Georgia - stickers must go!

In the hope of realizing liberal ideals of toleration and neutrality, this decision will bolster the idea of parental
choice through vouchers or homeschooling.

In sum, the Sticker in dispute violates the effects prang of the Lemon test and justice O'Connor's endorsement test, which the Court has incorporated into its Lemon analysis Adopted by the school board, funded by the money of taxpayers, and inserted by school personnel, the Sticker conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others that they are political insiders. Regardless of whether teachers comply with the Cobb County School District's regulation on theories of origin and regardless of the discussions that actually take place m the Cobb County science classrooms, the Sticker has already sent a message that the School Board agrees with the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists and creationists. The School Board has effectively improperly entangled itself whiz religion by appearing to take a position Therefore, the Sticker must be removed from all of the textbooks into which it has been placed.

I would have simply laughed if we had "Relativity is a theory not a fact." stickers in our physics books. At some level, "X is a theory not a fact" is manifestly true, unless you claim that X is complete, accurate, not subject to modification, and thoroughly tested to arbitrary accuracy.

— David Heddle

I reached my conclusions without the help of the sticker---so obviously the sticker would have had no effect on me.

The critical language in the Sticker that supports the conclusion that the Sucker runs afoul of the Establishment Clause is the statement that "[e]volution is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of living things" This statement as not problematic because of its truth or falsity, although testimony from various witnesses at trial and the amicus brief submitted by the Colorado Citizens for Science, et al , suggest that the statement is not entirely accurate. Rather, the first problem with this language is that there has been a lengthy debate between advocates of evolution and proponents of religious theories of origin specifically concerning whether evolution should be taught as a fact or as a theory, and the School Board appears to have sided with the proponents of religious theories of origin in violation of the Establishment Clause. As the Supreme Court stated in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U S 573,593-94,109 S Ct 3086, 106 L Ed 2d 472 (1989), "[t]he Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief," and this is exactly what the School Board appears to have done.

GWW,

Well, I am waiting for someone to admit they were feeble minded enough that a stupid sticker would have turned them into a Fallwellian fundamentalist.

I think you are referring to why I did not buy evolution in high school? What's the point, you won't accept any answer. It was not because of religion, because I wasn't a Christian in high school.

I mostly remember thinking there wasn't enough time--a criticism that I still believe is valid. However, my decision may have also had a large "gut feeling" component.

Our books were perfectly orthodox--no stickers, no reference to creationism, it was a public school. They probably had falsified embryonic sequences, but I don't think that would have played a part in my decision.

The critical language in the Sticker that supports the conclusion that the Sucker runs afoul of the Establishment Clause is the statement that "[e]volution is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of living things" This statement as not problematic because of its truth or falsity, although testimony from various witnesses at trial and the amicus brief submitted by the Colorado Citizens for Science, et al , suggest that the statement is not entirely accurate. Rather, the first problem with this language is that there has been a lengthy debate between advocates of evolution and proponents of religious theories of origin specifically concerning whether evolution should be taught as a fact or as a theory, and the School Board appears to have sided with the proponents of religious theories of origin in violation of the Establishment Clause. As the Supreme Court stated in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U S 573,593-94,109 S Ct 3086, 106 L Ed 2d 472 (1989), "[t]he Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief," and this is exactly what the School Board appears to have done.

I have to be honest here and question the use of the "Establishment Cause" as a rationale for doing the right thing. I've read the text of the debates that occurred in the various states, which submitted amendments to the new U.S. Constitution.

Those states that were interested in inserting language, which would become our First Amendment, offered the amendment because they did not want the federal government to intrude in their space since they had state religions to defend. Their intent was to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion that would supersede their own state's religion.

Now, while one can argue the wisdom (or lack thereof) of an individual state having an official religion, it doesn't undermine the original rationale for inserting language into the Constitution in the first place, which was to prevent the establishment of an official national religion.

While the language of the stickers was surely religiously-motivated, I'm not sure leaving them in place would have established a national religion.

I don't think the stickers would have any effect on any young mind, one way or the other. I never understood why you guys got so upset about them. I would have simply laughed if we had "Relativity is a theory not a fact." stickers in our physics books.

Obviously, the leaders of the ID movement think differently. Otherwise (presumably?) they wouldn't have wasted people's time and money advocating the stickers.

You do bring up a good point, though. If ID leaders are interested in students knowing fact from theory, why didn't they advocate a sticker for all science disciplines? I'll tell you why: Because evolutionary science is the only one that forces them to confront a contradiction between reality and their worship of the Protestant Bible as without error.

I am converting the PDF into HTML for the Archive. Due to the quality of the scan, copying the PDF document into a text document results in word "sticker" sometimes being rendered as "sucker".

It is sort of appropriate....

--
Anti-spam: Replace "user" with "harlequin2"

I have to be honest here and question the use of the "Establishment Cause" as a rationale for doing the right thing. I've read the text of the debates that occurred in the various states, which submitted amendments to the new U.S. Constitution. ... While the language of the stickers was surely religiously-motivated, I'm not sure leaving them in place would have established a national religion.

— Aggie Nostic

I don't think the stickers would have any effect on any young mind, one way or the other. I never understood why you guys got so upset about them. I would have simply laughed if we had "Relativity is a theory not a fact." stickers in our physics books.

Obviously, the leaders of the ID movement think differently. Otherwise (presumably?) they wouldn't have wasted people's time and money advocating the stickers.

You do bring up a good point, though. If ID leaders are interested in students knowing fact from theory, why didn't they advocate a sticker for all science disciplines? I'll tell you why: Because evolutionary science is the only one that forces them to confront a contradiction between reality and their worship of the Protestant Bible as without error.

I would have simply laughed if we had “Relativity is a theory not a fact.” stickers in our physics books. At some level, “X is a theory not a fact” is manifestly true, unless you claim that X is complete, accurate, not subject to modification, and thoroughly tested to arbitrary accuracy. When you teach science, it either stands or falls on its own merits, not some silly sticker.

For context, you need to look at the 14th amendment as well, which spreads constitutional limits to the state governments as well as the national government, and look at the history of judicial interpretation of the first amendment.

That's true, if I was interested in "context" related to how post-ratification interpretations were made. However, I was interested in the original motivations behind the First Amendment.

That's great, Aggie (Texas A&M?), but it ignores the fact that incorporation is the law of the land. Like it or not, the bill of rights applies to state governments. If you're purely interested in restoring the 18th century vision of government that the intervening interpretations have modified, that's great, but then textbook disclaimers are going to be the very least of your issues.

The system works.

