that you might and I are in a position..." This inability to communicate is becoming the norm rather than the exception and I think that the effectiveness of public education should be re-examined.

As for your questions, I did not think you were seriously wanting a reply. Are you asking for this information?
Species - caballus - horse
Species asinus - asses and donkeys of northern Africa
Species - hemionus - desert onagers of Asia and the Mideast
Species burchelli - lowlands zebra of Africa
Species - zebra - Mountain zebra of South Africa
Species - grevyi - most horse-like zebras
Yes, they are each a separate species, however they are closely related and some have been known to interbreed. The offspring is usually incapable of reproduction. I believe Darwin addressed this under 'Fundamental Constants'.
Do you wish me to list species under (genus Felis)? With the bird family, it would be a little more complicated and take a great deal of space, so I will await your decision.

Would you visit the site below and read materials that I believe are valid and deserve our attention? This work is well documented.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1958/JASA3-58Frair.html

As for my original request concerning the origin of the species in a science classroom, the readers of this blog either do not understand that abiogenesis (the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter) is an appropriate topic for science class and that all possiblities should be addressed OR the readers prefer that students be denied access to the knowledge that a large number (actually a majority of)Americans see evidence of an Intelligent Design and therefore evidence of creation. The writers of this blog prefer that students not be told that the chances of a planet having the ability to sustain life as our planet does is only 1 in 150,000,000,000,000,000. How much greater would be the odds of having life appear spontaneously from lifeless matter?

How much greater would be the odds of having life appear spontaneously from lifeless matter?

— Jan

About Jan's link. Even though it was copyrighted 1958, I read on. But when I got to "That the fundamental similarities among living organisms can be explained only on a basis of a relationship of descent." being a "presupposition of evolutionary workers," there really was no point in reading further.

Frank, the numbers that I quoted came from Clayton and Jansma who offer "Estimated Odds of Selected Variables Vital to an Earth-like Planet Occurring by Chance" in their book The Source. What do you think the chances are or stated another way, what are the odds of a planet having the precise measurements and positions needed to sustain life? Consider everything needed from the right galaxy to the distance of the moon that controls our tides, the atmospheric gases needed, the distance from a star that is precisely the right size to provide heat without burning anything and/or everything to a crisp and on and on and on....? My personal suspicion is that the odds are much greater than those suggested by Clayton and Jansma. If you are wondering who John Clayton is, from what I have been able to find out about him, he is described as a scientist and a former second-generation atheist who came to believe in God while attempting to prove that the Bible contradicts known scientific facts.

I have not had an opportunity to go to the site you suggested yet, as I have been away all afternoon, but I will do so as soon as I have some free time.

My personal suspicion is that the odds are much greater than those suggested by Clayton and Jansma. If you are wondering who John Clayton is, from what I have been able to find out about him, he is described as a scientist and a former second-generation atheist who came to believe in God while attempting to prove that the Bible contradicts known scientific facts.

Wayne, You think I am confused?? I am not meaning to be unkind, but look at your sentence structure and grammar. Example: "Nice that you might and I are in a position . . . " This inability to communicate is becoming the norm rather than the exception and I think that the effectiveness of public education should be re-examined.

— Jan

As for my original request concerning the origin of the species in a science classroom

— Jan

The writers of this blog prefer that students not be told that the chances of a planet having the ability to sustain life as our planet does is only 1 in 150,000,000,000,000,000. How much greater would be the odds of having life appear spontaneously from lifeless matter?

— Jan

large number (actually a majority of) Americans see evidence of an Intelligent Design and therefore evidence of creation.

— Jan

Palaeontological and embryological data indicate that the horse series is a genuine phylogeny, but it does not constitute an example of megaevolution since the morphological change documented is within the taxonomic rank of family. It is possible for creationists to interpret this morphological change as within-kind diversification after the Flood. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionist and creationist models it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.

— Paul Garner

Oh Jan a point for you to note is that life here on earth happily exists in ranges from -25c to 125c (that is well above boiling). Don't confuses what humans currently require for life as the requirement for all life. Scientist expect to find even more life here on earth that push that margin of temperature. Lets not get into how toxic some of the conditions that other life here on earth is to us.

flame this comment all you want I have not proof read it

Wayne, You said: "Where the heck did you pull that number from? Not only is that number just plain stupid its drastically wrong."

What is the number, Frank?

I did explain the number I came up with in a subsequent post, I guess you missed it. Only earth can sustain life as we know it and personally, I do not see any moves afoot to colonize another planet. Remember, we are here on planet earth and able to discuss whether this planet was created for life as we know it or if it came about by random selection. If life here appeared from the spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter that evolved to where we are now, wouldn't the odds be increased rather than decreased by the presence of other planets that could have had this same spontaneous origin of life and evolution, and yet did not? Hence validity is given to Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, WHO FORMED IT TO BE INHABITED:

and

As for the "mountain of data" I know that there is an enormous amount of data. In fact, I tend to find that rather than having so many great scientist who have proven evolution is whatever it is you believe it to be, you have a great number of evolutionist who interpret the data of a few true scientist. The same is true of creationist. They look at this same data and often come to a different conclusion, but sometimes the same conclusion. That sort of blows your (they are not scientist, we are, position out of the water) It reminds me of politicians and judges who interpret the constitution and subsequent laws. The same two people can look at the same evidence and disagree. For the life of me, I cannot see how you are able to look around you and miss seeing the presence of intelligent design, but obviously you can. What amazes me is you continue to make statements like the following:

"Because you keep confusing "Evolution" with "Abiogenesis" maybe you should read..."

I have made it so clear that the two are NOT the same, but I suppose that if you acknowledge that, you would have to deal with what I have been asking you rather than just attacking all creationist everywhere because of there ignorance and stupidity.

Jan,

"Remember, we are here on planet earth and able to discuss whether this planet was created for life as we know it or if it came about by random selection."

How exactly do you suggest proving that this planet was created for life as we know it - or even discussing the possibility?

I would suggest, from the perspective of a card-carrying member of the Life-as-we-know-it Club, that everything which has happened in this planet's history has contributed to the development and presence of life as we know it. It seems to me that that's pretty much the end of that conversation.

