Evolving textbook stickers

"Yet another school board is contemplating defacing science textbooks with warning stickers...."

And the modern pagans must protect their holy books from that?

It seems to me that if the words in the book are true, no little sticker designed to create thought will matter. However, if the words in the book are false and rely on, "Well, this is the best naturalistic explanation we currently have. It may be utterly stupid and false, but you should accept what is false because at least it is naturalistic. And well, that's what science is!" then a sticker designed to generate thought will matter. Why will thought matter? It's probably because thought generates intelligence, while textbooks written to inspire Nature worship only inspire proto-Nazi scientism. If you are going to put naturalistic explanation before that little issue of the truth, incessantly, then the least that should be done is to note that a textbook may have nothing to do with the truth.

Mynym

The words in a science book aren't "true" or "false". They are the best explanation found by scientific means for a certain phenomena. If there is something that should be done in schools is explaining this to children BEFORE they learn anything about science. In my school (I'm Spanish), they did. However, in religion class they told me that christianism was the one and only Truth. No wonder I'm an atheist...

On the other hand, these stickers are not meant to produce thought. Science encourages thought. If anyone can prove without doubt a theory to be wrong, the theory will be changed to conform to reality. These stickers are meant to produce confusion, equalling scientifically provable theories with religious faith.

The fact is that religion has a place in the life's of people. Things like this are only an effort to extend that influence.

(I should call Godwin's law, hehehe)

Richard Dawkins, the famous Oxford atheist zoologist, author of "The Selfish Gene" "The Blind Watchmaker", was at least honest when he said "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". 'Tis a pity everyone in The Church of Darwin is not as forthright.

Make no mistake, the core constituency on both sides of this brouhaha are driven by religiuous ideology. It stopped being about science a very long time ago.

Dave, that mined quote has been explained to you several times in another thread. Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be one of your strengths.

Dawkins did indeed say that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

But Dawkins did NOT say that Darwin denied God. Dawkins did NOT say that evolution has evidence God doesn't exist (though Dawkins personally finds the lack of evidence for God to be persuasive).

Nor did Dawkins say anything that should prevent faith-filled Christians from being intellectually or religiously fulfilled.

In short, Dave, your nervousness that someone else might find happiness and peace in science is no kick against evolution, but it does raise questions about what you claim as the inherent Scrooginess of Christianity.

Dickens wrote, "The stairs were dark, but darkness was cheap, and Scrooge liked it."

History tells different story: Darkness is expensive, ignorance costs lives and money. Scrooge was wrong.

That shouldn't make any Christian nervous or unhappy, and I cannot understand why anyone would be bothered by those who light candles against the darkness, even if those candles illuminate the paths of atheists.

The use of those stickers was struck down by the courts

— PZ Myers

Yeah right. Richard Dawkins being an atheist is beside the point but Stephen Meyer being a Christian is oh so relevant.

Spare me.

Furrfu, time yet again for the endless "failing to have a religious opinion is itself a religious opinion" dorkitude.

The vengeance of the Fates upon me is manifest, in that I now understand entirely too well the reason for the irritation exhibited by my (few remaining) friends at my constant iteration of the "anything you believe about the world is a religious belief" mantra, back when I still held supernatural beliefs.

Why would you expect that? You didn't point out any sort of legal flaw in the ruling that could have been grounds to overturn. I assume that once the ruling is upheld, the higher court will also be labelled as Clinton appointed cronies who don't know how to uphold the constitution like DaveScot does?

Ed Darrell,

The evidence doesn't support mutation/selection as the all powerful force of evolution. Darwin never subscribed to it. Anyone who's actually read "The Origin of Species" knows Darwin believed that evolution was driven by the heritability of acquired characters. That's been falsified. Mutation selection would never have been considered as a replacement for Darwin's Lamarckian belief if there'd been any saner hypothetical mechanism in the wings other than Paley's. Mutation/selection won by defaut through the combination of an appeal to ignorance and dogmatic materialism.

And that's the way it was. Deny it if you want, it doesn't change the facts.

The evidence doesn't support mutation/selection as the all powerful force of evolution.

Meyer's religion IS an issue to help understand the motivations of the ID movement and to help understand why, despite a flawed scientific foundation, a position of 'god of the gaps', it still holds to a position that ID is the best explanation.
In other words, it is an explanation for an observation that ID is scientifically vacuous and helps explain why inspite of this, ID exists as a religious/political movement.
Meyer's religion and Dawkins' atheistic position are irrelevant to their scientific claims but it helps explain why Meyer focuses on a 'God of the Gaps' approach with all the logical flaws and the inevitable conclusion that ID is scientifically vacuous.
Sometimes, ID seems to take the position that their religious position is used to prevent their scientific arguments from being fairly evaluated. Nothing is more wrong. It's the poor performance of their scientific arguments, combined with their political/religious goals which are used to explain the existence of ID. Science seems to be a means to an end and suffering because of it.
Meyer's lastest paper makes for an excellent example. A limited overview of scientific knowledge of the Cambrian is combined with an 'eliminative argument' to infer design as 'the best explanation'. In other words 'a god of the gap' argument without ANY scientifically relevant details as to how ID explains the Cambrian.

Enough

I expect it because Cooper's decision was ridiculous. I have made my reasons clear before using relevant quotes from the decision itself. I didn't bookmark it. If you missed it, too bad.

Here's a nice take on the matter for your reading pleasure.

http://www.ksusentinel.com/news/2005/01/26/Viewpoints/Evolution.Debate.Creates.A.Sticky.Mess-841750.shtml

...and you were rebutted. If you missed it, too bad.

The extent of 'Davescot's "argument"

The use of the sticker was struck down by one (singular, not plural) lower court. The ridiculous ruling handed down by Clinton appointed crony/judge Clarence Cooper is being appealed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. I expect a judge at a higher pay grade will reverse Cooper's goofy finding.

The extent of his argument seems to vary from "I don't like this ruling, ergo it's wrong" to "aw come on guys, it's just a little sticker, who cares?".

The stickers have yet to be removed, by the way. It appears the Cobb County School board is ignoring his order. I wonder if the National Guard will have to be called in with tanks and guns and such to remove the stickers? It's highly amusing for those of us who see how preposterous the situation is.

Latest development:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/0205/18evolution.html

Appeals court asks mediation on evolution stickers

By KRISTINA TORRES
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/18/05

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has asked both sides in the Cobb County evolution disclaimers case to meet with a mediator March 1.

The step is an intermediate one as the county school board appeals a federal court ruling banning disclaimers on textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact."

The court's request surprised neither Michael Manely, who represents parents who want the disclaimers removed, nor Linwood Gunn, who represents the school board. The two lawyers don't expect it to come to much, either.

"I'm not overly optimistic of reaching any kind of settlement," Gunn said today.

U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled Jan. 13 that the disclaimers were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and ordered them removed immediately. The board has since requested that the order be put on hold pending the outcome of its appeal.

Wow. We agree. It really is preposterous to expect a state board of education to put a sticker on a biology textbook. Or is it preposterous for them to comply with a judges ruling, like the rest of society?

Dave Scott better hope that the theory of evolution doesn't rule out the existence of God since that would mean that God doesn't exist.

The evidence doesn't support mutation/selection as the all powerful force of evolution. Darwin never subscribed to it. Anyone who's actually read "The Origin of Species" knows Darwin believed that evolution was driven by the heritability of acquired characters. That's been falsified. Mutation selection would never have been considered as a replacement for Darwin's Lamarckian belief if there'd been any saner hypothetical mechanism in the wings other than Paley's. Mutation/selection won by defaut through the combination of an appeal to ignorance and dogmatic materialism.

For no amount of exercise, or habit, or volition, in the utterly sterile members of a communtiy could possibly have affected the structure or instincts of the fertile members, which alone leave descendents. I am surprised that no one has advanced this demonstrative case of neuter insects, against the well-known doctrine of Lamarck.Origin of Species, Gramercy facsimile of the 1st ed., p. 262.

Whoooeee!

If the proposed Tennessee sticker indeed says

"This textbook contains material on scientific theories about creation. There are many scientific and religious theories about the nature and diversity of living things. All theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

then it would appear to be a real non-starter, as it explicitly mentions "religious theories" and stays that they should be studied.

Sounds like a slam-dunk mixing Church and State.

Whoooeee!

If the proposed Tennessee sticker indeed says

"This textbook contains material on scientific theories about creation. There are many scientific and religious theories about the nature and diversity of living things. All theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

then it would appear to be a real non-starter, as it explicitly mentions "religious theories" and stays that they should be studied.

Sounds like a slam-dunk mixing Church and State.

I"ve been away for some time and am just picking up this thread---about which I may have more comments tomorrow (that is about the stickers in Shelby County), but thought I would comment on DaveScot's usual shallow nonsense. Whether it's DaveScot or those he supports at the Discovery Institute, their arguments can best be described as wishful thinking. By the most accurate label that is simply prayer. My late mother was one to rely on prayer often, so I'll not malign it---it has its place for believers---but it has no place in science, rational analysis, or objective assessments of any kind. DaveScot, If you don't believe that, try it on the IRS sometime. Or on computer code, or on increasing your income, or making that old clunker in the garage cure its ailments all by itself. Doesn't work, does it? Well the same holds for sciencce. Prayer won't get you a resolution to your ancestry or that of any species on earth. Only hard nosed analysis of the facts. But keep praying and you'll continue to have a measurable impact on the readers of PT, which is to say none. Nada. Zilch. So your motives must be something perverse. like masochism, perhaps?