Witnesses had informed the legislators that, because of the hostility of most scientists and educators to creation science, the topic had been censored from or badly misrepresented in elementary [p631] and secondary school texts. In light of the unavailability of works on creation science suitable for classroom use (a fact appellees concede, see Brief for Appellees 27, 40) and the existence of ample materials on evolution, it was entirely reasonable for the legislature to conclude that science teachers attempting to implement the Act would need a curriculum guide on creation science, but not on evolution, and that those charged with developing the guide would need an easily accessible group of creation scientists. ... The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific evidence there was for it. Perhaps what the Louisiana Legislature has done is unconstitutional because there is no such evidence, and the scheme they have established will amount to no more than a presentation of the Book of Genesis. But we cannot say that on the evidence before us in this summary judgment context, which includes ample uncontradicted testimony that "creation science" is a body of scientific knowledge, rather than revealed belief. Infinitely less can we say (or should we say) that the scientific evidence for evolution is so conclusive that no one could be gullible enough to believe that there is any real scientific evidence to the contrary, so that the legislation's stated purpose must be a lie. Yet that illiberal judgment, that Scopes-in-reverse, is ultimately the basis on which the Court's facile rejection of the Louisiana Legislature's purpose must rest.

While the language of the stickers was surely religiously-motivated, I'm not sure leaving them in place would have established a national religion.

Man, I finally get a good chunk of sleep and this is what I miss.

According to David Heddle: "As an IDer, the ruling doesn't bother me at all, inasmuch as it applies to ID. (It bothers me a great deal that the judge can tell the school system what to do, but that is independent of ID. And if it doesn't bother you, it should, because the next judge might decree the opposite.)"

David, what do you think the designer did? Specifically, what event(s) do you believe the designer proximately caused? Did it turn inert matter -- poof! -- directly into two elephants (one male and one female)? What evidence, if any, suggests that this happened? I ask because no person I've seen identify him or herself as an "IDer" has offered a clear hypothesis on what he or she thinks the designer did. It would be good to have such a hypothesis.

Jan,

My post went around one side of the barn while yours came around the other. Of course, we both agree on the essentials.

Scalia's dissent includes quite a few caveats that underscore the weakness of his position, most significantly his discusion of the lack of "evidence before us" regarding the bogusness of "creation science." I don't know all the details of the posture of that case but it appears to me that the lack of credibility and pseudoscientific natures of "creation science" is now documented beyond a reasonable doubt.

It takes only a few minutes for a reasonable person to deduce that apparently credible (i.e., educated) apologists like David Heddle or David Springer are, in fact, non-expert cranks reciting arguments from incredulity from the ancient creationist playbook.

And the SCOTUS is the least predictable branch of the Federal. Scalia may not get the roost. And, even if he does, he might change. It what jurists do.

I hope you're right, but frankly I doubt it. Given the general political climate in this country right now, you can expect Chief Justice Scalia to make sure that this decision will be overturned in a big way.

David Heddle,

I don't wonder why the evolutionists are so upset. You shouldn't either.

You and I have physical laws of nature in our professions. We don't rely on inference. The law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, Ohm's law, boolean algebra, etc. All of these are based on empirical observation and are called laws for a reason. Evolutionists do not have the equivalent. There're no laws of evolution. It's called a theory and that's for good reason too. Aside from empirical observation of trivial adaptations that may or may not result in speciation (biologists can't even agree on what a species is) they have nothing but inference about the mechanism or mechanisms that created non-trivial differentiation in the remote past. Macro-evolution is a bunch of forensic guesswork and it will probably never be more than that. It's as much science as the study of how the pyramids were constructed. I'd call it history, not science. If I was an evolutionist I too would be damned awful touchy when someone pointed out what a soft science it is.

That's not to say the study of contemporaneous living things isn't hard science. That study is based on empirical evidence. It's a hard science. Evolutionists obviously want to be accepted as hard scientists and they're afraid of the public finding out they are not after all the decades of indoctrinating children in their dogmatic beliefs. It's quite understanable. Intellectually dishonest but understandable.

Hilarious. I finally figured out Dave is nothing more than a troll. Shouldn't you be on usenet? Or under a bridge somewhere?

If there's a cosmologist who specializes in Intelligent Design Cosmology around, please answer the following question for me:

We can talk about how improbable something is only if we have information about the number of other possibilities, and their likelihood. We can say that rolling a 3 on a regular dice twice in a row is a little unlikely, or we could say there's a 1 in 36 chance, because we know that there are 5 other equally likely possibilities with each roll, and that the two rolls are independent. The info about other probabilities doesn't always have to be perfect, but at least semi-quantitative info is necessary to get an idea about the odds.

We don't even have to be within an order of magnitude to say something's unlikely, provided we have at least some info about those other probabilities. We could say that the odds of flipping a coin 43 times in a row and getting heads is really unlikely without using a calculator at all. We just have to have a little bit of knowledge, in this case that heads on each flip is about 50% likely, and .5^43 is a really really high number.

So my question is, you ID Cosmologists say (for instance) that it's really unlikely some constant has some particular value, where's your information about what other values the constant could have, and how likely those are?

Obviously, you can't just suppose that any Real number is equally likely, because the probabilities have to normalize to 1. If you want to say--to make up an example--that it's really unlikely that we live in a universe where some constant = 137, you have to have at least a vague idea what other values the constant could have had. In other words, you have to have some idea of the probability distribution to estimate the probability of a particular outcome.
This is basic, undergrad statistics stuff. You can say how unlikely it is that a human is between 6'7" and 6'8" because we have approximate that height is 'normally distributed' with a mean of this and a variance of that. We can say how unlikely it is that a roll of a dice gives the result 2 because we know that the results are distributed equally over 6 possibilities. So when you say such and such a constant is unlikely, what's your info about the distribution of the alternatives? How likely is it that in a randomly given universe the constant is 139.34? or 8.939 +/- 0.2? What's the distribution of possibilities? If you don't have some reliable info about the probability distribution, you can't say an outcome is likely or unlikely. So what's the probability distribution for, say, the fine structure constant? Please provide me with a function which cosmologists agree even approximates the probability distribution for the fine structure constant. Or any constant in the standard model. And if you can't, please stop talking about how probable this or that value is.

The strict school will have none of this - what matters is being scientific, not doing science. That is how they keep the soft sciences soft. By setting absurd standards that discourage creative thinking they inhibit our ability to understand the natural world, and thus maintain a sterile respectability.

Even so, the followers of Karl Popper have an impact and their ability to impede the progress of science should not be underestimated. Whenever a potentially useful principle raises its head in the soft sciences there will be those ready to smack it into the ground, as criticisms of the Competitive Exclusion Principle show.

Dave, what did this intelligence actually do? Because it sure doesn't seem like it did anything. Where and how did "it" get involved?

I also imagine the courts that are executing people based on forensic evidence might be interested to learn that it's also soft science.

Smack it into the ground like the smacking down of the principle that complex machines performing an identifiable, useful purpose have design input before they are materially realized. This is the case for EVERY machine where the origin of the machine can be determined. Materialists discount purpose and design in nature out of hand because purpose implies intelligence and intelligence is anathema to a materialist universe.