Jan, the point is that, even if the odds against abiogenesis occurring, or against any planet sustaining life were calculated to be ~1 in 10^40000 (the Hoyle #) it would have no bearing on evolution whatever (it might weaken the alternatives, however, as evolution is OK with a rare abiogenesis). Nevertheless, abiogenesis calculations assume certain pathways rather than integration over all pathways, most of which are not yet known. For the latter, the probability of abiogenesis "somewhere, sometime, somehow" is by definition 1.

Forgive me if you provided a link to Clayton and Jansma and I just missed it. If not I'd like to see it, and also give "equal time" to a critique of it of course. BTW, aren't you at least a little skeptical of a "scientist and a former second-generation atheist who came to believe in God while attempting to prove that the Bible contradicts known scientific facts?" As I mentioned, I don't think that creationists and IDers are ignorant or stupid (well the professional ones aren't). I don't even think that many of them even privately believe what they say.

Wayne suggested that if creation is taught in public schools, then we should teach that aliens began the human race or that the universe might be the vomit of cosmic dragons. This would be absurd because there is no mountain of evidence that there is a shred of truth there. A creation story should be taught in an origins class only if that theory comes from a source so credible that it has effectively changed the world. Biblical creation has just this to support it. The major religions that acknowledge and teach the Biblical story of creation have changed the world. As a matter of fact, one can take Christianity alone and make the case.

Consider the following:

Jesus came approximately 2000 years ago and the world has not been the same since. He came, and although He was born in a manger, angels announced His birth and a star marked the location. Many deny this, but have never come up with a logical explanation of how the shepherds and magi found the stable or even why they sought it other than the Biblical account. Jesus grew up in a carpenter's shop as the son of Joseph and did not begin his ministry until around age thirty, yet the few who met him in the temple, remembered Him. His ministry lasted only three years and only 11 followers were faithful till the end, but his disciples (who either hid or denied him during his trial) risked their lives to tell the story after the resurrection. Is it because they effectively shared the story with others or because the Holy Spirit of God spoke to men that the world today knows about Jesus and many worship Him?

Whatever the reason, time is reckoned around His birth. The "Christian calendar" is the term traditionally used to designate the calendar commonly in use, although its connection with Christianity is sometimes debated. The fact remains that Anno Domini
(In the year of our Lord) and BC (Before Christ) are accepted terms. This calendar is used by the United States, and most countries in the world.

Today there are around 1500 Christian sects in the USA alone with 76.5 % of all Americans identifying themselves as Christians according to the 2000 census. According to the 1992 Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year, Christianity is the most widespread religion in the world.

Christ and the Christian church has indeed changed the world. No other creation story can make this claim. The fact that Judaism and Islam are present to support the same claim is further evidence of the truth of creation. Does this belong in an origin of the species class? I am not afraid to say "Yes", I believe that it does.

Christ and the Christian church has indeed changed the world. No other creation story can make this claim. The fact that Judaism and Islam are present to support the same claim is further evidence of the truth of creation. Does this belong in an origin of the species class? I am not afraid to say "Yes", I believe that it does.

Biblical creation has just this to support it. The major religions that acknowledge and teach the Biblical story of creation have changed the world.

— Justpassingby

Does this belong in an origin of the species class? I am not afraid to say "Yes", I believe that it does.

Great White Wonder, You presume to speak for the majority of the world's Christians and yet you call someone arrogant! Who gave you the authority?

Who gave you the authority?

Dear Great White Wonder, I am a conservative, fundamental, Bible believing, born again, Christian and I prefer that you not speak for me. So I suppose the answer to your question, "Who cares?" would be, Jan cares. I do not feel that I am mocking anyone when I choose to believe Isaiah 40:8-"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever." However, if it is mocking, then I want to come down on the side of one who mocks a scientist rather than one who mocks God.

Dear Jan,

as a "conservative, fundamental, Bible believing, born again" Christian, you should face the unpalatable yet undeniable fact that you are a member of an extremely small minority of Christians. As such, while you are certainly entitled to speak for yourself, you should not delude yourself of speaking for Christians at large. One billion Christians, for instance, members of the main branch of Christianity, accept the Papal dictum on doctrine, and that _includes_ the recognition of evolution as a fact, as well as of the present state of the Theory of Evolution as the current best explanation for that fact.

So, while scientists definitely do not "mock God", those who mock scientists are at the same time treading on highly dubious theological ground. I dare say that Catholics, as well as most members of other Christian denominations, might find _your_ attitude quite dangerous.

St. Augustine famously said:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world ... Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions ... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.[1 Timothy 1.7]"

I don't think Augustine was "mocking God". Do you?

Dear Emanuele Oriano,
St. Augustine of Hippo was born long ago. I think he was born around 340 AD. He has been described as a philosophical and theological genius. The masses were unable to read and write at the time he lived. I would by no means attempt to judge him or his works. He believed in creation, and were he living today, we do not know what he would have to say.

I do not approve of incompetent and reckless people attempting to explain the Holy Scriptures any more than he did in his day. As for mocking God, it was Great White Wonder who suggested that Justpassingby was "engaging in a mockery of Jesus' teachings" and later that they were "mocking the hard honest work of your scientist neighbors." Great White Wonder spoke for all Christians in his answer and then that person who goes by the title Great White Wonder asks "who cares?". As a Christian, I answered that I do care who speaks for me. Again, as a Christian, I prefer to speak for myself. You say that I should face the unpalatable yet undeniable fact that I am a member of an extremely small minority of Christians. I have no problem accepting numbers, but I know that you are not suggesting that I should have no voice even if, as you suggest, our numbers are small.

Dear Jan:

Augustine was very clearly referring to those Christians who, while knowing nothing "about the earth, the heavens and the other elements of this world", spout laughable words and try to defend these "obviously wrong statements" appealing to the Christian Holy Scripture.

If this sounds familiar, it is because Creationists do the same; they say false things about the world and try to defend them with the Bible.
St. Augustine said very clearly that this was dangerous for the Christian faith, and things haven't changed one iota.

As to your other remark, I already said that you are certainly entitled to speak for yourself; but Great White Wonder was instead reporting the opinion of the vast majority of Christians, who share with Augustine the concern for the Creationists' tactics. Since this is obviously true, challenging GWW's words was out of place.