Speaking of prayer, yesterday afternoon I was driving out from Philadelphia to my home, about an hour or so out in the country, and listening to "Science Friday" on NPR. Ira Flatow was hosting a panel at the AAAS meeting in Washington with a live audience. One of the penelists was Leon Lederman, retired head of the Fermi Lab in Illiinois. When the subject turned to creationism and evolution, Lederman, a very serious man by the way, set me to laughing out loud when he suggested a simple solution to the creation/vevolution controversy was to set up two health care systems. If you accepted evolution you went to evolutionary based hospitals where medicine based on the best science was provided. If you were a creationist or subscriber to ID, you'd go to a creationist run hospital where eight to ten people would gather round the afflicted, holding his or her hand and pray. Lederman was obviously being facetious, but with its coming from a man of his stature, it was hilarious.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It provides an incomplete schemata or framework for studying living organisms. One or more parts of the theory may be incorrect. As with any scientific theory, the entire theory or substantial parts of it may be shown to be false in the future. The theory may be altered or superceded as more data is gathered and as knowledge increases. One fundamental area of incompleteness concerns the mechanisms for the evolution of the first organisms. Several preliminary suggestions have been made but very little is known with even a minimal degree of certainty. Science always maintains an open and inquisitive stance when investigating phenomena. Science avoids dogmatism and acknowledges the growth, change and tentativeness of empirically based knowledge.

Count yourself lucky GWW isn't around to comment on that.

Empiricist - why single out evolution? I'm all for students getting a brief intro to some issues in philosophy of science, but since the issues highlighted in your proposed passage apply to all theories, there's no reason at all to mention evolution.

Dan asks, "why single out evolution?" I do not think that one should single out evolution when discussing the tentative nature of scientific knowledge. Consider first year physics students who are taught Newtonian mechanics. It is important that students know that the scientific theory designated "Newtonian mechanics" was thought to be "true" for many years. Indeed, some scientists thought that physics was largely a "solved" problem and that Newtonian mechanics was a "fact". But Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by theories such as quantum chromodynamics and general relativity. For example, the predictions generated by Newtonian mechanics are completely inaccurate for fast moving objects. There is no upper bound on the velocity of an object in Newtonian mechanics, and now scientists believe that there is an upper bound of c (the speed of light). So the "disclaimer" style discussion in a textbook covering Newtonian mechanics should mention that it is incomplete, wrong, and has been superseded.

I believe that scientists also think that the theory of quantum chromodynamics is incomplete and wrong. Researchers are working on successor theories involving, for example, "branes", and students should be made aware of this. General relativity also breaks down I believe, i.e., the theory is known to be incomplete and wrong. If there is a physicist reading this perhaps he or she can comment.

There is no shame in stating that scientific knowledge is incomplete, changing and tentative. The passage in a textbook that discusses scientific uncertainty may vary depending on the scientific area. For example, sometimes a scientific theory that is being taught is already known to be flawed.

Empiricist, this is a very (probably too-) short take on the legal difficulties, but singling out evolution makes a big difference. We essentially look at the motives of the rulemakers to see if they had a valid secular purpose in making the rule, and/or whether they were entangling the government too closely with religion. (If you're not familiar with the standard, it's called the Lemon Test, and Wikipedia has a good article that sums it up rather well.)

A general science disclaimer isn't a problem, and most people here would support it, as long as it didn't explicitly posit 'religious theories' as an alternative to objective science. (That's a pretty boneheaded move on the part of the creationists, by the way.) When the rulemakers single out evolution, though, it's clear what their motivation is - religion in general, and creationism in particular. That implicates the Lemon standard, since the rulemaker is paying special attention to one scientific discipline for transparently religious reasons.

One way to look at it is that a rulemaker obviously can't have a valid secular purpose for disclaiming only evolution, because evolutionary theory is an integral part of science - it's not categorically different from, say, astronomy. Nor can a rulemaker singling out evolution pretend that he's not doing so for religious reasons, since there's no good non-religious reason, so he's using the machinery of the state to support a narrow and somewhat radical religious dogma.

The use of the sticker was struck down by one (singular, not plural) lower court.

The evidence doesn't support mutation/selection as the all powerful force of evolution. Darwin never subscribed to it. Anyone who's actually read "The Origin of Species" knows Darwin believed that evolution was driven by the heritability of acquired characters. That's been falsified. Mutation selection would never have been considered as a replacement for Darwin's Lamarckian belief if there'd been any saner hypothetical mechanism in the wings other than Paley's. Mutation/selection won by defaut through the combination of an appeal to ignorance and dogmatic materialism. And that's the way it was. Deny it if you want, it doesn't change the facts.

I'm still waiting for DaveScot's explanation of why atheism is a religious belief. Somehow P and ~P are now equivalent in the upside down kingdom of Christendom.

On another note: I've always been a little skeptical of the claim that evolutionary theory is maligned by fundamentalist/evangelical Christians because it poses a threat to literal accounts of the Genesis tale. Modern theology and biblical studies have done far more harm to literal renderings than all of science combined. The rise of higher criticism in the 19th century closed the book on this matter at least for serious scholarship.

I think there's a more mundane reason for the Religious Right's obsession with evolutionary theory. It has more threatening implications for their doctrine of "original sin" than anything else, which by the way represents the core of the RR's theology.

The reasons are simple. It removes the moral dimension from the natural world, or more accurately, modern science finds questions of morality in the physical world nonsensical. This would also fit much better with IDists. A physical world without a moral dimension removes the need for redemption and thus a need for a providential deity (an intelligent designer). Most, if not all, IDists are theists not deists.

Ah, you say, but what about the social dimension of sin? That surely doesn't require the physical world to be morally located. The crux of various doctrines of original sin have always (and more importantly) extended beyond the realm of human social interaction and implicated "all of creation."

If the notion of "sin" is only an incidental characteristic of human action and not a pathological feature of the natural world, then it can theoretically be addressed through human action alone. In other words, we don't need the intervention of the divine to save us from our so-called intractable depravity because it's not intractable. We can save ourselves so-to-speak. Take away the moral dimension from the natural world and the bible is effectively devoid of content.

You've got to love the Enlightenment for this one.

Modern theology and biblical studies have done far more harm to literal renderings than all of science combined.

Mentioning "scientific and religious theories." This has the same problem the original sticker had: it muddles up the scientific definition of theory with the colloquial understanding. There are no religious theories. There are religious ideas, sure enough, but lets not confuse everything by treating them as equivalent to scientific theories.

Posted by mynym on February 19, 2005 01:03 PM: It seems to me that if the words in the book are true, no little sticker designed to create thought will matter.

Posted by DaveScot on February 19, 2005 02:49 PM: It appears the Cobb County School board is ignoring his order. I wonder if the National Guard will have to be called in with tanks and guns and such to remove the stickers?

Posted by Empiricist on February 19, 2005 11:13 PM: Here is my suggestion for a passage that should be integrated into books that discuss evolution. It should not appear as an extraneous sticker because it is essential to understanding the philosophy of science and the theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis. Any textbook that omits the ideas communicated in the following passage is in my opinion incomplete and perhaps misleading.

Posted by Empiricist on February 20, 2005 12:33 AM: It is important that students know that the scientific theory designated "Newtonian mechanics" was thought to be "true" for many years. Indeed, some scientists thought that physics was largely a "solved" problem and that Newtonian mechanics was a "fact".

This textbook contains material on scientific theories about creation. There are many scientific and religious theories about the nature and diversity of living things. All theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

Posted by Buridan on February 20, 2005 04:19 AM: On another note: I've always been a little skeptical of the claim that evolutionary theory is maligned by fundamentalist/evangelical Christians because it poses a threat to literal accounts of the Genesis tale. Modern theology and biblical studies have done far more harm to literal renderings than all of science combined. The rise of higher criticism in the 19th century closed the book on this matter at least for serious scholarship. I think there's a more mundane reason for the Religious Right's obsession with evolutionary theory. It has more threatening implications for their doctrine of "original sin" than anything else ...

"then it would appear to be a real non-starter, as it explicitly mentions "religious theories" and stays that they should be studied.

Sounds like a slam-dunk mixing Church and State."

Utterly....ridiculous, if what you are saying is true then the Declaration is "unconstitutional." Not only that, the Constitution is "unconstitutional."

You've taken such a broad non-sectarian issue of philosophy and religion such as theism and try to make one belief a "religion," then say that is a "Church." Is there a national Church of Theism/Deism?

Don't be ridiculous...

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of
a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only
firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these
liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be
violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country
when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep
forever."
Thomas Jefferson,
In his Notes on the State of Virginia

Atheists prove that they are intent on undermining Liberty by undermining through a judicial oligarchy the very things that the Declaration and Constitution say. Jefferson called such judges, "...the steady corps of sappers and miners..."

"The words in a science book aren't "true" or "false". "

Yeah, they're just taught as "fact."

Here is the argument, "Hey, all you are doing is punching holes in my narratives of naturalism! But the important thing is not if it is true, but if it is naturalistic, becaues that is science. So you can see why I stick with it, even if it seems stupid and ignorant. It may be utterly stupid, but at least it is naturalistic. I am concerned with naturalistic explanation, not the truth. Because naturalistic explanations are true, as we know from the history of science and religion."

Etc., evolutionists seem to be textual degenerates, which fits with their philosophy. It is not as if their texts can be recognized as the artifacts of intelligent design, after all. They seem to really be the biochemical state of their brain at the moment, mixes with some inane memes they picked up from their myopic "community."

"...you can only do that for so long with science before people scratch their head and wonder why "Satan" is giving them such wonderful things as technology and medicine."