Other than time limitations, I don't see any reason why a teacher couldn't explain why arguments from ignorance, e.g., theories that invoke mysterious intelligent alien beings to explain phenomenon, are scientifically useless.

— GWW

Because evolutionary science is the only one that forces them to confront a contradiction between reality and their worship of the Protestant Bible as without error.

Obviously, the leaders of the ID movement think differently. Otherwise (presumably?) they wouldn't have wasted people's time and money advocating the stickers.

Well if someone did question physical relativity as being in dispute, they would be on far firmer ground than anyone is on evolution.

David, what do you think the designer did? Specifically, what event(s) do you believe the designer proximately caused?

So my question is, you ID Cosmologists say (for instance) that it's really unlikely some constant has some particular value, where's your information about what other values the constant could have, and how likely those are?

And if you can't, please stop talking about how probable this or that value is.

According to Dave Scott:

"You and I have physical laws of nature in our professions. We don't rely on inference. The law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, Ohm's law, boolean algebra, etc. All of these are based on empirical observation and are called laws for a reason. Evolutionists do not have the equivalent. There're no laws of evolution. It's called a theory and that's for good reason too. Aside from empirical observation of trivial adaptations that may or may not result in speciation (biologists can't even agree on what a species is) they have nothing but inference about the mechanism or mechanisms that created non-trivial differentiation in the remote past. Macro-evolution is a bunch of forensic guesswork and it will probably never be more than that. It's as much science as the study of how the pyramids were constructed. I'd call it history, not science. If I was an evolutionist I too would be damned awful touchy when someone pointed out what a soft science it is."

Dave, no person has witnessed a rodent-like mammal evolve into a human. But that no person has witnessed an alleged event does not enable one to justifiably believe that the event did not occur. No person has seen a living T-Rex, and I'm quite sure that some T-Rexes ate other animals. No person has seen planet earth 65 million years ago, and I'm quite sure that planet earth existed 65 million years ago. No person saw the universe 10 billion years ago, and I'm quite sure it existed 10 billion years ago. No person has seen the core of planet earth, and I'm quite sure it's not made of cream-cheese. So that no person has seen a rodent-like mammal evolve into a human does not enable one to justifiably believe that it didn't happen.

In fact, the other day I was walking my dog. I made sure no person was around. We walked up to a fire hydrant. As soon as my dog lifted its leg, I closed my eyes. One minute later, I opened my eyes. My dog looked relieved. The fire hydrant was covered in dog pee. I'm justified in believing that my dog peed on it.

Dave, what did the designer do? What event(s) did it proximately cause? Did it turn inert matter directly into two T-Rexes? Two hippopotamuses? Two brontosauruses? Two aardvarks? Two ferrets? Two humans? And what evidence, if any, suggests that this happened?

I'm overwhelmingly justified in believing that the first two organisms that I would identify as humans were born in the same way that I was born. Interesting things get born. That's how I got here.

As for evolution being "history" or a "soft science." Whatever you call evolution, it is clear that it happened. Here is an article that includes some of the data that supports common descent: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I recommend Ernst Mayr's book What Evolution Is. It is fairly clear and fairly comprehensive, and it's digestible for most readers.

There is the issue of certainty. I don't know much, if anything, for certain. But I'm very justified in believing that all organisms to have lived on earth descended from single-celled microorganisms. And it is very clear that reproductive success and time have played huge roles in bringing about the diversity of life on planet earth.

...after reading that link, it appears we should be driven nuts by the pitiful state of the education system.

According to David Heddle, "Very fair question. I think He caused the big bang, with just the right parameters so that the universe was created with the ability to support life."

David, thanks.

It's important to note that if a being caused the Big Bang, then that being is *a* cause of my existence. It's obviously not the *only* cause of my existence. My parents having sex is another cause. But it's a cause; I wouldn't exist if the Big Bang had not occurred.

However, it seems that some people who refer to themselves as "proponents of intelligent design" are saying that evolution didn't happen. If that is what they think, I want to know what they think happened *instead* of evolution. In other words, the idea that a being caused the Big Bang is logically consistent with the theory of evolution. However, the idea that a being turned inert matter directly into two elephants it not logically consistent with the theory of evolution. Also, we are overwhelmingly justified in believing that a being did not turn inert matter directly into two elephants. In fact, it is, for lack of a better word, absurd.

Longhorn,

You'll have to ask someone who, unlike myself, is not ambivalent about evolution. My gut inclines me toward theistic evolution--but I can also accept that God simply created species ex-nihilo -- afterall once you believe in God it makes little sense to deny him the ability to act supernaturally.

What I don't accept, mostly from a theological standpoint, is natural selection by random mutations. For that surely is inconsistent with a sovereign god.

Some guy said "(1) Only if the expansion rate is anywhere within a factor of 1000 can the universe produce galaxies (2) Only if the expansion rate does not vary within one part in 10^60 can the universe produce galaxies Then it should be obvious that if (2) is true then we are much "luckier" than if (1) is true. Thus you can say something qualitative about the likelihood of the universe without assigning probabilities."

DaveScot: biologists do have an inferiority complex when it comes to comparisons with physics. But they'll never admit it!

This is the case for EVERY machine where the origin of the machine can be determined.

Materialists discount purpose and design in nature out of hand because purpose implies intelligence and intelligence is anathema to a materialist universe.

But the judge disagreed: "While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community."

Am I to take it from this district judge that the establishment clause is now the guardian of scientific significance and value?

Mr. Heddle, in order for your arguments to have any validity whatever (though it has been demonstrated that they do not), you must be able to calculate the probability that the various relevant cosmological constants have the values that they do.

So, you should be able to answer this simple question:

What is the probability that the graviational constant is 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2?

Unless you can provide an answer, your entire line of argument is meaningless.

Remember: be precise - your immortal soul may depend upon your answer!

As the opening poster, and hence nominal owner of this thread, I am asking for more politeness here. In particular, Great White Wonder, I would like you to be more civil. Your last post was out-of-line and uncalled for, and some of the comments from Rilke's Granddaughter have contained unnecessary personal attacks also. Here at the Panda's Thumb we would like people to address the arguments and not abuse the persons holding the arguments.

Thanks.

noob, I've taught statistics at the college level, I think I know a bit about the subject.

The assumption, based on our present knowledge of cosmology, is, that among all possible universes, there is a distribution of expansion rates, whose sigma is larger than the tight constraint that we see.

Oh you say, that's not fair -- maybe the distribution is centered near our expansion rate and the sigma is within the constraint.

In that case, we face a problem, for that would effectively make the expansion rate of universes something like a fundamental constant. And there is no theory that suggests that.