Could you give me your sources please? I wonder just how you came to know with what "the vast majority of Christians" are concerned? Are your referring to Catholic Christians, Orthodox, or Protestant? Where do you find these majority opinions voiced? Please post the "false things" you are concerned with that Creationist are going against their faith by stating. Are you referring to Biblical teachings or church teachings? Are you referring to leaders of the church or would these "creationist" be considered heretics? Please provide more information with your charges.

if it is mocking, then I want to come down on the side of one who mocks a scientist rather than one who mocks God.

if it is mocking, then I want to come down on the side of one who mocks a scientist rather than one who mocks God.

Dear Jan:

Although it is not my task to educate a self-proclaimed Christian on the basic facts concerning his religion, I offer you - in a spirit of fraternal assistance - the following data, compiled from www.adherents.com, with the indication of the public stance of each denomination concerning the Theory of Evolution.

Evolution is not a problem: Catholics (1.05 G), Orthodox (240 M), Liberal Protestants (200 M), Anglicans (73 M), LDS (11.2 M), Quakers (300 K)

Evolution is a problem: Conservative Protestant (200 M), Pentecostal (105 M), JW (14.8 M), Christian Scientists et similia (1.5 M)

Position unknown: African indigenous sects (110 M)

Basically, these are the official positions of each denomination. So, out of an estimated 1,955,000,000 Christians, about 1,524,700,000 belong to denominations that see no problem in accepting evolution. I'd say you have that 'vast majority' right there.

As to the false things about the world that concern me, you only need to take a look at the creationists' posts on this site: there's a little bit of everything, from the bogus claims concerning the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to the false equating of the mechanisms of evolution with "blind chance". As to why those false claims go against mainstream Christianity, please refer back to the words of St. Augustine.

As to heresy, that's a concern for the churches in question. Undoubtedly, considering the huge gulfs in Biblical interpretation, EVERY Christian on this planet is a heretic to a lot of other Christians, from Pope John Paul II to the last televangelist in the US. It's too bad, but that's the way things are.

Dear Emanuele,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to the questions. It appears that www.adherents.com has a set of data for sure. Preston Hunter has taken on a tremendous project and as far as accuracy I do not know if that one site is reliable. It would take quite a long time to verify his numbers. Belonging to a denomination that holds a position does not necessarily mean that every member holds the same position either, so it is a very complicated matter to prove or disprove. Also, stating that evolution is a problem or is not a problem does not accurately depict a person's beliefs either. One might have a problem with a segment or a teaching without having a problem with all the teachings of a branch of scientific findings.

If you look into this 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you will find that the perimeters of the law itself has been redefined by some in order to accommodate the evolutionary process. It is interesting reading, but I find that often a person will change what they once believed to accommodate what they wish to believe.

Your referral to St.Augustine's statements may seem appropriate to you, since you equate creationism with illiteracy, but some indepth examinations of the works of creationist will prove otherwise. Most evolutionist have chosen hostility and insults as the favored methods for halting the teachings of creationist. While there may be some creationist who do not know the field very well, there are many with PHD's who are not illiterate. It seems that the main problem most evolutionist have with creation is that many creationist believe the Bible to be true and accurate. Evolutionist who interpret their data in ways that they feel disprove the Bible become angry and hostile toward those who choose to believe the Bible over what they call "Science". Those who have and preach "tolerance" in every other area of life, suddenly lose all tolerance.

It's interesting how creationists believe that a Ph.D. qualifies someone to discuss evolution, unless that Ph.D is in one of the biological fields that actually study evolution; in that case, the Ph.D. simply proves that the person in question is a deluded idiot who doesn't know what she's talking about. It's similar to their belief that the only people who don't understand the Second Law of Termodynamics are physicists.

I've never read the Bible but I have studied the Ramayana; using Jan's logic, I'm obviously far more qualified to talk about the Bible than she. Or any other Christian, for that matter.

Why is it that creationists never actually understand the point I'm trying to make?

Dear Jan:
I'm glad you found that site interesting. Now, numbers may be somewhat inaccurate (if anything, I think the number of Christians has been overly inflated), but the main gist is, I trust, conclusively proven: most Christians have no problem with the ToE.

This, in turn, disproves the usual Creationist contention that the ToE is in direct conflict with Christianity; if it were, this conflict would be obvious to much more than the vocal minority of Christians.

As to the 2LoT, I'm afraid the old canard of "the law was changed to accommodate Evolution!" is precisely one of those lies that attract instant disrespect by anyone with a passable scientific training. It is, quite simply, not true that the law ever said anything that would be a problem for the ToE.

Insisting that entropy must always increase at the same pace everywhere, i.e. that there can be no local fluctuation, is at best a mistake, and at worst a wilful deception; so is the bizarre idea that the Earth is a closed system, and that the huge "entropy generator" we know by the common name of Sun will not more than compensate for anything that might happen on our planet.

In your last paragraph you seem to mistake "people with PhDs" with "people doing science". I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that. PhD holders are human beings; science is not defined by who does it but by how it is done.

Reading the Bible may be a very instructive activity (I personally enjoy it a lot), but it isn't science. Apples and oranges. Any scientist may engage in both activities, but none should blur the distinction.

The main problem most scientifically literate people have with Creationism is that it is trying to cheat: being accepted as science (being taught as science, no less!) without doing any scientific research. This is extremely deceitful, has been repeatedly exposed as such by hordes of scientists belonging to various Christian denominations, and tends to generate perfectly justified indignation in people who have no problem with science. Calling liars "liars" and dissemblers "dissemblers" is not an insult, after all.

As for me, I won't tolerate liars, dissemblers or fraudsters either.

Heck we already know of 2 bodies within our solar system that can "sustain life", I'm not saying there is life there just that 2 can sustain life, with a 3rd that is very likely to also be able to sustain life. The question of IF life has ever developed on these bodies is now being investigated. So just with Mars and Earth, both, which are able to "sustain life" it is a fact that microbial life is able to live in conditions equivalent to what we find on Mars.

How exactly do you suggest proving that this planet was created for life as we know it - or even discussing the possibility?

For the latter, the probability of abiogenesis "somewhere, sometime, somehow" is by definition 1.

But that doesn't mean you cannot point to fine-tuning as evidence (yes evidence) for design, and for making qualitative statements about probability.

RGD,

You need to notify quite a few peer-reviewed journals that they should stop publishing physics articles that talk about multiverses.

Consider: if the parameters of the universe were 'set' to their current values randomly or stochastically - we would be here to question them. If the parameters of the universe were 'set' to their current values by an intelligence - then we would be here to question them. Since the observed outcome is identical, the 'fine-tuning' can't be used as evidence for one or the other.