The anti-ID writers will often do that. They say that "science" is only naturalism, all the time. Yet then they bring up things like technology which rely on ingenuity, design and intelligence, i.e. ID. They want the benefits of ID to be included as "science" for political reasons, yet cannot admit to its obvious prevalence and force for religious reasons.

Ironically, science did not begin in pagan cultures in which Nature worship was typical, becaues it could not. ID is a large part of science that seems to be denied by Nature worshippers.

"The rise and fall and rise of String Theory alone is enough to make one think that science is about the pursuit of "best fit" explanations rather than The Truth."

The believers in scientism seek to make too much of the word "science," these stickers seem to be a response to that. Then the believers in scientism gasp at the blasphemy, this "defacement" of their holy books.

That is amusing.

It is also important for students to learn that "Newtonian mechanics" is still "true" (although, "true" is not a scientific term).

"Furrfu, time yet again for the endless "failing to have a religious opinion is itself a religious opinion" dorkitude."

If that has been your experience then perhaps you are trying to hide, passively, in Mother Nature too much. They are just trying to draw you on out of there, you see. So you do not adhere to the advice of Plato and Christ to come on out of the cave/womb to be born again?

mynym:
Be careful: if you keep holding diametrically opposing thoughts in your head, it will blow up eventually. Either scientists have been wedded for a couple centuries to philosophical naturalism, in which case the scientific and technological progress we enjoy is the result of a philosophically naturalistic position, or it has relied on "ingenuity, design and intelligence, i.e. ID", in which case ID advocates have nothing to complain about, and should let scientists do their work undisturbed. You can't have it both ways - rail against naturalistic science, but ascribe its success to ID.

In reality, neither claim is true, as discussed numerous times here at PT. Science has been, still is, and will be for the foreseeable future, dependent on methodological naturalism, which does not imply scientism, "nature worship", or a materialistic philosophy. And if ID advocates could operatively detach themselves from their metaphysical assumptions and adopt a methodologically naturalistic approach, they would probably be able to contribute to science in fields in which an ID-based approach could be useful (and there are some).

I do not think that it is good idea pedagogically to tell students that ""Newtonian mechanics" is still "true"". Here is an example why: In Newtonian mechanics the equation for momentum is mass multiplied by velocity, i.e., mv. However, nowadays physical theories indicate that photons have zero mass, but nonzero momentum. Basically, photons are common phenomena and Newtonian mechanics treats them completely incorrectly.

Buridan, Andrea:

Your posts are particularly thoughtful.

mynym:

At the risk of shameless self-promotion, perhaps you should read The Argument Clinic.

If the evangelicals' kids were exposed to the latest scholarship from the Duke Philosophy department, they would be angered up over that. As it is, they're not exposed to modern theology and biblical studies. Their kids are exposed to evolution, so they rage against that aspect of modernity.

— steve

Thank you Andrea. I'm blushing.

Sorry, I meant Hey Skipper.

Yeah right. Richard Dawkins being an atheist is beside the point but Stephen Meyer being a Christian is oh so relevant.

To assure the perpetuation of these basic concepts of its founders, it is resolved that all those who become associated with Palm Beach Atlantic as trustees, officers, members of the faculty or of the staff, must believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments; that man was directly created by God; that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin; that He is the Son of God, our Lord and Savior; that He died for the sins of all men and thereafter arose from the grave; that by repentance and the acceptance of and belief in Him, by the grace of God, the individual is saved from eternal damnation and receives eternal life in the presence of God; and it is further resolved that the ultimate teachings in this college shall always be consistent with these principles.

then it would appear to be a real non-starter, as it explicitly mentions "religious theories" and stays that they should be studied. Sounds like a slam-dunk mixing Church and State.

Utterly . . . .ridiculous, if what you are saying is true then the Declaration is "unconstitutional." Not only that, the Constitution is "unconstitutional."

You've taken such a broad non-sectarian issue of philosophy and religion such as theism and try to make one belief a "religion," then say that is a "Church." Is there a national Church of Theism/Deism? Don't be ridiculous . . . "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." Thomas Jefferson, In his Notes on the State of Virginia

Atheists prove that they are intent on undermining Liberty by undermining through a judicial oligarchy the very things that the Declaration and Constitution say. Jefferson called such judges, " . . . the steady corps of sappers and miners . . . "

Steve said: "If I wrote things like that, I'd want to use a pseudonym too." Steve, since you state that you are working in biophysics perhaps you could point out a problem in the text you were commenting on.

"....or it has relied on "ingenuity, design and intelligence, i.e. ID", in which case ID advocates have nothing to complain about...."

You are conflating technology and science. They are not necessarily the same things. In the field of biology there are those who look for knowledge for its own sake. There is knowledge that has little practical use. And those are the people who write the mythological narratives of naturalism. Is it especially helpful to believe the narratives, "Once opon a time, a group of proto-avian ancestors were jumping around in trees. Some lived and some died, by this natural process they must have grown wings and begun to be avian." Etc.

What does have practical and technological implications is a study of the bird's wing as such, the design and technology it uses.

"...You can't have it both ways - rail against naturalistic science, but ascribe its success to ID."

I don't rail against naturalistic science, which is a huge component of science. I rail against proto-Nazis who believe in scientism. That's all.

"...Science has been, still is, and will be for the foreseeable future, dependent on methodological naturalism, which does not imply scientism, "nature worship", or a materialistic philosophy."

Then you should have no problem with someone attacking all those things on the issue of origins, as that would have nothing to do with science. So not to worry, I will attack all those things and it will have nothing to do with you, as you say.

"And if ID advocates could operatively detach themselves from their metaphysical assumptions...."

The only way that a sentient being can detach themselves from their metaphysical assumptions is to kill themselves. ID fellows are important in that they keep science from turning to scientism, etc. You should have no problem with that.

For instance, I bring up an editorial written by a person supposedly speaking for scientists and they seem to be working from an entirely different definition of "evolution" than what is promoted on PS. You are the people who should be cleaning your own movement and making sure that everyone understands what "evolution" is. You make the appeal to some "standard" or the "scientific community" often enough. That is a false claim, if many scientists are writing editorials (from their position as scientists) that do not use the same definitions.

"The stickers were proposed by creationists; since school boards are governmental entities, their insisting on stickers is an unholy endorsement of religion."

Now the mind that wrote this text is quite funny.

It's very similar to the "defacement" claim above. Note that if the words of the textbooks are "true" or factual (some people seem to have trouble with that word, truth, maybe they are lying?) then there should be no problem with a sticker meant to cause thought. The entire textbook can make its own case against the little sticker. What is the tremendous, oh so terrible problem here? Why the proto-Nazi tendency to censor in the name of "science"?

I say that text is quite funny because look at it.

"...unholy endorsement of religion."

One half expects the believers in scientism to claim, "Blasphemy!" against their holy texts. Holy, unholy...an unholy....endorsement of religion....I think I will just think on that, and laugh! This seems to be the material of satire. And it seems that the denizens of PS are not aquainted with the philosophy of the Founders. Perhaps I can remedy that sometime. Here is a hint, they were not passive agressives who believed that they did not believe anything, had faith that they didn't have any faith, spoke of "facts" but rejected truth, etc.

Nor did they claim that Naturalism was a useful explanation, to be stuck with because of its supposed usefulness, although it was not "true."

"Jefferson's views have been misrepresented, if the claim is he either favored a religious establishment or that he favored government paying official homage to any deity."

Theism is not a "religious establishment," anymore than there is a national Church of Theism.

The Declaration, although it is founded on theism, is not an establishment of religion. The New Thought Police have gone a little far in their distortions here. Theism is a philosophical sort of belief that can also be religious. If you are going to begin to start policing the free expression of such non-sectarian, non-demoninational beliefs such as that you are clearly being totalitarians, relying on the oligarchy that Jefferson spent some time criticizing for its various abuses.

Jefferson on the Judiciary:
"The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundation of our confederate fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special Government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictiomem.' (To amplify jurisdiction is characteristic of a good judge.) The power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
(THE NATIONAL ERA
July 9, 1857
Washington, D.C., Vol. XI No. 549 P. 112)

"To try to portray him otherwise is erroneous."

Jefferson, like Washington, believed in ID of their day and rejected the atheistic tenents of the French Revolution. I would provide some links but this forum does not seem to allow them.

As to,
"....paying official homage to any deity."

I suppose you have read the Declaration?

The stickers aren't some noble attempt to "cause thought". They are an explicit attempt to put religion into the public school system. You can call us "proto-nazis" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the theory of evolution is being singled out for these "thought causing" stickers, because it doesn't jive with the Adam and Eve creation story. Period.

"The stickers aren't some noble attempt to "cause thought". They are an explicit attempt to put religion into the public school system."

If you are going to take the tax dollars of parents to fund the public's schools, then maybe, just maybe, the public will want to have a say in their own schools. Other than "allowing" them that, you may as well declare them to be State schools and be done with it. Before someone says, "Well, I bet you wouldn't say that if Muslim community's wanted a say in their schools!"

Let me just note that you are absolutely wrong. Some of the Founders also noted that Mohammedanism was to be preferred over atheism.

"You can call us "proto-nazis" all you want...."

All believers in scientism are proto-Nazis, perhaps it is the evolution of the meme.

"...but that doesn't change the fact that the theory of evolution is being singled out for these "thought causing" stickers...."

I think the theory of evolution can stand a little thought. What is amazing is that its propenents are this concerned over a little sticker that can be answered with an entire textbook.

I'll be honest, if the community wanted to put a sticker on their textbooks saying, "Naturalism is true, this textbook proves it."

Then, I would be for their right to do that.

"...because it doesn't jive with the Adam and Eve creation story. Period."