In other words, there is nothing we know that would restrict the distribution of expansion rates, so we assume that, in effect, a distribution, uniform over a range huge compared to the constraint that we see, is possible.

And this can't be dismissed as ID crap, for the remarkable constraint on the expansion rate is acknowledged by non ID scientists. Unless you think they don't understand statistics either.

GWH: I told you one of the reasons I didn't buy evolution in high school. Neither then nor now am I neutral about things unless I can prove them. I have lots of gut feelings. And, unlike you guys, who conveniently sweep it under the rug, it was probably the abiogenesis time problem that bugged me more than evolution. And that has only gotten worse since high school, the time between the earth being ready and the appearance of single celled oraganisms having decreased by an order of magnitude, not to mention an increase in the appreciated complexity of said creatures. No, I can't prove that there wasn't enough time, nor can you prove that there was.

Grand Daughter: because you decree what I must do otherwise everything is meaningless does not make it so. There is nothing that I said that requires me to assign a value to the probablility that G has its value.

You guys don't like that I claim that, to keep using the same example, the constraint on the expansion rate says something about our "luck." But you fail to explain why non ID cosmologists AGREE that our rate is highly fortuitous. They do not, as you want to do, deny our good fortune. They explain it differently than I do, but they do not deny it. So why is that?

where is that sigma in the standard model? It's not there, is where it is. So then you assume whatever you want, and then find that it's proof of god?

Very convincing argument. Jesus christ. I'm done here.

According to David: "I can also accept that God simply created species ex-nihilo --- afterall once you believe in God it makes little sense to deny him the ability to act supernaturally."

David, it is logically possible that God is *capable* of "simply creat[ing] species ex-nihilo" AND that God *decided* not to create an organism "ex-nihilo." What evidence is there that "God simply created species ex-nihilo?" And what do you mean by "ex-nihilo?" How would that work?

According to David: "What I don't accept, mostly from a theological standpoint, is natural selection by random mutations. For that surely is inconsistent with a sovereign god."

Could you elaborate on that? As you may know, "mutation" isn't the only kind of event that proximately causes genetic variation. Another kind of event that does so is sexual reproduction. Some call this process "genetic recombination." Some people use the word "meiosis."

Also, events cause the events that scientists call "mutations." Exposure to radiation is one such event. Also, it is quite clear that particular mutation rates have enabled certain populations of organisms to have reproductive success.

That is crazy—relativity has been tested to something like twenty decimal places—there is no way evolution can compare favorably to such precision. That is a bad argument for your side. With the rest of your comment, you seem to have made the false assumption that I advocated teaching ID in school.

Jack, consider your point made - it shall not happen again.

According to David Heddle: "What I don't accept, mostly from a theological standpoint, is natural selection by random mutations. For that surely is inconsistent with a sovereign god."

David, here is my question: Could you give me a specific hypothesis? In other words, what event(s) did God cause? I know that is putting you on the spot. And maybe it's not a fair question. But my point is that some people aren't being specific enough. It is not fair to the community of inquirers. What am I supposed to do? It helps other people when those trying to dethrone a well-supported theory offer crisp, clear hypotheses that are logically inconsistent with that theory.

I don't know the exact series of events that resulted in the first cell(s) on earth. I don't think anyone knows. We should keep working on the issue.

But we shouldn't teach kids that an extraterrestrial turned inert matter (or "nothingness") directly into two grown elephants (and male and one female). That is just not supported by the evidence. There is very good reason to believe that the first organisms that you and I would recognize as elephants were born.

My gut inclines me toward theistic evolution ... What I don't accept, mostly from a theological standpoint, is natural selection by random mutations. For that surely is inconsistent with a sovereign god.

It should be clear that to a sovereign God, what appears as “random” to us is not truly random - what is chance to us is not chance to God. This is in fact how the theistic evolutionist reconciles his theology with science - by understanding that God is omni-everything and his truly sovereign over all events, including those that look like chance, contingency, or random to us.

it was probably the abiogenesis time problem that bugged me more than evolution. And that has only gotten worse since high school, the time between the earth being ready and the appearance of single celled organisms having decreased by an order of magnitude, not to mention an increase in the appreciated complexity of said creatures

— David Heddle

My gut inclines me toward theistic evolution

— David Heddle

What I don't accept, mostly from a theological standpoint, is natural selection by random mutations. For that surely is inconsistent with a sovereign god

— David Heddle

What is clear to me that is that David Heddle's deity, his deity's alleged "powers," and his deity's alleged disposition are defined by David Heddle and understood only by David Heddle. You can accept everything that Heddle says or none of it. But you'll never know Heddle's deity. Deities don't get any more "personal" than Heddle's.

What is so baffling to those of us who don't believe in Heddle's deity is why Heddle pretends that his description of his deity's biases and powers are more than mere words flowing out of his mouth.

In the good old days people took drugs and held ceremonies to commune with their deities because they understood that their deities existed in a place outside of the mundane. Then these square arrogant philosophy drop-outs came along and started pretending that their deity's existence could be proved with a pencil and paper.

In the annals of lameness, guys like Heddle are superstars. After he's done trashing the best aspects of religion, then he takes a step to the left and trashes biologists who, unfortunately, happened to show beyond any doubt that life on earth was not created in 6 days, but evolved over billions of years.

Heddle claims to have a "gut feeling" that life on earth arose because his deity (or some other mysterious alien being for whom no evidence exists) made "something happen". Of course, Heddle is entitled to his opinion, just as I am entitled to my opinion that Heddle is full of garbage and that his opinion is based not on skepticism but religious faith (of a decidedly weak variety -- see previous paragraphs).

At some point opinions should be put to the test, particularly when the opinion in question insinuates mental defects on the part of biologists. But everytime we turn Heddle to the genuine issue at hand, which is whether his "theory" that mysterious beings (some worshipped, some not) are responsible for this or that aspect of the universe is a useful scientific theory, Heddle and his cohorts change the subject.

What Heddle and others of his ilk do not seem to understand is that their failure to address this ultimatey salient point is transparent. Heddle wants to redefine science so that it includes consideration of the imagined powers of his deity (powers which only Heddle truly understands, as Heddle's deity only truly exists in Heddle's mind and takes only the forms which Heddle's words provide, just as Ploink Ploink assumes the powers which I assign to her). But that ain't happening. And Heddle knows it.

What we are left then is only the simple question: why does Heddle pretend otherwise? Either he just enjoys trolling or he is incapable of helping himself or he is trying to determine if , in fact, his "theories" are as bogus as I and others have demonstrated irrefutably.

As always, this psychoanalysis is free of charge. When Flint starts charging for his, I'll charge for mine.