Mr. Heddle:

It seems to me that no a priori probability can be computed, since we don't have the first clue as to the possible range of values a given variable can assume.

In other words, we are like people who find themselves holding five cards reading 10, J, Q, K and A and with a tiny heart in the corner... but we don't know what else is in the deck, what the rules of the game are, and even whether there are any other players at all.

I'd be very interested in reading how you define probabilities in this context.

Heddle:

Nope, you missed it. You sit down at a poker game and both you and your opponent draw hands every one of which is just as (highly) unlikely as any other. Is every hand a miracle? Perhaps there is an infinity of universes, and in an infinite subset of that infinity some form of intelligence arises sufficient to marvel at its own existence. Is that particular subset any more "designed" than any other?

Unfortunately, you are starting with a congenial conclusion, and distorting logic to justify it. This is not required, you know. It's perfectly sufficient to say "I believe it's a miracle, so there!" and be done with it. Your poker game analogy assumes the rules were constructed before the deal, rather than after the hands were dealt. But what you are actually doing is taking some hand that MIGHT be random and might not (you cannot know), and THEN constructing the rules making that particular hand the Big Winner, and THEN marveling at how vanishingly unlikely you were to have been dealt that winning hand. And in the process, you look a bit foolish and a lot desperate.

I believe I stated that no number could be calculated. Still, that does not mean that nothing meaningful can be discussed.

For example, if we have no theory that a priori constrains the expansion rate, and then discover that only a small range of expansion rates leads to a universe with galaxies, then that says something. It does not give a precise value, and it is not a datum in the usual sense, but is it not meaningless.

If only a tightly limited range works, then, absent a new theory that explains why our rate was an inevitable consequence, it is only reasonable to feel "fortunate".

This argument means that if I sit down in a poker game and my opponent gets 27 royal flushes in a row, that outcome does not provide more evidence for cheating (design) than it does for random (fair) shuffling and dealing.

No Flint, you are wrong, but so that you cannot use imprecision normally associated with this type of interaction, I'll be more precise.

Forget ID. Forget God. Just think of this example:

You examine a deck of cards and find them to be a normal 52 card deck. And then you hand them to your opponent. And then he deals for five card draw, reshuffling after each hand. And if the outcome is that he defeats you 27 times in a row, each time with a royal flush, then of the two competing theories that explain this:

1) He was very lucky
2) He cheated

both of which "fit the data", the evidence supports theory number 2.

If you don't think so, would you bet $100 dollars on the next hand, even if gave you 100 to 1 odds?

It's perfectly sufficient to say "I believe it's a miracle, so there!" and be done with it.

This argument means that if I sit down in a poker game and my opponent gets 27 royal flushes in a row, that outcome does not provide more evidence for cheating (design) than it does for random (fair) shuffling and dealing.

For example, if we have no theory that a priori constrains the expansion rate, and then discover that only a small range of expansion rates leads to a universe with galaxies, then that says something. It does not give a precise value, and it is not a datum in the usual sense, but is it not meaningless.

If only a tightly limited range works, then, absent a new theory that explains why our rate was an inevitable consequence, it is only reasonable to feel "fortunate".

Heddle:

No, you are wrong. You have been dealt a single hand. You like your hand. You have absolutely no idea what the odds are of drawing that hand, or any notion of the processes that inform such odds. You notice that each card in your hand is vanishingly unlikely to be some other card than what it is. What an astounding coincidence.

And so you make up rules. Your rules say, the hand I was dealt was vanishingly unlikely because I say so. There is an infinity of far more likely hands I could have been dealt because I say so -- even though I know bupkis about the deck or the dealing process. THEN you say your claims are
"meaningful."

And they are. They mean you have MADE UP the process and the odds, in order to draw the conclusions that caused you to make up these things in the first place. NOW you claim this is not circular. Surely you can see that you are the only one fooled by this technique?

This implies that, barring a theory constraining the expansion rate, we can basically assume that any real number could be it. This premise is incorrect: barring a theory, we cannot say what this expansion rate might be; at best we can say what it is. It is precisely by constructing and proposing a theory that we can speculate about a "range" of (non-observed) values.

In addition, I'd like to know how you would define a "tight" vs. a "wide" range of values. Since I suppose we are talking about real numbers, i.e. a non-numerable set, ANY range will include an infinity of values, wouldn't it?

So Flint, given that any hand is equally likely, and your opponent deals himself 27 royal flushes, will you bet $100 that you will win the next hand if he gives you 100 to 1 odds?

If you do not see design, you should take the bet, because the expected return is $5000.

I do feel fortunate that it did, because most any ratio would have led to a universe devoid of life.

Rilke, Emanuele, Flint, I've tried to explain to Heddle that you can't call something unlikely without knowing at least something about the probability distribution. Since his religion has overwhelmed his understanding of simple probability, he responded that without any known physical law to constrain the outcome, it could have been anything, so wow, these numbers were so unlikely.

if someone's willing to say that sort of thing, they're not going to listen to reason, and your arguments won't have any effect.

ID relies on simple probability errors. The bio IDiots make assertions about how little protein space is functional, how far apart the islands are, etc, without any ability to divy up the space even roughly. It's basically the same simple error.

Steve,

And would you say the same thing to all the non-ID physicists, many of them world-class, that when they acknowledge fine tuning (which is the same thing as low probability) and then, because of that, investigate multiverse theories, that they do not understand simple probability?

And would you say the same thing to all the non-ID physicists, many of them world-class, that when they acknowledge fine tuning (which is the same thing as low probability) and then, because of that, investigate multiverse theories, that they do not understand simple probability?

Blackjack dealer: You're first card's a King.
Heddle: Hit me!
Dealer: It's a 3.
Heddle: OH MY GOD
Dealer: What?
Heddle: I have NO IDEA how many decks you're using. Or how many cards are in each deck. With no constraints, it could be anything. There could be a trillion cards and a billion decks and most of the decks are full of Transcendental numbers. So can you SEE, how absurdly Unlikely it was that I didn't bust? The odds are unfathomable. Truly, this is a blessed hand. So I will stay.
Dealer: House has 17.
Heddle: Shit.

Steve, you didn't answer my question.