I think that PS's intent focus on the intents and motivations of people (From scientific IDers, to YECs, or the Islamic) belies the fact that replacing narratives that in any way admit the transphysical with their own mythological narratives of Naturalism, may be all they are interested in. I.e., that aspect where they can have an impact on such narratives through textbooks. Then, very quickly, they claim their usual passive neutered neutrality, for it is not as if they are teaching the "truth." I suppose that lies are better?

It is a proto-Nazi pattern to severe youth from their parents in various ways. That is just the history, where "science"/evolution becomes wrapped up in a more overtly "religious" sort of Nature based paganism. There is science and religion, in one.

mynym,

Your insistence on identifying natural science with religion is unconvincing (it couldn't be otherwise) because you (or DaveScot or any of the other evolutionary discontents) haven't made an argument for these bald-faced assertions. I realize you religionists are in the business of peddling declaratives, that's what you do so well, but try giving the rest of us something to respond to. Don't just declare from on high your sermonic vision of the world -- I can watch the 700 Club to get that. Come on, make an argument and let's see what we can do with it.

Steve said: "If I wrote things like that, I'd want to use a pseudonym too." Steve, since you state that you are working in biophysics perhaps you could point out a problem in the text you were commenting on.

Steve, Your response contains the following quoted phrase: "We shouldn't teach Newton's Laws." Who are you claiming said that phrase? I hope that you do not ascribe that phrase to me. I certainly never said anything like it. If you do think that I say it then your reading skills are truly abysmal!

I think that Newtonian mechanics should be taught to physics students. It is an elegant and powerful theory that provides a stepping stone to more advanced theories within physics. In addition, as I said earlier it "provides a useful approximation when the values for mass, velocity, and acceleration are constrained within certain ranges." I also said that it is important for students to know that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete and wrong. The theory has been superseded. I think that this is common sense. But perhaps you think it is "hilarious"?

Mynym,

I think Thomas Jefferson would most vociferously dispute your identifying him as a Theist, and would declare himself a Deist. Some big differences there, revolving around rational thought processes as opposed to revelation.

I do not think that it is good idea pedagogically to tell students that ""Newtonian mechanics" is still "true"". Here is an example why: In Newtonian mechanics the equation for momentum is mass multiplied by velocity, i.e., mv. However, nowadays physical theories indicate that photons have zero mass, but nonzero momentum. Basically, photons are common phenomena and Newtonian mechanics treats them completely incorrectly.

OK. Steve. Perhaps you could point out the part that you think is "funniest". I am eager to learn from someone with a fine physics background.

A) I do not think that it is good idea pedagogically to tell students that ""Newtonian mechanics" is still "true"".

Here is the context: "Don T. Know" said "It is also important for students to learn that "Newtonian mechanics" is still "true" (although, "true" is not a scientific term)." I disagreed because Newtonian mechanics is an incomplete and incorrect theory. The theory has been superseded. It would be strange to tell students that the theory is "true" in a formal or informal sense. Of course, as I stated above the theory should still be taught to students for the reasons I gave above. Is this funny?

B) In Newtonian mechanics the equation for momentum is mass multiplied by velocity, i.e., mv.

Is this funny? Did I incorrectly define the Newtonian equation for momentum?

C) nowadays physical theories indicate that photons have zero mass, but nonzero momentum.

Is this funny? I gave a link to WolframsScienceworld that discusses this.

D) Basically, photons are common phenomena and Newtonian mechanics treats them completely incorrectly.

Is this funny? Photons have zero mass. Thus, Newtonian mechanics says that they have zero momentum (mv). But, we know that they have non-zero momentum by current physical theories

Posted by mynym on February 20, 2005 12:14 PM: Utterly . . . .ridiculous, if what you are saying is true then the Declaration is "unconstitutional." Not only that, the Constitution is "unconstitutional." Don't be ridiculous . . . "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." --Thomas Jefferson, In his Notes on the State of Virginia

Posted by Empiricist on February 20, 2005 07:52 PM: In Newtonian mechanics the equation for momentum is mass multiplied by velocity, i.e., mv. Is this funny? Did I incorrectly define the Newtonian equation for momentum?

"Your insistence on identifying natural science with religion is unconvincing....[you] haven't made an argument for these bald-faced assertions."

I identify any all encompassing narrative as "religious." There is nothing new under the sun. Any such narrative must rely on a whole ingrained system of beliefs with built up tradition, i.e. religion. It seems that the only way to get science to actually be such a narrative is through a belief in scientism, materialism, etc. Darwinists ought to have no problem with a sustained attack on such things as scientism. As they argue, such things have little to do with the "true science" that they practice, entirely separate from the assumptions of materialism or scientism. You can look on it as a service, as attacking such things will prevent them from growing and leading to pseudo-science based on them. So there should be no problem with any vitriol I care to write about such things.

"I realize you religionists are in the business of peddling declaratives...."

Like the Declaration of Independence....yes, it is true, I do declare! All sentient beings are in the process of "declaring" by their sentences, sentience and sentences are based on words. Here is a test for the testy testers, try thinking without words.

A word, there's a thought. Don't you think?

"I have drawn from the well of language many a thought which I do not have and which I could not put into words."
(Karl Kraus, Half-Truths
and One-and-a-Half-Truths :68)

I would link that citation to me blog for some further thoughts. But it's "questionable content" according to the PT system. Oh well.

"...that's what you do so well, but try giving the rest of us something to respond to. Don't just declare from on high your sermonic vision...."

It seems that language is designed to be sermonic. So one may as well use it for what it is good for, I do declare. You might do better in letting your words speak for you if you attempt to realize this. It will probably be difficult for you to realize by now that the concepts symbolized by your text are something other than matter in motion, just a passing record of some personal memes that you've picked up.

"...language, which is thus predicative, is for the same cause sermonic. We are all of us preachers in private or public capacities. We have no sooner uttered words than we have given impulse to other people to look at the world, or some small part of it, in our way. . . . Language is in tended to be sermonic. Because of its nature and its intimacy with our feelings, it is always preaching. This brings us to the necessity of concluding that the up holders of mere dialectic . . . are among the most subversive enemies of societies and culture."
(Anti-Freud: Karl Kraus's Criticism
of Psychoanalysis and Pychiatry
By Thomas Szasz :441)

Kraus "....insisted that we recognize the word as a weapon, which might be used for aggression, self-defense, or suicide; in other words, he knew that language was rhetorical, and that this has profound practical consequences for human affairs."
(Ib :63)

If you really are against its declarative nature, then the correct thing to do is not to write anything. It is not consistent to write something like, "I do declare, that's a declaration! Why, the circlular reasoning of that. Circular....why, now I will declare that circles do not exist!" Etc.

But let's look at things on your terms, I am willing to. First you must be drawn out into some declarations, instead of passively expecting me to "prove" things. That is what people of a certain type of psychology are wont to do.

Here you are:

What is religion?

What is natural science?

By the way, is there an unnatural science?

I realize that you will probably not think I have answered you. Yet for one thing, I did not write that science (whether natural or unnatural) is necessarily linked to "religion," whole systems of belief, or any sort of vast narrative. Everyone wants to link science to their vast narratives. Perhaps mainly because science and technology are associated and people want to think, "Hey, this seems downright useful and practical. Sheesh, I better include this in my narrative." This is actually fine with me. The problem comes in when oligarchs begin to control the State schools and the like, when the public schools are no longer the public's schools. You might not like it, but parents must be allowed to use their own money to teach their kids what they want their kids taught.

There are bigger principles involved than what you think is true about origins, without thinking it is "true" but trying to feel it is true somehow, or somethin'. One has to wonder about your "facts" or "truth" that are threatened by a sticker. Watch out...for the sticker, it is blasphemous and downright UNHOLY!!! That dread defacement of holy books, my how it sticks!

"The Declaration is not a legal document."

The Founders viewed it as a preamble to the Constitution. It layed out the ends that the Constitution was a means to.

"And, the Constitution has no mention of God whatsoever."

Unlike documents of the French Revolution the Constitution maintains the Theistic dating convention that places God as sovereign over time, "In the year of our Lord..."

The Founders could easily have excluded theism from the Declaration as well as the Constitution. The fact is that they did not, because they were theists, with one or two Deists mixed in.

"The only mention of religion is the clause that says, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Article VI, Clause 3)." "

Ironically, many of those who voted for that in the federal Constitution were actually protecting their own religious tests at the State level. Note that the Constitution allows for religious doctrine in the Sunday exception.

There are those who say the Constitution is "godless." Perhaps they should read it. The main point is that the Declaration is as the preamble to the Constitution, laying out the ends to which the Constitution is a means.

It seems that this whole sticker business is for the Darwinists rather like someone wanting to put stickers on the Bible would be for Christians. Defacement! Unholy!

But it is not as if those who believe in vast mythological narratives of naturalism are religious, of course not. (It really is amusing.)

Don T. Know: As I said before I agree that students should know that Newtonian mechanics provides a very useful approximation when the values plugged into the equations are constrained within certain ranges. However, when you plug in a velocity value that is close to c (the speed of light) then the Newtonian mechanics equations give a dramatically incorrect answer. Are you willing to acknowledge this?

Jefferson wouldn't publicly declare himself either deist or theist. He said it wasn't any business of the public what he believed. Let's just let it stand that, as Dumas Malone noted in his six-volume, Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Jefferson, in the election of 1800 more than half the American electorate thought Jefferson to be atheist, as Hamilton had charged. Jefferson refused to deny it. Americans elected him anyway -- in spite of, or because of, we can't know for sure.