By using the maximum likelihood method, we made a genome-wide comparison of the evolutionary rates in the lineages leading to the laboratory strain (S288c) and a wild strain (YJM789) of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and found that genes in the laboratory strain tend to evolve faster than in the wild strain. The pattern of elevated evolution suggests that relaxation of selection intensity is the dominant underlying reason, which is consistent with recurrent bottlenecks in the S. cerevisiae laboratory strain population. Supporting this conclusion are the following observations: (i) the increases in nonsynonymous evolutionary rate occur for genes in all functional categories; (ii) most of the synonymous evolutionary rate increases in S288c occur in genes with strong codon usage bias; (iii) genes under stronger negative selection have a larger increase in nonsynonymous evolutionary rate; and (iv) more genes with adaptive evolution were detected in the laboratory strain, but they do not account for the majority of the increased evolution. The present discoveries suggest that experimental and possible industrial manipulations of the laboratory strain of yeast could have had a strong effect on the genetic makeup of this model organism. Furthermore, they imply an evolution of laboratory model organisms away from their wild counterparts, questioning the relevancy of the models especially when extensive laboratory cultivation has occurred. In addition, these results shed light on the evolution of livestock and crop species that have been under human domestication for years.

David, please give your statistics and your ego a rest. You're not convincing any of us, and we're not convincing you. The fact remains, however, that you are saying "Well, we don't know why the constants took the values they did, and since they allow life, well, it must have been destined to be!"

At this point, we have no explanation for why the constants have their values. That is no reason to scientifically appeal to a designer. In the future, we may or may not have better explanations, but to insist on design is to give up. Imagine if Einstein attributed the photoelectric effect to some intelligent being's fondness for packets of energy. Let science operate, and stop bombarding us with worthless and mostly bogus statistical arguments. The fact that we were dealt this particular hand only makes us lucky if you had decided beforehand what we would like to get.

I see the inclusion of Creation "Science" in the public schools as an opportunity for sound science to shine. For the competent instructor, making the case for evolution in contrast to Creation "Science" is child's play.

— Jeff

'Evolution is a theory not a fact', is a fact. Question: what is religion? That is a theory and practises on which you give live order, meaning. It explains who you are and where you come from and where you are going to. In that case the evolution theory can be a religion too. Conclusion: no more textbooks with the evolution theory any more. It is unconstitutional, just like the stickers!

Jamie,

I answered that objection in a follow-up post. Attempts to reduce the risk for our children's education through the courts is a poor model of education. Legislating sound science simply plays the game of the religious fanatics and it seems "we've" fallen into that trap. If there are as many incompetent, creationist biology teachers as some have suggested, then no legislation or court ruling will reverse such a pathetic state of affairs.

The problem, therefore, seems to be much more fundamental (no pun intended). Presumably, those (or at least the vast majority) who teach biology or the general sciences in our public schools, have a college degree in one or several of the sciences. If such individuals come away from their college education still believing creationism, then our post-secondary education system has failed miserably. Conferring a college degree in biology to an individual who doesn't hold to the fundamental principles of that discipline is gross negligence. Employing such an individual to teach in this discipline simply magnifies this negligence.

Hence, our education system at all levels is failing and the evolution debate is simply a symptom of a larger pathology. The courts are not the proper tools to treat this disorder. Having said this, I'm not yet convinced that the problem runs as deep as Wesley suggests, i.e., "between one quarter and one third of high school science teachers are antievolutionists . . . " I would need to see the data myself -- not that Wesley is wrong, just employing some minimal scientific methodology.

David, it is logically possible that God is *capable* of "simply creat[ing] species ex-nihilo" AND that God *decided* not to create an organism "ex-nihilo." What evidence is there that "God simply created species ex-nihilo?" And what do you mean by "ex-nihilo?" How would that work?

David, here is my question: Could you give me a specific hypothesis? In other words, what event(s) did God cause? I know that is putting you on the spot.

Initially you have a simple system performing some function. Later a part gets added that improves the functioning of the system, but is not necessary. Later still, a change to the original system renders the added part essential.

But we shouldn't teach kids that an extraterrestrial turned inert matter (or "nothingness") directly into two grown elephants (and male and one female). That is just not supported by the evidence.

David, when I was a child I believed that they found Noah's arc because of a show that was on TV. The sticker may have influenced my thinking. Does this make me stupid?

So your problem is that the time period between the cooling of the mantle of the earth and the appearance of life is to short?

So you accept that life started out as one celled organisms (or even less considering self replicating organic compounds) but that with every change that occurred "God" is doing it actively?

David,

Just a friendly objection/correction: there is no logical inconsistency "to believe in God and then restrict him from acting supernaturally." There may be theological inconsistencies in such a conception but certainly not logical.

A few quick notes:

1) I appreciate the points that David Heddle is making - these are things we need to be thinking about even if we disagree with his conclusions or perspective.

2) Jeff is quite right, and this is an important point. Many IDists (notably Johnson) say that God is really not the God they believe in unless he leaves his "fingerprints" on the world. This is a theological view, but not an inevitable logical conclusion.

3) I don't see a problem with discussing theological issues of some sorts in a thread like this as opposed to the bathroom wall. Thoughts about the nature of reality and on what possible metaphysical reality might exist are related to our issues, although many theological/religious topics wouldn't be

I'm confused now David. In one hand you admit that "God" doesn't do things like move the planets around the sun but in another way you say "God" couldn't create a set of natural laws like abiogensis and use mutation and natural/sexual selection to produce the various life we see. That is a big contradiction in my view. Please clarify if I misunderstand you.

Wayne,

I don't know what you mean by clasifying abiogensis as a "natural law."

I think what you are getting at is the sovereignty question again? In a nutshell, if anything is outside of God's control, such as truly random processes, then said processes might ultimately thwart his plans, and so his promises cannot be trusted. It's the old for want of a shoe the horse was lost, for want of a horse the rider was lost, etc. And so many argue that there can be no randomness. I think one can imagine a certain degree of randomness with the possibility of god's plan being thwarted.

I didn't say God couldn't use mutation, etc, unless you do not agree that theistic evolution constitutes using those processes, which I suppose is valid, it being more like genetic engineering.

David,
I'm not saying it is .... but you are saying it isn't. Kind of like saying "God" couldn't cause the planets to revolve around the sun 2000 years ago.

One thing you failed to read in another post is what we call "Random" is only random to us. If you believe in a sovereign god then it really isn't random. But then you have the issue if your god is sovereign and all knowing then we really don't have free will do we.

Also how can a "sovereign" god's plan be thwarted. All powerful is all powerful is it not?!

Personally I don't believe we are the height of god's gloreous work.

I'm agnostic in my belief. I can neither prove or disprove god. What I have a problem with is why a "God" would create all these natural laws that the "God" would then have to break to create life instead of creating the natural laws to produces life....if that was the goal of said god.