GWW: you have this strange attack: You have flamed me many times for disagreeing with all the world's famous biologists, but when I point out that many famous physcists see fine tuning (at least apparent fine tuning) you accuse me of being a cowardly name dropper.

As a made up example, suppose the rate could have been anything, but only values between 6.88884 and 6.88885 would do. Surely you do not suggest that is a meaningless datum because there are an infinite number of numbers between those two values?

Suppose instead that the range was "anything between 6.88884000000000000000001 and 6.88884999999999999999999", and it turned out that in our universe that value is precisely 6.88884645479209846525438. Would you feel "fortunate" then? Would you feel any less or more fortunate if we extended that precision to a million more positions after the comma?

Mr. Heddle:

you've basically said that you feel fortunate to be alive. That's a very nice feeling to express, but is pure, unadulterated nonsense from a mathematical standpoint.

ANY value must fall within the range of possible values, or we wouldn't be here discussing it. Far from being "evidence for design", this is "evidence for our existence". It may surprise you, but I was pretty much convinced already that this particular set of cosmological constants had indeed given rise to galaxies and, ultimately, to a viable planet for us to discuss about a posteriori "probabilities".

Now, had you been able to tell us exactly how likely this occurrence was, by offering a calculation of the set of possible occurrences, I might have examined your calculation and either agreed or disagreed with it; but without a range, the whole idea of "likelihood" becomes inapplicable.

And would you say the same thing to all the non-ID physicists, many of them world-class, that when they acknowledge fine tuning (which is the same thing as low probability)

Steve, you have not-so-skillfully avoided the question. If you had any cajones at all you'd say that all those world-class physcists also have no clue about simple probability theory.

GWW: you have this strange attack: You have flamed me many times for disagreeing with all the world's famous biologists

It's 'cojones', pendejo. If you want to talk about unanswered questions, why don't you answer mine from months ago. You talk about how unlikely this or that value is. I asked you for a rough estimate of the probability density function for that value. I don't remember what value it was, but any one'll do. So the Newton gravitational constant is 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. I'll listen to your arguments again as soon as you can tell me how likely it is that in a random universe, the gravitational constant is between 8.0 and 8.1. As soon as you can answer that question, I'll listen to you talk about the probability of this or that fundamental physical value.

Steve, are you sure you don't want your cajones blessed by Heddle? Only RBH has been so lucky.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000445.html#c6922

Heddle:

Your example has nothing to do with the subject being discussed. Certainly I agree that if you KNOW the exact contents of the deck and if you KNOW the probability distributions as a result, and if you KNOW what a winning hand is before the dealing starts, and IF many hands are dealt, you have detected cheating.

But you don't know ANY of these things. You have MADE THEM ALL UP! Apparently you can't understand this. You seem to believe that since your beliefs are correct by definition, that design happened whether it did or not, you can correctly make up whatever rules, processes, and distributions fit your requirements.

Look, I don't have any objection to you stating your faith. But you are going further, and lying to support it. Your lies (or stupidity, pick one) are not required. You do NOT NEED to make up irrelevant examples, replete with a long list of knowns, in order to falsely imply that an unrelated situation with nothing but UNknowns is logically equivalent. As I wrote, nobody is being fooled. We have all see these techniques before many times. I can assure you that you have no need to pretend to be so obtuse to defend your faith. It doesn't need it, and neither do you.

I feel fortunate to be here.

From a mathematical standpoint, I was the product of just one of the thousands of mom's eggs and just one of the billions of dad's sperm. The probability of that one specific egg colliding with that one specific sperm at just that exact right time - the only combination that could have produced me - fusing and surviving to adulthood through numerous biological and random pitfalls, is so great as to suggest that I must have been the result of a test tube birth (design).

Mustn't I?

No wonder we poor saps didn't understand Heddle. He's using Flogic! This is brand-new logic employed by IDiots. Is there Any science they haven't revolutionized? For instance, here's his use of the Floogle operator:

It's possible that the (some physics number) is extremely improbable.
Therefore it is extremely improbable.

See Evolving Thoughts for more on Flogic.

(hat tip to PZ Myers)

Thanks for the link, GWW.

"Wesley Elsbery and his minions". hahahaha.

I want minions.

;-)

You all avoid the issue. Are you insulting all physicists, or just me? Because many physicists who are not IDers acknowledge fine tuning. You refuse to offer any explanation as to why they see fine tuning and then look for a non-ID explanation. You just avoid that nast little fact. Instead, you slap each other's backs and pretend you really flamed that old bumpkin Heddle. But if your simpleminded arguments refute my position, then it refutes their's as well. So do you think you geniouses have refuted all those non-ID physcists?

Are you willing to say that any physicist that sees fine-tuning is, like Heddle, a moron?

If anyone thinks that Heddle will listen to reason on this fine-tuning stuff, disabuse yourself of that notion here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000436.html

Steve, please answer the question I posted above. You have avoided it for about four or five posts, following a poor man's diversionary strategy.

Mr. Heddle:

Nobody but you has ignored anything. "Fine tuning" may have many different meanings, and I strongly suspect that you are reading into it something that the concept, as used by those physicists, does not imply.

Several people have explained you, in very clear terms, what any claim of likelihood or unlikelihood requires; yet you insist ignoring these elementary explanations and making up inapplicable analogies (inapplicable because they ALL take for granted that we know the possible range of variability of the cosmological constants, which we do not).

If ANY physicist thinks that this universe is fine-tuned, without knowing how likely or unlikely any given value is, then he or she does not know what he or she is saying, or is simply speaking poetically ("Gee, being alive is better than not being alive!").

Are you speaking poetically? If not, saying "the expansion rate of the universe is just right" makes just as much sense as saying "my legs are exactly long enough to reach the ground". Have you ever seen a universe where the expansion rate was NOT "just right"?

Comment #16426 Posted by David Heddle on February 15, 2005 08:40 PM Steve, please answer the question I posted above. You have avoided it for about four or five posts, following a poor man's diversionary strategy.

When we think about it, if Heddle cannot understand the repeated (and repeated, and repeated...) simple explanation of his simpleminded error that all of us have provided, how likely is it that he understood the highly sophisticated math these physicists are using, much less what their underlying assumptions were?

It seems entirely likely that he's acting childish here because his comprehension is tapped out.