Either way, as a theist or a deist, Jefferson's views strongly suggest he'd reject the idea of stickers warning of science theories in any book.

We know that Jefferson was a strict separationist when it came to schooling. While on the Board of Visitors of William and Mary College, he pushed for the elimination of theologists on the faculty and did away with classes in religion. Those professors were replaced with professors of law. Similarly, his carefully created design for the University of Virginia, and its curricula, excluded theology and religion. There is ample correspondence between Jefferson and Madison on this point to make it clear that he did not think religion a suitable subject even for college. Madison, who had stayed on at Princeton to study religion, agreed with Jefferson.

And, in that document you cite, Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson describes how Bibles were used in the few existing schools in Virginia to teach reading. This was bad, Jefferson said, because the Bible is a terrible book to learn to read from, from the viewpoint of language and grammar, and because so much of the material is unsuitable for children. With the Bible out of the public schools, Jefferson said, kids could be taught to read much faster. And with the time saved, there would be an opportunity to instruct the kids in morals, instead of the Bible. (Query XIV) Of course, you knew Jefferson said that, right? All of this suggests Jefferson would have been opposed to stickers warning against science, especially stickers of a religious foundation.

The philosophical sources of the Declaration of Independence were thoroughly Fisked in Garry Wills' Pulitzer Prize-winning history, Inventing America. The Declaration is rooted in the philosophy of Hume and Hutcheson, Wills concludes. It's not a theistic document. Specifically, on the issues of government, the appeal is to a compact between citizens, finding its legitimacy in their agreement to abide by their own laws. It follows the model of the Mayflower Compact, another secular compact between groups of differing religious beliefs to set up their own laws and follow them, rather than appeal to deity. There are references to deity, but not as a root for government. The references in the Declaration are typical deistic references, and they are valid for whatever deity the reader wishes to insert -- Vishnu, Odin, the God of Abraham, the Cosmic Muffin, or no deity at all.

Jefferson died on July 4, 1826. So we know that he wasn't around in 1857 to make that statement you attribute to him. Do you have a citation that identifies it as to year and context? Jefferson wrote that in 1821, to Thomas Ritchie, a newspaper publisher in Richmond. There is no fair way, historically, to suggest it has anything to do with stickers warning against science theories in textbooks. Jefferson would have had a difficult time conceiving how even such a crabbed class as conservative clergy would have difficulty with the concept of good education in the natural sciences. (Christians in that era provided education in natural sciences for men aiming for the clergy. It was an era you might not understand or agree with.)

And certainly, Jefferson did not mean to impugn judges when they enforce Jefferson's views. Your citing that statement in this discussion is wholly irrelevant.

Neither Jefferson nor Washington rejected animal husbandry, the source of much of Darwin's material. Both were better breeders of animals than to do that. Washington's pointing to the Masonic notion of the "Supreme Being" in discussing politics cannot honestly be claimed as an appeal to intelligent design in biology. Washington was much more a scientist than that. In any case, specifically on the issues of separation of church and state, Washington supported the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, Washington refused Christian communion, and he personally struck out the name "Jesus" in public proclamations, finding such statements inappropriate. There is not an honest hint in any of Washington's writings that he subscribed to any creationist view, and in light of his other views of churches and religions, such claims may be categorized as "fantasy," or "scurrilous inventions."

Atheism has nothing to do with it. Evolution is an invention of Christians, and many of us who study the science are faithful, dutiful believers.

Yes, I've read the Declaration. You can find a copy to read for yourself here: National Archives, Charters of Freedom

I commend it highly.

You'll also want to get Wills' book, and you'd do well to read Jefferson's letters directly, not second-hand. As to Washington, you need a crash course -- start with Joseph Ellis's recent biography His Excellency George Washington.

Happy studies!

Ed,

Thanks for that post - I had one or two bits.

Mynym, the "founders" viewed the Declaration of Independence as the public document which gave justification to declaring independence. They wrote a Preamble to the Constitution which is quite different, but keeps the Declaration's views that governments are established among men (and women) and derive their authority from the agreement of those people to abide by it, instead of claiming government is from any deity.

You should view those documents in the same way.

In no case do they make a claim that religious people should put anti-science stickers in government-owned science textbooks.

The dating of the Constitution, as "in the year of our lord," was required because England (and by extension, the colonies in America) did not adopt the Gregorian calendar when the rest of Europe did. When England came around, the adoption was spotty throughout the empire -- and so, to establish the date, it was necessary to use the secular designation of which calendar was being used, into the 19th century. That is ALL it means.

It's really quite humorous that you make such an argument at all. If your claim that the Constitution has religious import is based solely on the date, your claim is really very weak. The date of the document cannot nullify Article VI. This is basic law dealing with legal documents.

None of the founders worked to protect a religious establishment at the state level. History notes that all 13 colonies had disestablished their state churches by 1778. (See Hudson, Religion in America, for example) By the time of the Philadelphia convention nine years later, only four of the colonies had even vestiges of establishment left -- Massachusetts would collect tithes, for example, on a voluntary basis. There were no state churches to protect, and there is no protection of them in the Constitution. This should be clear from the correspondence between Madison and Jefferson in the fall and winter of 1787, but it is certainly clear in the language of the Constitution itself, which grants no religious privileges to any part of government in Articles I, II and II, nor to state governments in Article IV, and which explicitly prohibits religious interference in all governments, federal and state, in Article VI. To pretend not to see the progression of fossils is a form of lunacy, IMHO; claiming that the Constitution recognizes religion when it clealry does not is gross error, beyond lunacy.

Yes, there are those who view the Constitution as godless -- anyone who reads it fairly. Frankly, I'll take the words and actions of those who lobbied from 1788 through 1945 to amend the Constitution to fix its "godless" quality -- including Supreme Court justices and otherwise sane elected officials -- over your reading. Their straightforward admission of the intent of the plain language of the document is refreshing.

You're trying to bring the same inadequate scholarship to biology in your denial of evolution that you've brought to history and law. It's not surprising, therefore, that those who are so ill-informed on the history of our government are equally ill-informed on science, and want to hide their ignorance under a sticker disclaiming the knowledge in the books. If knowledge is not useful, ignorance is no sin, I suppose they think.

Posted by Empiricist: D) Basically, photons are common phenomena and Newtonian mechanics treats them completely incorrectly. Is this funny? Photons have zero mass. Thus, Newtonian mechanics says that they have zero momentum (mv). But, we know that they have non-zero momentum by current physical theories

Sorry, I meant to close with this:
So while QM must provide the same answer as CM in the range where CM applies, the reverse is not true, in that CM does not solve QM problems. That seems to be your difficulty, in that the two are not interchangeable. So of course QM must, by definition solve all CM problems, but CM cannot solve ANY problems in the QM range.

Thus photons are not described by Newtonian mechanics, and thus your argument is funny.

Again mynym, you still haven't made an argument and there's not much to discuss as a result. You have proclaimed your beliefs in all their rhetorical grandeur but they remain nothing other than proclamations. And that I suspect is why you're unable to differentiate between sermonizing and scientific, rational debate.

What concerns me (only a little) is that individuals like yourself pop into these discussions, make rather outrageous statements, and then you sit back and wait with delight for the rest of us to respond. Someone typically takes the bait, makes a cogent and well thought out argument in response, but you ignore the substance of their arguments and then begin sermonizing all over again.

You're not alone in this. There are several regulars that operate in this manner as well, and they, including you, are really not here for honest discourse. I hate to burst your bubble, but The Panda's Thumb is not a Wittenberg door to nail your theses on.

No, of course I don't think you've answered me (whatever that means). And as far as your "responses" to Ed Darrell, I'll let him decide if they constitute an honest exchange. But from what I've seen thus far, he's put a lot of thought and effort in trying to engage in a substantive exchange with you and you've responded, for the most part, with empty slogans.

In any event, Ed's a far more patient and gracious man than I'll ever be. At least give him the courtesy of listening to what he's arguing, you might learn something. I certainly have. Thanks Ed.

We're all waiting for the ID Einstein to come along and prove evolution to be no more "true" than Newton's Laws. Well, not really.

"You have proclaimed your beliefs in all their rhetorical grandeur but they remain nothing other than proclamations."

Ironically, you don't seem to have read my text at all. What is it that you think you do when you are using words? You are making proclamations. At least I am honest enough to admit that. I've noticed that many IDers and Creationists do the same thing. They are honest, like bloggers admitting to "bias." Yet the "journalist" of the Old Press replies, "Me not biased! Just look at me credentials...."

Etc. It's little wonder that the Old Press and evolutionists have been losing this debate. That sort of argument is a rather pretentious argument that tends to annoy people.

"And that I suspect is why you're unable to differentiate between sermonizing and scientific, rational debate."

I would not set up a false dichotomy between the sermonic and the scientific. You probably will not be able to read this correctly, no more than you replied to any of my questions or pretty much anything that I wrote, but the rational must begin with a rationale for rationality. I don't know how it could be any more obvious than in this very thread where the people on PT are sermonizing, calling things "unholy," judging "defacement," etc.

I don't have a problem with such sermonizing. It can be answered. I do have a problem with people making use of the sermonic nature of language saying, "Hey, that over there is sermonizing....but me, me scientific!" etc., as an excuse to totally avoid anything that does not match their own conceits. Further, they write down various rhetorical attacks and then rely on a retreat into "I didn't say nothin', me scienfitic. So you be scientific."

If you are going to rely on such claims to avoid your own sermonizing then it seems to me that you ought to answer these questions:

What is religion?

What is natural science?

(And I still want to know if there is an unnatural science, or if anything can be unnatural.)