You meantioned that you work with GAs. So you understand how systems can be created via random mutations and you can end up with what you want. The program isn't designed but allowed to grow and you use selection to pick out a set of them for further mutations in the next generation. I'm not saying its a perfect analogy. I'm saying its a possibility.

What most creationist say, and I believe you seem to be flip flopping between literal readings of the bible and alagory, is that evolution can't be true because "God" created all the creatures in their "kinds". To this you complain that biologist cann't even agree with what a species is. I don't believe that. I believe that some times there might be a grey area of classifying an organism into an exsisting species or not but species boundry is one of populations and what they will and will not breed naturally with. Biology doesn't need, nor can it have, fixed definitions of species like you want with "kinds" because life just is not like that. Most species can interbreed with other species because they are closely related because of common descent. The genus Equus is a great example of this.

So while I don't believe we need to bring a "God" into the picture because a "God" would be all knowing and could do it anyway said "God" felt was fit you and other creationist say "God" could not have done it via mutations (random to us but not to god) and natural selection. As soon as you make your "God" taper directly with every mutation that occurs you also might as well say that your "God" has to move every molecule in the universe around. The difference is not that great especially when you look at if from what we would concider an all powerful god. In the end all the evidence we have is that life evolves via natural processes. The only thing that disagrees with that is 6000 year old stories and those that beleive those stories to be the word of god.

forgive any misspellings....its almost 4am.

Noob you evaded my question. Let's grant that I am a fanatic and I do not understand probability. Why do Non-ID cosmologists acknowledge the amazing constraint on the expansion rate? You just keep avoiding that little thorn in the side.

No, c'mon Noob, explain these quotes

I agree I know nothing. But what are these smart guys talking about?

Mr. Heddle, you appear to be mistaking rhetoric and metaphor for an informed scientific opinion (not to mention that there are some seriously out of context quotes in that list.

My earlier point still stands: in order to characterize a given 'value' as fortunate, miraculous, etc., you need to have some understanding of how probable or improbable that value is.

I would suggest that staking a significant metaphysical position on the rhetorical utterances of scientists is not equivalent to having actual data to support an opinion.

Wayne,

The free will question would REALLY get us into deep theology. I'm happy to go there if you like.

I never said biologists can't agree on what a species is. I think you are confusing me with another David.

GAs are toys -- and yes they work beautifully. But even if I were an evolutionist I would view them as nothing more than suggestive.

Granddaughter,

OK, just explain Penzias's quote. A Nobel prize winner. Or explain how it is out of context. Just one quote.

Look guys, here's the bottom line, as I have said many times. Physicists are willing to accept the fact of our privileged universe and to run with it (in a variety of directions.)

You guys are hyper-sensitive about it, and instead of saying "yeah, that's interesting, I'd like to follow that research" (talking about cosmology here) you would rather deny the painfully obvious--because you think that any concession opens the door for the fundamentalists.

I do think some of the creationist arguments -- irreducible complexity and convergence --are interesting, but I am too out of field to judge their merits.

As for GWW, he is teaching me all sorts of things about myself I never knew.

these are things we need to be thinking about even if we disagree with his conclusions or perspective.

everytime we turn Heddle to the genuine issue at hand, which is whether his "theory" that mysterious beings (some worshipped, some not) are responsible for this or that aspect of the universe is a useful scientific theory, Heddle and his cohorts change the subject. What Heddle and others of his ilk do not seem to understand is that their failure to address this ultimatey salient point is transparent. Heddle wants to redefine science so that it includes consideration of the imagined powers of his deity (powers which only Heddle truly understands, as Heddle's deity only truly exists in Heddle's mind and takes only the forms which Heddle's words provide, just as Ploink Ploink assumes the powers which I assign to her). But that ain't happening. And Heddle knows it.

What directions are they running in with that "priveleged universe" assumption?

Mike,

Mostly to multiple parallel universe theories.

David H.-

I checked out the link that you provided to the quotation list. The list of quotations in an overtly religious context- the blog is titled He Lives- seems very familiar. One can easily track down other lists of quotations used to promote particular views of not oinly evolution, but completely unrelated fields such as the views of the founding fathers on church and state issues. That doesn't make the lists wrong, but let's face it, there';s some history here. Such lists have been shown here and elsewhere to be plagued by quotation out of context,, quote mining, and outright error (George Washington's prayer book, anybody?). Perhaps you could point us to a source that does not so clearly have an axe to grind. Given that these are very famous physicists and cosmologists, it shouldn't be difficult.

You guys are hyper-sensitive about it, and instead of saying "yeah, that's interesting, I'd like to follow that research" (talking about cosmology here) you would rather deny the painfully obvious---because you think that any concession opens the door for the fundamentalists.

Doug,

Yeah its my blog. I can provide the references for the quotes. Hawkin's for example, comes from one of his books.

So we're going to go the "these quotes are unreliable and out of context" route, are we?

So we're going to go the "these quotes are unreliable and out of context" route, are we

Just a follow up to the "Chief Justice Scalia" threads above.

I saw a very interesting discussion on C-Span last night on foreign law featuring Justic Breyer (my nominee for Chief Justice) and Justice Scalia.

At some point, the discussion turned to Scalia's emphasis on original intent and differences between the Justices. And Justice Breyer made a very interesting point, which I can only paraphrase.

Essentially, he pointed out that while there are differences between the Justicies, their similarities dominate. And they are all interested first and foremost in finding the answer to a legal question by following the law.

Note those last two words: the law.

The reason these creationist cases will never go anywhere (as long as we continue to fight them) is that the creationists lack facts to support their position. And no Judge is ever going to base his decision on metaphysical garbagola about the likely actions of deities, or the absurd unfounded assertion that learning about evolutionary biology is damaging to children's minds.

Creationist apologist should ask themselves why the framers were opposed to state-sponsored religions at all. Surely if it could be logically proven that the deity of Christians is as real as the paper that the Constitution was written on, then the worship of that deity should be treated with all the respect that science is treated. It seems perhaps that the founders understood something about religion that the Johnsonite Christians have forgotten.

Ref: comment # 13714 by Wayne Francis.

Wayne, can you show me any proof of abiogenesis -- from molecular level to a living cell?

HB

Harvey: Can you show me any evidence of special creation?

Dumb...I am not looking for any signs of creation, just want to know where I can find some documentation that used
the "scientific method" that proves abiogenesis to be a fact.
I have searched extensively to no avail.
I would appreciate it if anyone could help me here.

Thanks,
Harvey

There isn't any proof that it's a fact. Was that what you were looking for? There has been research into potential ways it could have happened, but we obviously don't kow exactly how it happened. Yet.

I am not looking for any signs of creation, just want to know where I can find some documentation that used the "scientific method" that proves abiogenesis to be a fact.

I am not looking for any signs of creation, just want to know where I can find some documentation that used the "scientific method" that proves abiogenesis to be a fact.

Ref: comment #17399 by Jack.