Oh, I have no doubt that he can understand the math. It's not hard to understand that he doesn't know what the expansion rate is, even what order of magnitude it is, whether they're normally distributed, what the variance is, etc etc etc. I'm sure he could, but he's got some beliefs which are overriding his understanding of basic stat & prob.

Incidentally, Here's an excellent essay discussing Heddle's "reasoning" in considerable detail. Ultimately, Stenger demonstrates that the "fine tuning" argument is just another God of the Gaps. Heddle's famous physicists are, like Heddle, searching for God in the dark crannies of human ignorance. It doesn't fly.

Heddle's famous physicists are, like Heddle, searching for God in the dark crannies of human ignorance. It doesn't fly.

If ANY physicist thinks that this universe is fine-tuned, without knowing how likely or unlikely any given value is, then he or she does not know what he or she is saying, or is simply speaking poetically ("Gee, being alive is better than not being alive!").

While quintessence [an explanation for the cosmological constant fine tuning puzzle] may not turn out to provide the correct explanation for the cosmological constant problem, it demonstrates, if nothing else, that science is always hard at work trying to solve its puzzles within a materialistic framework. The assertion that God can be seen by virtue of his acts of cosmological fine-tuning, like intelligent design and earlier versions of the argument from design, is nothing more than another variation on the disreputable God-of-thegaps argument. These rely on the faint hope that scientists will never be able to find a natural explanation for one or more of the puzzles that currently have them scratching their heads

Mr. Heddle:

Have you actually READ that essay? Stenger effectively dispatches your preconceived notions by showing that they are, in fact, preconceived.

And as to your "big shots and at least one Nobel laureate", it is, I feel, high time that you show your hand. Who are they? Where did they say something of this kind? And, most importantly, what did they mean?

If there is one thing one can plainly see on this and other fora, it's the ability of ID supporters to twist words to make them say whatever suits their purpose at the time. Please, Mr. Heddle, give some references.

Those famous physicst are, for the most part, NOT IDers. You guys keep avoiding that most important fact, not some even anti-Christian physicists (like Hoyle, who was mentioned in the article) see fine tuning and seek an alternative explanation.

You have just stated that lots of big shots (and at least one Nobel Laureate) doesn?t know what he is talking about. At least you have the guts to admit it, unlike Steve or Flint.

But according you brilliant mathematicians, they shouldn?t be even looking at quintessence, because if they knew simple probability theory, then they would know that there is nothing surprising about a finely tuned cosmological constant, and so there is no need to investigate speculative alternatives. And if they cannot provide a distribution function of early universe cosmological constants, then they are plain dumb for considering it a puzzle.

For example, if we have no theory that a priori constrains the expansion rate, and then discover that only a small range of expansion rates leads to a universe with galaxies, then that says something. It does not give a precise value, and it is not a datum in the usual sense, but is it not meaningless.

The proposed bill is also incoherent, because it is logically impossible to teach both evidence consistent with a scientific theory and evidence inconsistent with that scientific theory.

— Taco

And as to your "big shots and at least one Nobel laureate", it is, I feel, high time that you show your hand. Who are they? Where did they say something of this kind? And, most importantly, what did they mean?

ts, as usual your comments are nonsense.

Mr. Heddle:

rest assured I'll check your quotes. As for Krauss, however, I don't find that a loaded question at all. It is equivalent to asking: is this "fine-tuning" thing really what Mr. Heddle thinks it is? And he answers "no". I don't see what's unfair in a physicist of his calibre plainly stating that your interpretation of his words is a mis-interpretation.

What's worse is: if you put a little amount of energy into empty space, then everything we know about the laws of physics says you should be able to put a tremendous amount of energy into it. Once you open the dam and allow empty space to have energy, you ask how much it should naturally have. Our current understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics says that empty space should have about 120 orders of magnitude more energy than the amount we measure it to have. That is 1 with 120 zeroes after it! How to reduce the amount it has by such a huge magnitude, without making it precisely zero, is a complete mystery. Among physicists, this is considered the worst fine-tuning problem in physics. When we solve this problem, we're going to have to explain why the number that we measure is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than we would expect it to be. No one has an idea how to do that. And that's why it's the most exciting thing in physics. Because weird makes things exciting.

[Jon Fleming:] There is lots of (quantum) evidence that is inconsistent with General Relativity, and vice-versa; but those are probably the most successsful scientific theories ever, and certainly are valid theories in the domains in which they are known to apply. They give accurate predictions in the domains in which they are known to apply. But that is a different thing. They may have practical value, but as far as they are inconsistent with empirical evidence, they do not correspond to the truth.

— Taco

Mr. Heddle:

It looks like you continue equivocating.

Maybe, when real scientists doing real science tell us that their words do not support ID, they really do mean that, you know?

What these fellows find exciting is the idea of devising a theory that might explain "why are things the way they are instead of any other way".

That's a very fine endeavour, but it has precious little to do with your claims about "improbability" of the present state of affairs.

Let's examine whether this "fine-tuning problem" can even mean what you want it to mean:

a) the fundamental constants of this universe are just the way they are but could have been any other way.

=> "Evidence for design! Something - or Someone - must evidently have fine-tuned the constants just to produce us!"

b) the fundamental constants of this universe are just the way they are but could only be like this.

=> "Evidence for design! Something - or Someone - must evidently have fine-tuned something so that the constants could come out just right to produce us!"

c) the fundamental constants of this universe are what they are, they could be different but only in a relatively narrow range.

=> "Evidence for design! Something - or Someone - must evidently have fine-tuned something so that the constants could fall within the range just right to produce us!"

I think I've made my point. What is wrong is not in the premise that not every value of fundamental constants will produce galaxies, solar systems, planets etc.; it is in the inference that this can tell us anything about "fine-tuning" being the product of volition.

Heddle:

I'll try one more time, and then I guess I might as well give up. I've decided steve is right, it's not that you CAN not understand, but that you WILL not.

Back to a poker hand. You shuffle properly, and draw 5 random cards. They are 5 particular cards, and the odds of drawing those 5 particular cards is highly unlikely. Is the hand fine-tuned? Absolutely. Is this fine-tuning inexplicable? No, it's inevitable. ANY hand is necessarily fine-tuned.

Now let's extend this simple analogy to take into account the reality we're addressing here. In this case, you don't know the size of the deck. You don't know how many cards you've been dealt. You don't know the contents of the deck. You DO know that you have received some particular cards. The difference is, you have no basis on which to calculate any probabilities whatsoever. All you know is that the hand is fine-tuned. And again, ANY hand is necessarily fine-tuned. Even if you received the only hand possible (i.e. the entire deck), the hand is fine-tuned.