"At least give him the courtesy of listening to what he's arguing, you might learn something. I certainly have. Thanks Ed."

As if I have not been reading exactly what you are writing?

"....really not here for honest discourse."

I think that you and many on PT have a classic psychological problem. It's as if you do not even realize the attacks you make. Now you accuse me of dishonesty, yet if I reply with some scathing rhetoric you will immediately turn to a Victim, a poor passive science geek who is just trying to do some science against all the vast forces of intolerance. ....or some such drivel. You know the pattern, maybe you can write it.

It's as if you feeel you can simply label people dishonest, bigoted, etc., and then run back into "science."

Well, I'll write you some good honest satire or vitriol about such psychological patterns. And then you can be a Victim again. So as you can see, everyone will get what they want. Fight on, Buridan, against those unholy sticky stickers! It is not as if Darwinists have a whole textbook in which to answer these unholy little stickers.

(But note, dear reader, evolutionists share no patterns with proto-Nazis and believers in scientism. Of course not!)

"....but you ignore the substance of their arguments and then begin sermonizing all over again."

I'd like to know what this "substance" is. Is it the biochemical state of their brain at that moment, is that the substance? Is it their meme, is that a "substance"?

You can't use metaphors if you're not going to admit to the metaphysical, the rhetorical, etc. I'm only holding you to the "substantive" sort of "natural science" that you say you adhere to.

What is this "substance" that I am ignoring? After all, I very well may be ignoring the substance of some people's brain events.

"There are references to deity, but not as a root for government."

I can let the Declaration speak for itself on that. I.e., you can say that and anyone who reads the Declaration who does not share your bias will have to come to the conclusion that you are biased.

"If your claim that the Constitution has religious import is based solely on the date..."

It's just an interesting way of refuting those who are beginning to claim that theism is unconstitutional. That is one of the most absurd ideas promoted on the Left yet. Theism is not a religion, nor a church that can be "established." The vast majority of the Founders were theists and included that in their type of government. Theistic religious rationales were at the root of their notions of separation of church and state. Freedom of Conscience as a God given liberty, a relationship held to be sacred and inviolate, etc.

"In resting their cases for religious freedom on religious
rationales, Madison and Jefferson followed the example
of Locke, who had contended that religious toleration is "the
chief characteristic mark of the true Church" and that
persecution of dissenters is futile, because only a
voluntary faith leads to salvation. Madison's and
Jefferson's religious defense of religious freedom
typified a general movement of American thought."
(Texas Law Review April, 1989
67 Tex. L. Rev. 955
Separation and the "Secular": Reconstructing
the Disestablishment Decision.
Steven D. Smith)

"History notes that all 13 colonies had disestablished their state churches by 1778."

A sticker....is not a State Church, and theism is neither a religion nor a church.

"Frankly, I'll take the words and actions of those who lobbied from 1788 through 1945 to amend the Constitution to fix its "godless" quality --- including Supreme Court justices and otherwise sane elected officials --- over your reading."

Such as?

"Within a year of his inauguration,
Jefferson began attending church
services in the House of Representatives
[note: he started attending 2 days after
writing the famous 'Danbury Letter
which contains the phrase concerning
separation of Church and
State']. Madison followed
Jefferson's example...."
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/overview.html

That overview may help you out some, answering some of the things you've said here. Note that Deism is still strong on ID, actually much stronger than scripturalist/YEC. If there is something that the Founders can be said to have believed, it would be a form of ID. Also, there was a strong streak of scripturalist/YEC also among them.

Given such an overview, (which I doubt that Darwinists will read) it's a bit much to pretend that Jefferson would have a problem with a....sticker. That dread sticker! I think it is telling about just how far Darwinists as they run to the State for censorship, etc. If they maintain an ever increasing alliance between their belief in scientism, "Science" and the State, then a proto-Nazi tendency will be clearly illustrated. On this issue the important thing to keep in mind is that you are severing parent's from their children's education, using the State to do so, in a totalitarian way.

I'm relying on that LoC overview to answer most of your innacuracies on the Founders and religion. So I do not have to write forever here, correcting the distortion of theism to deism....to, "Hey, it doesn't really matter. Theism had nothing to do with anything!"

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. And again, neither theism or deism are "religions" that can be "established" in some sectarian way. If you argue that they are, then Darwinism itself is.

Maybe take the time to read this:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

(Because I don't know what the heck you've been reading.)

Mynym,

I am sure much of it has be pointed out to you over the weekend, but just to give you a thorough run-down on the imho central point of the issue:

Textbook stickers are offensive i.e. 'defacing' to most scientists not because this can not be done to textbooks (errata sheets are no case of defacing), not because science is sacrosanct (scientists just love to bash other people's hypotheses) and not because pople with an anti-naturalist religious outlook seem to like them, but because they are deeply misleading about the principles and the current state of science, which after all should be tought at science class. They are misleading in at least the following respects:

- by singling out evolutionary theory they insinuate that all other topics taught in school are significantly 'more correct' and better founded than evolutionary biology,

- moreover they are making the devastating didactic point, that critical thinking and having an open mind should be restricted to topics disclaimed as controversial,

- implicit recourses on the unease of the public about evolution as opposed to the standing of the theory within science teaches that the value and usefulness of science was dependent on public acclaim and not on scientific discourse, test and application,

- the introduction of rivaling theories without showing them to be consistent and useful explanations on their own merits, props up the post-modernist illusion of any hypothesis being equally valid as long as somebody says so just for fairness reasons,

- the contrasting of theory with fact presents the straw man of 'fact' being a clearly defined expression in science, while actually it is the popular conflation of reliable data, accepte definitions and straightforward thoroughly verified theories. And most aspects of evolution fit the latter description nicely.

All this is much more damaging to education than the sectarian favouring or dis-favouring of any specific religion or quasi-religion in school could be, as long as it does not directly influence the curriculum. Unfortunately, there is no amendment on effective education in the U.S.,
so the legal battle will always be about the establishment clause, until a vocal majority of citizens will decide, that, no matter where they stand philosophically or politically, they want the teaching of good and current science without professed fairness towards nonscientific causes of any kind.

Ed Darrel

Funny thing - a supreme being of some sort is mentioned in all 50 state constitution preambles. Many of them mimic the Declaration of Independence bit about God given inalienable rights. What's up with that?

If you say it's ceremonial then just consider the fearsome sticker to be ceremonial as well.

Posted by DaveScot on February 21, 2005 08:07 AM: Funny thing - a supreme being of some sort is mentioned in all 50 state constitution preambles. Many of them mimic the Declaration of Independence bit about God given inalienable rights. What's up with that? If you say it's ceremonial then just consider the fearsome sticker to be ceremonial as well.

In 1963, Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama called upon his state's National Guard to PREVENT the imposition of federal law (de-segregation), NOT to enforce it. In any case, there is a parallel were your hypothetical to happen. The National Guard would once again be called upon to defend the opinion of a Southern state that has decided to rely on the Christian Bible to justify its defiance.

Is this some kind of leftwing revisionist history or are you just trying to live up to your handle? JFK federalized the Alabama National Guard and had them enforce federal de-segregation law which Wallace opposed.

The "Founders" of America were not a monolithic group when it came to their views on religion. Even within their individual lives, many of them changed their views over time (just as we do today). Therefore, to take a few quotes from one period of the life of a "Founder" and try to make a case from it is a joke.

Serious historians are interested in the big picture. And the big picture of the 18th century is that it was part of a period in history called the Enlightenment. Deism was the de facto religion of the time (certainly among the educated). That's not to say there were no intelligent Christians during that time. And, it is certainly true that some of the "Founders" were Christian.

But, anyone who thinks Thomas Jefferson's reference to "Nature and Nature's God" is rooted in Judeo-Christian scripture is either historically illiterate or dishonest. That language comes directly from a deist view of the world, which views the Creator as a hands-off Watchmaker, with "revealed religion" viewed as a means to enslave the Mind of Man.

Is this some kind of leftwing revisionist history or are you just trying to live up to your handle? JFK federalized the Alabama National Guard and had them enforce federal de-segregation law which Wallace opposed.
I'm beginning to think that what people say about you is true: You have poor reading comprehension skills.

Are you denying that "Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama called upon his state's National Guard to PREVENT the imposition of federal law (de-segregation). The operative word here is PREVENT.

Contrast that with your comment about the prospect of the National Guard being called out to ENFORCE federal law.

Do you understand the difference between PREVENT and ENFORCE? And exactly how are my comments history revisionism, left-wing or otherwise?

There's a high correlation between intelligence measures ("IQ" to take one example) and level of education, and acceptance of evolutionary theory.

— Russel

Many of them mimic the Declaration of Independence bit about God given inalienable rights. What's up with that?

— DaveScot

Jeff Perado: I am glad that I was able to provide you with some humor. Here is a link to a series of lectures at the University of Texas at Austin that discuss
The breakdown of classical physics. Here are the topic headers:

1) The anomalous stability of atoms and molecules
2) The anomalously low specific heats of atoms and molecules
3) The ultraviolet catastrophe
4) Wave-particle duality

(1) The anomalous stability of atoms and molecules: According to classical mechanics an electron orbiting a nucleus should lose energy by emission of synchrotron radiation and gradually spiral in towards the nucleus. Experimentally, this is not observed to happen.

(2) The anomalously low specific heats of atoms and molecules: According to the equipartition theorem of classical physics each degree of freedom of an atomic or molecular system should contribute to its specific heat. In fact, only the translational and some rotational degrees of freedom seem to contribute. The vibrational degrees of freedom appear to make no contribution at all (except at high temperatures). Incidentally, this fundamental problem with classical physics was known and appreciated in the middle of the last century. Stories that physicists at the turn of the century thought that classical physics explained everything and that there was nothing left to discover are largely apocryphal (see Feynman, Vol. I, Chap. 40).