Well thanks Jack.
I am not here to cause an argument--this seems to be a sensitive or provocative question.
I am not a chemist or a biologist
but a mechanidal engineer and have some sense of how things work. I am also a stickler for details and I am regemented and analytical in my approach to any problem resolution, as I believe any scientist/biologist should be
Therefore, I thought since evolution is a theory I could backtrack and find the documentation of scientific tests generated by the "scientific method" used by the scientists to support the hypothesis of abiogenesis.
If you can not direct me to any such documentation alright- no big deal. I will just ask someone else until I get it. I just have no concrete, scientific way to defend it now.
The creationists beat me into the ground every time I use "common sense" and "my opinion" and others opinions in defense of it.
That is why I asked for documented evidence gained through the application of the "scientifc method" to shut them up.

Thanks,
Harvey

P.S. Lighten up eveyone!

Ref: comment #17399 by Jack.

Well thanks Jack.
I am not here to cause an argument--this seems to be a sensitive or provocative question.
I am not a chemist or a biologist
but a mechanidal engineer and have some sense of how things work. I am also a stickler for details and I am regemented and analytical in my approach to any problem resolution, as I believe any scientist/biologist should be
Therefore, I thought since evolution is a theory I could backtrack and find the documentation of scientific tests generated by the "scientific method" used by the scientists to support the hypothesis of abiogenesis.
If you can not direct me to any such documentation alright- no big deal. I will just ask someone else until I get it. I just have no concrete, scientific way to defend it now.
The creationists beat me into the ground every time I use "common sense" and "my opinion" and others opinions in defense of it.
That is why I asked for documented evidence gained through the application of the "scientifc method" to shut them up.

Thanks,
Harvey

P.S. Lighten up eveyone!

Harvey, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Send your creationist friends to these two places, for starters:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Or they can read any of these books:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/reading-list.html#ABIOGENESIS

a mechanidal engineer and have some sense of how things work. I am also a stickler for details and I am regemented and analytical in my approach to any problem resolution

The creationists beat me into the ground every time I use "common sense" and "my opinion" and others opinions in defense of it.

Ref: comment 13838.

Thanks Dumb....
I will look at those sights and if I understand them I will be able to defend my position.

However, I do believe evolution rises or falls on chemical evolution from molecules throught the first cell--abiogenesis. Otherwise, why even discuss it in the scientific community?

Thanks,
Harvinsky

I do believe evolution rises or falls on chemical evolution from molecules throught the first cell---abiogenesis. Otherwise, why even discuss it in the scientific community?

Evolution explains what we observe today, and explains what we keep finding out about the history of our planet. That's why we discuss it in the scientific community. Conveniently, it can also help us predict behaviour, and other things we might see in the future. This is somewhat helpful.

Ref: comment # 13840 by Great White

"...you seem unable to maintain a clear distinction between evolution and abiogenesis."

OK great white...help me out here and make that distinction for me. Quit being so defensive and shed some light on the question or direct me to someone who can. If you can.

"...the credibility of the world's scientists. That's a very reasonable way of evaluating expert claims when the scientific research itself is outside of your field of expertise."

Don't worry about the scientific research being outside of my field of expertise...I can recognize BS (Bad Science) when I see it.

Thanks,
Harvey

Modern theories of evolution observe the change in species over time, and also explain the apparent common descent of every living thing on earth (amongst a vast pile of other explanations). That doesn't touch abiogenesis, but the moments after it occured until the end of time. There are natural methods that could be considered analogous to evolution to explain simple chemicals reacting to form new structures and eventually "evolving" into what we consider to be life.

That's an extremely simple exlanation from what I understand, and I could be wrong (don't be shocked, it has happened before). I'm sure a lot of the smart people on this site are cringing in their chairs right now if it is.

Ref: comment #13858 by Dumb....

Thanks for your response Dumb...
At least you engage the question and don't attack me personally.

Harvey

Granddaughter, OK, just explain Penzias's quote. A Nobel prize winner. Or explain how it is out of context. Just one quote. Look guys, here's the bottom line, as I have said many times. Physicists are willing to accept the fact of our privileged universe and to run with it (in a variety of directions.) You guys are hyper-sensitive about it, and instead of saying "yeah, that's interesting, I'd like to follow that research" (talking about cosmology here) you would rather deny the painfully obvious---because you think that any concession opens the door for the fundamentalists.

But Dr. Penzias says, "The creation of the universe is supported by all the observable data astronomy has produced so far. As a result, the people who reject the data can arguably be described as having a religious belief." That is, people who refuse to consider the evidence because it conflicts with their preconceived ideas are following a "dogma" in the most stubborn sense of the word. In an article in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Penzias told Dr. Jerry Bergman of the American Scientific Affiliation, "I invite you to examine the snapshot provided by half a centurys worth of astrophysical data and see what the pieces of the universe actually look like. . . . In order to achieve consistency with our observations we must . . . assume not only creation of matter and energy out of nothing, but creation of space and time as well." Penzias, a Nobel Prize winner, added, "The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."

The only other point I can really offer up is probably the most important: don't argue about any of this with a family member or close friend. I don't care how fundamentalist their beliefs are, and how much they like to spout off about it. Just smile and nod. It's not worth it. I can back that up with a mountain of unpublished empirical testing. Nothing good can happen.

I could backtrack and find the documentation of scientific tests generated by the "scientific method" used by the scientists to support the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

I could backtrack and find the documentation of scientific tests generated by the "scientific method" used by the scientists to support the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

Thank you very much #13863 and #13864

Harvey

OK great white . . . help me out here and make that distinction for me.

Quit being so defensive and shed some light on the question or direct me to someone who can. If you can.

Don't worry about the scientific research being outside of my field of expertise . . . I can recognize BS (Bad Science) when I see it.

Yeah its my blog. I can provide the references for the quotes. Hawkin's for example, comes from one of his books. So we're going to go the "these quotes are unreliable and out of context" route, are we?

— David Heddle

Mike says What directions are they running in with that "priveleged universe" assumption David Heddle says Mike, Mostly to multiple parallel universe theories.

Ref: comment # 13714 by Wayne Francis. Wayne, can you show me any proof of abiogenesis --- from molecular level to a living cell? HB

— Harvey

you say "God" couldn't create a set of natural laws like abiogenesis and use mutation and natural/sexual selection to produce the various life we see

— Wayne Francis

OK great white . . . help me out here and make that distinction for me.

— Harvey

David surely your not in the one hand saying that scientists that believe in the multiple universes and say that ours is "priveleged" is meaning that in a many talking about the creator? Exactly why, if we humans are the end goal of "God" would god go through making physics up to spawn of infinate amounts of universes most of which would not be conducive to "Human" life. PLEASE don't give me the line about "to show us God's glory".