Toss a ball into the air. It comes to rest in some specific spot. The odds against it coming to rest in that specific spot are staggering. Have you witnessed a miracle? From your perspective, of course not. The ball HAD to land somewhere. From the ball's frame of reference, yes, it's a miracle. Of the infinity of places it COULD have landed, it just happened to find this one and no other. Surely, thinks the ball, this is prima facie evidence of design. What else could it be?

Mr. Heddle:

I've taken a look at your quotes, and I must say I am mightily unimpressed.

They can be roughly split in two kinds:

a) statements of faith (e.g., Arno Penzias' quote). I have no problem with physicists having faith, but we were talking about science.

b) quote mining, where the text does not tell us the whole story because it omits significant details (e.g. the two Chinese astrophysicists, or Fred Hoyle).

It must have been painstaking work on your part, but it falls very, very short of "convincing".

You examine a deck of cards and find them to be a normal 52 card deck. And then you hand them to your opponent. And then he deals for five card draw, reshuffling after each hand. And if the outcome is that he defeats you 27 times in a row, each time with a royal flush, then of the two competing theories that explain this: 1) He was very lucky 2) He cheated both of which "fit the data", the evidence supports theory number 2.

Back to a poker hand. You shuffle properly, and draw 5 random cards. They are 5 particular cards, and the odds of drawing those 5 particular cards is highly unlikely. Is the hand fine-tuned? Absolutely.

Is this fine-tuning inexplicable? No, it's inevitable. ANY hand is necessarily fine-tuned.

Toss a ball into the air. It comes to rest in some specific spot. The odds against it coming to rest in that specific spot are staggering. Have you witnessed a miracle? From your perspective, of course not. The ball HAD to land somewhere. From the ball's frame of reference, yes, it's a miracle. Of the infinity of places it COULD have landed, it just happened to find this one and no other. Surely, thinks the ball, this is prima facie evidence of design. What else could it be?

I've taken a look at your quotes, and I must say I am mightily unimpressed. They can be roughly split in two kinds: a) statements of faith (e.g., Arno Penzias' quote). I have no problem with physicists having faith, but we were talking about science. b) quote mining, where the text does not tell us the whole story because it omits significant details (e.g. the two Chinese astrophysicists, or Fred Hoyle). It must have been painstaking work on your part, but it falls very, very short of "convincing".

Mr. Heddle:

it is you who are dragging ID into this discussion, by seeing a link between what you label as "fine tuning" and ID.

I can see your point, but it boils down to that tiny word: "beneficial".

ts's point was perfectly on target, and you (unwittingly, I believe) just admitted to it. The ball might see the particular spot where it landed as peculiarly beneficial. The grass might have a completely different opinion on the subject.

Why should the fact that we are here "beneficial" from the standpoint of the universe?

Your answer is basically, "I believe that it is amazingly important, so there!"

This is an additional premise, an entirely unscientific one, and it turns your words into a statement of faith.

Which, by the way, I didn't "dismiss"; but science, it ain't.

I do not need to know the probability of a royal flush. All I need is very minimal knowledge: (1) all outcomes are equally likely and (2) there is more than one possible outcome. From that I can assert that 27 royal flushes in a row is evidence for "design."

I have no clue what you are talking about

That fine-tuning is based on both improbable AND beneficial outcomes is so obvious

The probability of the universe being "fine tuned" for us to exist, given that we exist to observe it, is one.

David Heddle,

until you demonstrate that the present universe is the only possible one in which life can exist - not only life as we know it, but life in any possible form, your argument will remain useless. For all your hand waving, your only point is that changing the universe's constants would mean that we couldn't have existed. But as long as there is a state of non-entropy (i.e. there is usable energy) I am pretty sure that "life" would evolve to make use of it. And nothing you have said makes me think otherwise. Mainly because you have not tried to defend your reasoning at all.

Your argument, in fact, is: I assume this universe is the only one capable of suporting life, thus it is the only one that can support life. Since it is the only one that can support life, it must have been designed.

Or, in logic terms:
A: this universe is the only one capable of supporting life
B: This universe was designed
A->A
A->B
----
B

Notice how you simply assume your antecedent. In case you don't know what I'm talking about, that makes the conclussion useless - unless you manage to demonstrate that A is true. When you manage to do that, then we'll get to the shacky A->B

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

PD: For comparing:
If all men are intelligent, and Socrates is a man, Socrates is intelligent. This can only be true if "All men are intelligent" is true. Since there are some that are not, the logic fails to convince - even if it is flawless. Heddle's argument fails similarly, since you need his faith in the fact that this universe is special to accept that this universe is special

until you demonstrate that the present universe is the only possible one in which life can exist - not only life as we know it, but life in any possible form, your argument will remain useless.

If all men are intelligent, and Socrates is a man, Socrates is intelligent. This can only be true if "All men are intelligent" is true.

What about the fact that the 762-768th digits of pi are 999999 --- is that evidence for design? What about the fact that, somewhere in the decimal expansion of pi, a decimal encoding (in fact, an infinity of such encodings) of "God exists" occurs?

And if we decide that something or another is evidence of design, what do we do next? How does that judgment affect the course of science?

If I offer to pay you huge amounts of money if you guess a number that I've written down between 1 and google, and you do guess it, and I do pay you the money, would you conclude that the outcome was "forced"? And if it turns out that this was a lottery and I was playing the same game with huge numbers of people and you were one of the few people who won, would you still conclude that the outcome was "forced"?

AFAICS, saying that you have no clue what I'm talking about, rather than addressing the point, proves that you are either a moron or that you are acting in bad faith.

It's a fine-tuning problem because the actual value doesn't fall out of any physical theory --- it seems completely arbitrary.

If dark energy is in fact the vacuum energy implied by a cosmological constant, then we have a serious puzzle called the cosmological constant problem (Weinberg 1989). As the universe expands, regions of space expand along with it. A cosmological constant implies a constant energy density, and the total energy inside a given region of space will increase as the volume of that region expands. Since the end of inflation, volumes have expanded by 120 orders of magnitude. This implies that the cosmological constant was "fine-tuned" to be 120 orders of magnitude below what it is now, a tiny amount of energy. If the vacuum energy had been just a hair greater at the end of inflation, it would be so enormous today that space would be highly curved and the stars and planets could not exist.