(3) The ultraviolet catastrophe: According to classical physics the energy density of an electromagnetic field in vacuum is infinite due to a divergence of energy carried by short wavelength modes. Experimentally, there is no such divergence and the total energy density is quite finite.

(4) Wave-particle duality: Classical physics can deal with waves or particles. However, various experiments (interference, the photo-electric effect, electron diffraction) show quite clearly that waves sometimes act as if they were streams of particles and streams of particles sometimes act as if they were waves. This is completely inexplicable within the framework of classical physics.

One response to information like this is to state that "Classical mechanics" has broken down. "Classical mechanics" yields incorrect predictions that clash with observations and it is wrong. The theory has been superseded by theories such as QM and general relativity. Of course, it is still useful because it provides correct and approximately correct answers in many applications.

Another response is to redefine the theory so that it applies to a restricted subset and then to maintain that CM is really "correct". To assure that it is "correct" all you have to do is be certain to apply it only in the carefully limited situations where it provides a correct or approximately correct answer. If anyone one points out that CM as originally formulated yields incorrect predictions and has been superseded then you can sneer and say that the person is "funny".

Are you denying that "Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama called upon his state's National Guard to PREVENT the imposition of federal law (de-segregation). The operative word here is PREVENT.

— Aggie Nostic

Meyer's religion IS an issue to help understand the motivations of the ID movement and to help understand why, despite a flawed scientific foundation, a position of 'god of the gaps', it still holds to a position that ID is the best explanation. In other words, it is an explanation for an observation that ID is scientifically vacuous and helps explain why inspite of this, ID exists as a religious/political movement. Meyer's religion and Dawkins' atheistic position are irrelevant to their scientific claims but it helps explain why Meyer focuses on a 'God of the Gaps' approach with all the logical flaws and the inevitable conclusion that ID is scientifically vacuous.

[Heddle] says that this one value is so unlikely that it implies God-eh. He does this without knowing 1 What the number is 2 Even its order of magnitude 3 What other things it could have been 4 And how likely it could have been them 5 Even to the roughest possible estimate

I also pointed out that there are more African Americans in biology I know than are in the ranks of creationism defense or intelligent design advocacy.

— Ed Darrel

DaveScot, the National Guard was in fact used to prevent desegregation. The confusion seems to be over the particulars; the famous use of the National Guard to prevent desegregation was in 1957, when the governor of Arkansas (Fabus? Faubus?) called out the Guard to prevent the "Little Rock 9" from entering a public school. Your research skills are a little rusty; is that a cause of being a creationist, or an effect?

DaveScotYou don't say. My IQ is 153. What's yours?

re Christ and killing

Suggested reading:

http://www.ivu.org/history/christian/christ_veg.html

Christianity would never have gotten off the ground if it insisted on vegetarianism as the eating of animal flesh was too well entrenched in the relevant cultures. The early promoters of it knew this so they played it down. I believe the KJV New Testament has suffered numerous "edits" for political expediency and recommend reading the Essene "The Gospel of the Holy Twelve" for perspective if interested.

But did you get my point about "correlation"?

— Russell

Whenever this subject comes up, I renew my challenge for any of the evolutionists on this site to admit that they are feeble minded enough that the stickers would have had affected them.

Wow- the comments.

(quote)My IQ is 153. What's yours(quote)

Oh yes we believe that just because you said it. Having said that, there is a correlation not a direct link. A high IQ that refuses to be used properly is like a dull sword never removed from it's sheath.

(quote)One's Christianity is relevant because it means that one is likely to see God in the Gaps. While that is possibly true, a double standard arises because there is no acknowledgment that an atheist might similarly deny any evidence for design because it would force him to examine his position.(quote)

This is so blissfully stupid I can't believe a human actually wrote it down. So a Muslim would see a god in the gap, as well as a hindu, or a person who believes in aliens. It's not a double standard because an atheist relies on what he can see/prove he doesn't start with the preset belief. He doesn't have any. Just prove your case.

(quote)Are you certain that of the many on here who have denied that phyicists see what they say they see (apparent fine tuning) are all free of the bias of their athiesm? I don't think so.(quote)

You are quote mining. We astronomers call it 'apparent fine tuning' not meaning a supernatural force is at work, but simply meaning there is an order at work that we don't yet understand. If someone proves it is supernatural, well that makes our jobs pointless as everything we've learned to this point can be changed at any moment for sport. But it could happen, there is just no evidence that it is so.

(quote) He doesn't add that Penzias sees it in spite of a Nobel Prize, Hawking sees it in spite of being one of the great intellects of our era, etc.(quote)

Hawking doesn't believe in a supernatural explanation, talk about misrepresenting a position.

(quote)By the way, as far as ID is concerned, the tidy little idea that a scientist's religion matters also doesn't account for those of us who (humanly speaking) are not IDers because we are Christians, but are Christians because we were first IDers. (I am an IDer when it comes to cosmology, and it was ID that led me to Christianity, not vice versa.)'(quote)

So no evidence led you to something that there is no evidence for. Sounds perfectly rational for someone who subscribes to that type of 'thinking'.

Colin

Since it was my reference to the National Guard I get to clarify which use of the National Guard I was referring to. You don't get to clarify my meaning, thank you very much.

The commenters who responded with Alabama and George Wallace were right about which use of the National Guard I was alluding to but they got the National Guard use wrong. The National Guard in that case was called out by JFK to enforce federal desegregation. My mistake was in thinking that the JFK/Wallace/National Guard history was common knowledge.

And by the way, maybe you should exercise a little due diligence in your history quoting. Even in Arkansas the state's National Guard contigent was ultimately federalized by Eisenhower and used to ENFORCE desegregation. Furthermore, the Arkansas Governor ostensibly (by his own claim) called up the Guard to prevent violence and maintain order not to block desegregation. One might make an argument that his intent was to block desegregation but officially it was not.

That shouldn't make any Christian nervous or unhappy, and I cannot understand why anyone would be bothered by those who light candles against the darkness, even if those candles illuminate the paths of atheists.

— Ed Darrell

does he really think we, as a nation, are too "smart" to be influenced by shenanigans like these stickers? Why, look at DaveIQ153Scot - he seems to have drunk deeply of the KoolAid.

does he really think we, as a nation, are too "smart" to be influenced by shenanigans like these stickers? Why, look at DaveIQ153Scot - he seems to have drunk deeply of the KoolAid.

(quote)That shouldn't make any Christian nervous or unhappy, and I cannot understand why anyone would be bothered by those who light candles against the darkness, even if those candles illuminate the paths of atheists(/quote)

What people always miss is that even if ID could somehow be tested, somehow be proven, had even 1 shred of evidence, it would still not prove the agent to be the Christian God. That is a matter of faith.

Which really trivializes the entire thing. It's like saying we don't know, so you shouldn't try to know either.

does he really think we, as a nation, are too "smart" to be influenced by shenanigans like these stickers? Why, look at DaveIQ153Scot - he seems to have drunk deeply of the KoolAid.

I've always thought people made way too much of the Dawkins quote about being an intellectually fulfilled atheist. It seems to me that it's a pretty shallow intellect that is fulfilled by evolutionary theory. Plus, I've always thought that atheism's shortcoming is that it is nothing but intellectual - here's an interesting description of Dawkins the man as opposed to Dawkins the public defender of atheism and Darwinism. Obviously, Dawkins doesn't apply his rigid atheism/rationality to his own life. So why does he make such a big deal of it in public? Why defend it so vigorously when he knows he doesn't apply it to his own life? The point is not to play the 'gotcha!' hypocrisy game - we're all hypocrites to greater or lesser extents; the point is that rigid atheism doesn't really go anywhere, doesn't add to the understanding of the human condition, and is used primarily as a club to beat organized religion with. It's only somewhat fulfilling in an intellectual sense, and it's capacity for fulfillment in any larger sense is extremely limited.

A high IQ that refuses to be used properly is like a dull sword never removed from it's sheath.

— Uber

Oh yes we believe that just because you said it. Having said that, there is a correlation not a direct link. A high IQ that refuses to be used properly is like a dull sword never removed from it's sheath.

'"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."'

Mike S.

Your comments on Dawkins are off the mark, he certainly applies his athesm/rationality to his everyday life. He jsut doesn't wear it on his sleeve like many of the religious do. He is real and fallible.

He doesn't make a big deal out of it simply because it is just one aspect of the man, which is normal. Publicly he is the voice of reason and science. Privately he is who he is. Just like the rest of us.

Publicly I may be a agent of the FBI, privately I break laws-daly in the case of the speed limit. It doesn't make me any less sincere as a law enforcement agent.

What people always miss is that even if ID could somehow be tested, somehow be proven, had even 1 shred of evidence, it would still not prove the agent to be the Christian God. That is a matter of faith.

— Uber

Of course it look designed. It's designed by nature to survive.

Dave Scott wrote:
You don't say. My IQ is 153. What's yours?

None of the respondents here have questioned this claim made by Dave Scott.

From the Wikipedia entry on IQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ:

Some writers say that scores outside the range 55 to 145 must be cautiously interpreted because there have not been enough people tested in those ranges to make statistically sound statements. Moreover, at such extreme values, the normal distribution is a less accurate estimate of the IQ distribution.

Perhaps he meant 135, which typo would still make him a genius.

DaveScot has previously claimed to be an atheist scientist

— Grey Wolf

Of course we are fine tuned to live in this universe, seeing as we're alive and all. Newsflash: it's not a coincidence.