Well its a common stratergy used by creationists so references would be good so we can see if they are out of context or not.

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.

David surely your not in the one hand saying that scientists that believe in the multiple universes and say that ours is "priveleged" is meaning that in a many talking about the creator? Exactly why, if we humans are the end goal of "God" would god go through making physics up to spawn of infinate amounts of universes most of which would not be conducive to "Human" life. PLEASE don't give me the line about "to show us God's glory".

Well its a common stratergy used by creationists so references would be good so we can see if they are out of context or not.

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.

Ref: comment #13883 by Wayne F.

"...I don't know how Abiogenesis occurred. I don't even know if it occurred on earth."

"How this abiogenesis occurred, through completely natural causes or through divine intervention is not yet known."

If this is true then I have something to work with--I certainly won't have to waste time searching for any scientific proof on it but I can look for anything we know or speculate about it up to this point, and persue my inquires from there.

BTW..this is for Great White.
I hope you had a good nights rest and took your medication this morning. You seemed a little testy yesterday.

Thanks,
Harvey

So, anybody found the probability distribution--or even an accepted way to estimate it--for the likelihood that the expansion rate of the universe would be, say, 10% higher than it currently is?

Jan: go look at the accuracy of quantum electrodynamics and the electron magnetic moment. Maybe 20 decimal places was too many, that’s possible, I just pulled it out of the air. But I am sure it is at least 13—not sure of the latest data. But my point stands, that evolution cannot match that precision—nor should it. But your claim that evolution is on firmer ground that relativity is absurd—not sure why you brought god into that debate.

Jan: go look at the accuracy of quantum electrodynamics and the electron magnetic moment. Maybe 20 decimal places was too many, that’s possible, I just pulled it out of the air. But I am sure it is at least 13—not sure of the latest data. But my point stands, that evolution cannot match that precision—nor should it. But your claim that evolution is on firmer ground that relativity is absurd—not sure why you brought god into that debate.

Jan,

QED is a relativistic quantum field theory. And the EMM is calculated via QED. If relativity is wrong, QED is wrong, and its calculation would be off. Any theory with relativity built in obviously tests relativity.

It's not a shell game. I must say I am embarassed for you you for this particular criticism.

I will end this post the same way I ended my last on another thread.

My hypothesis is that you cannot offer a cogent, impassioned, reasoned response to the question concerning why non-ID physicists see fine tuning, because you think it opens the door to ID. It violates your world-view. It is impossible for you to say what these world-class non-ID scientists say, which is Hey, look at this fine tuning. Is that remarkable or what? Now I don't believe in God, but this sure demands an explanation. Let's investigate.

In giving that response, they are thinking like scientists. In covering your ears and saying "I don't see fine tuning, I don't see fine tuning, I don't see fine tuning" you are thinking like religious fundamentalists.

Harvey et al,

Science has concluded that life on Earth began about 3.8 billions years ago and has since evolved into a huge number of extinct and living species, such as E. coli, T. rex, and H. sapiens. This overarching evolutionary phenomenon of common ancestry is known as macroevolution. An important aspect of macroevolution is that it has nothing to do with how life began. Scientists do speculate plausibly about the beginning of life on Earth, and anti-evolutionists attack this speculation as if it were part of macroevolution, but macroevolution is the history of life after it started.

My hypothesis is that you cannot offer a cogent, impassioned, reasoned response to the question concerning why non-ID physicists see fine tuning, because you think it opens the door to ID. It violates your world-view. It is impossible for you to say what these world-class non-ID scientists say, which is Hey, look at this fine tuning. Is that remarkable or what? Now I don't believe in God, but this sure demands an explanation. Let's investigate. In giving that response, they are thinking like scientists. In covering your ears and saying "I don't see fine tuning, I don't see fine tuning, I don't see fine tuning" you are thinking like religious fundamentalists.

Furthermore, there are many scientists who do believe in an omnipotent God and also believe that science is the proper way to investigate the "fine-tuning" problem from an empirical point of view.

We just can't know: we are a creature that has been promoted above our level of competence - it is part of our nature that we can ask questions that we can't answer.

— Jack Krebs

My hypothesis is that you cannot offer a cogent, impassioned, reasoned response to the question concerning why non-ID physicists see fine tuning, because you think it opens the door to ID. It violates your world-view. It is impossible for you to say what these world-class non-ID scientists say, which is Hey, look at this fine tuning. Is that remarkable or what? Now I don't believe in God, but this sure demands an explanation. Let's investigate. In giving that response, they are thinking like scientists.

Granddaughter, OK, just explain Penzias's quote. A Nobel prize winner. Or explain how it is out of context. Just one quote.

These are not the words of a scientist objectively disinterested in the problem

You do not, in fact, have a single quote from an atheist scientist, correctly taken in context, which supports your assertion. By being so disingenuous, you open yourself up for speculation that your position is less than impartial concerning ID.

Ref: comment #13958 by Ralph Jones.

Thanks Ralph, but my initial question was if anyone could direct me to any documentation that might exist on any work done using the scientific method attempting to prove "abiogenesis".
I heard Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did some work in this area but I can only find mention of it--no formal documentation of it.
Was this work carried out any further by them and /or do you know of any records that might exist of their work?

Thanks,
Harvey

If you google "origin of life research" you will find lots of info. Some will be creationist (Answers in Genesis, Walter Bradley) but a majority of the hits will be partial answers to your question.

If you google "abiogenesis research" you will get more creationist sites (although my first hit was at talkorigins - have you looked there?) The reason for this is that "origin of life" is a term more likely to be used by scientists than "abiogenesis", because abiogenesis, in its emphasis on "life from non-life" supports the dichotomous arguments of the creationist; that is, the word itself contains a connotation of an logical impossibility.

So I suggest you do some googling and reading, and then perhaps report back on whether you see anything that might start to answer your question.

Our desire to have concrete answers to our questions often means we create or accept answers that are not fully supported by the available evidence. I would say that all of us are guilty of this to some degree. The only solution to this dilemma, I suppose, is to keep searching for answers and to accept that scientific explanations will always be tentative. The problem with this solution is that some people seem unwilling (or unable) to accept uncertainty.

— Jeremy Mohn

I just have to wonder why if evolution cannot be questioned and nothing against it considered how that is using a search for truth in science?

Why do they not allow all the evidence against evolution to also be taught?

Isn't that the sort of dogmatic approach that some say belongs to religion?

Does anyone actually exist that believes the theory of evolution is facts and cannot be questioned?

Then why should it be treated like its holy ground itself?

Seems to be an awful lot of questions evolution cannot answer, so why is that hidden from the students?

What questions can't it answer Larry? Where's your evidence that evolution can't be, or hasn't been, questioned?

What questions can't it answer Larry? Where's your evidence that evolution can't be, or hasn't been, questioned?

— Reading Comprhension 101