Mr. Heddle:

as several people, including myself, have pointed out already, "beneficial" is a value judgement that begs the question.

To use your faulty metaphor, you assume that the hand we received was a royal flush, when in fact you don't know that. For all we know, maybe the five cards we were dealt were meant to build a tiny card castle, so their "value" is exactly the same as any other set of five cards.

It is by now quite evident that you refuse to drop that additional, unwarranted premise, because of extrarational considerations. Fine. I won't waste any more of your time arguing science. As I said before, apples and oranges.

Beneficial is not a value judgement. A universe without stars or a universe with stars? I think everyone would agree that a universe with stars is beneficial. And, and Krauss and many others have stated, there is some apparent fine tuning that led to a universe with stars.

Mr. Heddle:

No, a universe with stars is not beneficial per se. You keep mistaking our narrow point of view for an absolute. But I think you already know that. Have a nice life.

I disagree that a universe with stars is beneficial. And I disagree that one without is not beneficial. As I said, life as we know it might require stars, but that doesn't stop other kinds of life from existing in a universe where the constants were different. For example, were all there was is plasma. I am not the one that is trying to convince the rest of the world, I am only presenting counter examples, David.

If all dealt hands in Poker are equally valid, we would have one very boring game were you would always receive a winning hand. For your argument to have any basis, you first have to demonstrate that the current fine tunning is the only one that will produce life - i.e. that there is only one winning hand. If any other fine tunning produced life too - different form of life, but life - then your argument would be void. And you have not yet even tried to explain how this is not so.

Oh, also, I have read very carefully my post, and I see no mention of alternative universes anywhere, David. You say that if the universal constants were different, life wouldn't be able to exist. I claim that as long as there is usable energy, life will exist. Many, many different tunnings of universal constants will produce a universe with usable energy.

And I wonder, why are you bringing this up? You say you're not trying to say that the universe is designed. How could the universe be specifically created for life as you seem to claim without being designed? Someone has already pointed out that all your "quotes" are either private beliefs or quote mining. I don't care about what physicist believe. I care what they observe and what they conclude from those observations. Please enlighten me, what *is* your conclusion from the fact that the universe has the current values for the constants? Why should I care that light speed is 300000 km/s instead of 400000 km/s? Particularly since you won't even consider that it is irrelevant - that life might exist even in an Universe where light moved faster?

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

And if we decide that something or another is evidence of design, what do we do next? How does that judgment affect the course of science? Just like Krauss said. We investigate.

Absolutely. If I have just bet on a 1 in 10^100 chance, and it happened, I would immediately assume it was somehow forced.

REGARDLESS of its value (other than zero) if it differed by more than one part in 10^120 there would be no stars, no life.

I think everyone would agree that a universe with stars is beneficial.

If all dealt hands in Poker are equally valid, we would have one very boring game were you would always receive a winning hand. For your argument to have any basis, you first have to demonstrate that the current fine tunning is the only one that will produce life - i.e. that there is only one winning hand. If any other fine tunning produced life too - different form of life, but life - then your argument would be void. And you have not yet even tried to explain how this is not so.

Oh, also, I have read very carefully my post, and I see no mention of alternative universes anywhere

until you demonstrate that the present universe is the only possible one in which life can exist - not only life as we know it, but life in any possible form, your argument will remain useless.

David. You say that if the universal constants were different, life wouldn't be able to exist. I claim that as long as there is usable energy, life will exist. Many, many different tunnings of universal constants will produce a universe with usable energy.

And I wonder, why are you bringing this up? You say you're not trying to say that the universe is designed. How could the universe be specifically created for life as you seem to claim without being designed? Someone has already pointed out that all your "quotes" are either private beliefs or quote mining.

I don't care about what physicist believe.

I care what they observe and what they conclude from those observations. Please enlighten me, what *is* your conclusion from the fact that the universe has the current values for the constants?

Krauss said nothing about intelligent design. The depths of your intellectual dishonesty is astounding. Krauss is investigating based on the assumption that there's some natural causal explanation --- the exact opposite of a judgment that it was designed, which would make investigation pointless.

And so you think the winner of a lottery should assume that the lottery was forced by virtue of their winning it. This illustrates the patent absurdity of your claims.

Which is relevant because there being stars and life is a known fact,, and scientific theories must account for such facts, not because it's "beneficial". Sheesh. That the value seems to just happen to account for the known facts, rather than being a prediction of physical theory, is what makes it a mystery. The point is not to say "hey, that shows that God set the value to be just that so we lucky dogs could exist", it's to try to figure it out, to come up with some physical theory that could explain why the value is what it is. That's what scientists do. But if no one manages to come up with such a theory, that won't justify a conclusion that the value was "forced" in order to produce a world with us in it. That is so self-centered as to boggle the mind.

if there is no apparent fine tuning, why are physicists trying to explain it?

That's true...but from everything I wrote a reasonable person would know that what I meant was "apparent" design or "apparent" fine tuning. When faced with that, as Krauss said, we investigate.

Bzzt. Sorry, that is bait and switch. You asked me about a 1 in 10^100 lottery and are now making claims about a regular lottery, which is more like 1 in 10^6.

GWW:

I beg to differ. As I see it, the "apparent fine tuning" Mr. Heddle talks about and the "apparent fine tuning" real physicists are talking about are NOT one and the same thing.

In other words, if you strip away the anthropocentric belief that this universe is somehow "beneficial", it is perfectly sensible to try and understand why it is one way rather than another.

If, on the other hand, you start with the assumption that this universe is somehow "special", then you end up attaching a purpose to the universe. But it is circular reasoning: "since we are so special, anything that coincidentally made our existence possible must also be special; and something so special cannot have occurred by mere chance".

Sounds familiar?

The comments have gone away from the topic of the original post. Please post your final statements because the comments are going to be closed soon.

If I drop a ball from the Goodyear blimp into a stadium it is not fine tuning that it lands in an improbable spot, as you state all spots are improbable. It is at least apparent fine tuning if I'll die unless the ball lands on the right hash mark on the 5o yard line, and that's where it lands.

— David Heddle

If I have just bet on a 1 in 10^100 chance, and it happened, I would immediately assume it was somehow forced.