Hi, Uber, I'm going to go out on a limb and postulate that you meant a *sharp* sword - not that I don't think the example is closer to reality as it is :D

I also pointed out that there are more African Americans in biology I know than are in the ranks of creationism defense or intelligent design advocacy.

Would it surprise you to learn that a larger percentage of African-Americans attend church than any other racial group?

[qoute=FYI]Some writers say that scores outside the range 55 to 145 must be cautiously interpreted because there have not been enough people tested in those ranges to make statistically sound statements. Moreover, at such extreme values, the normal distribution is a less accurate estimate of the IQ distribution.

The SAT test has certainly been administered enough to make statistically sound statements above 99.88th percentile which correlates to an IQ of 145. Roughly 1500 people score at that level or higher every year.

Ed Darrel

You implied African-Americans were no more or less likely to be creation defenders than anyone else.

I pointed out that there are a greater percentage of African-Americans who attend church than any other racial group.

Do I really need to connect the dots for you? C'mon. Put on your thinking cap.

Anyone who resorts to claiming how smart they are by using supposed IQ's and SAT scores on the internet, is a giant tool.

To get back to your "universe seems to be fine tuned for us" statment, why do you believe that? You seem to be arguing for special creation, in that universe was created to suit us. How hard is it to understand that we evolved to survive in the universe, therefore it should damn well look like fine tuning. If it didn't, evolution would be on shaky ground...and we wouldn't be alive.

Whenever this subject comes up, I renew my challenge for any of the evolutionists on this site to admit that they are feeble minded enough that the stickers would have had affected them.

You implied African-Americans were no more or less likely to be creation defenders than anyone else. I pointed out that there are a greater percentage of African-Americans who attend church than any other racial group. Do I really need to connect the dots for you? C'mon. Put on your thinking cap.

I'm not a scientist and not particularly well educated in the sciences, I BELIEVE in the possibility of God (ie. my faith registers 0) but I don't ACCEPT the concept of RELIGION having superior insight in the field of scientific discovery and its practical effect on my everyday life.

Science is science and religion is religion. Science has the scientific method of theory and proof as its bedrock, whilst the bedrock of religion is faith. Logic compels me to conclude that faith in science would be as missplaced as would the application of the scientific method to religion.

Tell me again why are we even having this argument.

make no mistake

—

Hawking doesn't believe in a supernatural explanation

Hawking doesn't believe in a supernatural explanation

Look at Heddle's Intelligent Design Statistics. It introduces a new law: P(n)=n The probability of an event is the size of the value in the mks system. For example, if a number is <10^-60, it's probability is automatically <10^-60, therefore extremely unlikely, therefore god exists! You used to have to have at least some vague idea about the distribution of possible values, to call a result unlikely. Not anymore! Now you can guess the probability from nothing more than a bound on the number itself. Any day now, The Fields Medal people will be calling him up. Won't we all feel stupid when that happens.

As long as science can provide plausible scenarios for a fully material universe, even if those scenarios cannot be currently tested they are sufficient to refute the God of the gaps.

So no evidence led you to something that there is no evidence for. Sounds perfectly rational for someone who subscribes to that type of 'thinking'.

Mr. Heddle wrote: "Whenever this subject comes up, I renew my challenge for any of the evolutionists on this site to admit that they are feeble minded enough that the stickers would have had affected them.". Do you mean to suggest, as this sentence does, that the kids of creationists, and the creationists themselves, are feeble-minded? If the stickers were thought by their advocates to have no effect, why do they propose them?

The SAT test has certainly been administered enough to make statistically sound statements above 99.88th percentile which correlates to an IQ of 145.

There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. Yeah, I got your point. It was meaningless.

Funny thing - a supreme being of some sort is mentioned in all 50 state constitution preambles. Many of them mimic the Declaration of Independence bit about God given inalienable rights. What's up with that? If you say it's ceremonial then just consider the fearsome sticker to be ceremonial as well.

"Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we, the people of Utah, in order to secure and perpetuate the principles of free government, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION."

The fact that Hawking does not believe in the supernatural, along with his intellect, is what makes him so interesting when it comes to seeing fine tuning.

Logic compels me to conclude that faith in science would be as missplaced as would the application of the scientific method to religion.

A few notes on what's been said here...

Dave Scot:

Question to Stephen Hawking: What is your I.Q.?
Answer: I have no idea. People who boast about the I.Q. are losers.

Anyone who talks about the Founders:

True American Patriots (R) believe in three testaments - the old testament, comprising the Hebrew Bible; the middle testament, comprising various accounts of Jesus's life and teachings; and the new testament, comprising various documents written by the United States' Founding Fathers. Reasonable people are skeptical about the contents of all three. Just because Jefferson and Washington said something doesn't make it true.

At most you can argue that because something is in the US Constitution, it is relevant to the legality of stickers. However, this applies only to the original document plus its 27 amendments, not to the Declaration of Independence or to anything Jefferson had to say. This leaves one religious reference in the Constitution, the term "year of our lord." That, however, is not religious, because it is simply the English translation of the Latin phrase "anno domini," which is abbreviated to A.D. Even today many secularists use A.D. and B.C. rather than the politically correct terms Common Era and Before Common Era.

David Heddle:

Every lie can be marketed, especially to children. This is how Al Qaida gets its support - the Madrasahs teach boys that the Quran is the literal word of god and that blowing themselves up for the glory of Jihad will get them to paradise, and the boys swallow it whole. Excluding funding considerations, the Ivory Tower is safe from creationism, precisely because the people in it can scrutinize such stickers and realize that they're utterly wrong; it's the lay public that isn't. That's why there are laws mandating quality control, prohibiting slander and libel, curbing advertising of tobacco, and forbidding indoctrination in public schools.

Your tiny-probability argument suffers from one fatal flaw - you don't know the distribution of cosmological constants across universes. Suppose that there are 10^70 universes, of which only 10^10 can support intelligent life. Then, if we observe a random universe, the probability that it can support intelligent life is practically zero. However, our own universe is not random; it is necessarily one that supports intelligent life.

If you toss a coin 200 times, the probability that you get the sequence you got is 1/2^200. Then, if you look at that coin toss, you'll see that the probability that you got it is 1/2^200, which by your logic must be a divine miracle. Similarly, if there is only one civilization in the Milky Way, then your argument holds that it's a miracle that our solar system is the only one that supports a civilization.

Now, having used other universes as a thought experiment, we can promptly abolish them by Occam's Razor. However, the same point remains, because while we can observe the existence of other solar systems and know a priori that 2^200 - 1 other coin toss results exist, other universes cannot be observed. In other words, intuitively we get that given that we're already here, the probability that the universe can support chemical intelligent life is 1.

It seems to me that the preambles are unconstitutional since they mention God. The sticker doesn't even mention God and it was deemed unconstitutional. The sticker was unconstitutional, according to Judge Clarence Cooper, for merely suggesting to the average person that it obliquely refers to God.

All 50 state constitutions are unconstitutional by the logic in Cooper's imbecilic ruling.

What's wrong with that picture?

ROFLMAO!

Russel

Good enough then. You were the one that brought up IQ score correlation to faith in The Church of Darwin. I merely countered that my IQ is certified at the 99.97th percentile so one way or another your statement is meaningless. If you were smarter you'd have known that ahead of time.

Ed Darrel

I guess I have to connect the dots for you.

1) People who attend church are more likely to be creation defenders.

Wanna argue that?

2) A greater percentage of African-Americans attend church than any other racial group.

Wanna argue that?

Therefore, African-Americans are more likely to be creation defenders than any other racial group.

QED

Thanks for playing. There's a consolation prize waiting as you exit stage left. It's an autographed picture of Jesse Jackson shaking hands with Malcom X.

Yes but what you are assuming is that the fine tuning can't or won't be explained. Or that the 'fine tuning' you are talking about is in any way 'unnatural'. It is also quite possibly a perception and nothing more based on our current ignorance.

Every lie can be marketed, especially to children.

Your tiny-probability argument suffers from one fatal flaw - you don't know the distribution of cosmological constants across universes.

There is evidence for design, at least in cosmology. A lot of it. The worst you can say about it is that it is all circumstantial

Unfortunately, your logic is wrong here. Imagine a world where the only people who defended creation were non-African-Americans who attend church. In such world, your 1) would hold, and 2) could hold too - but there would not be any African-American creation defenders. Therefore, your logic construction is wrong.

Keller,

Bzzt. Incorrect. If I didn't understand the anomaly of Mercury's orbit and claimed that was evidence of design, that would be moronic. There is a great deal of physics that is not understood, and it is not evidence for design.

If the nuclear chemistry of stellar evolution is so fined tuned that it caused someone like Hoyle to say "a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics" then that is legitimate evidence for design. You may reject the hyopthesis, and look for alternatives, but, like it or not, fine-tuning is evidence for design. After all, what is so different:

(1) fine-tuning is evidence for design, which is unfalsifiable
or
(2) fine-tuning is evidence for parallel universes, which is unfalsifiable

What is fine tuned? Are you arguing that the evidence says that the universe is fine tuned for us to be alive? I'd argue that we evolved to fit the universe that was capable of supporting us.

high school students bright enough to take biology. When you were in high school, would the sticker have affected you?

Bioedu,

So would the sticker have affected you? Would you have ended up a Falwellian if the sticker had been in your hish school textbook?

Enough:
How big of a list do you want? You can start with what we have been discussing, the cosmological constant. Fine tuned to one part in 10^120.

nuclear chemistry of stellar evolution is so fined tuned that it caused someone like Hoyle to say "a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics" then that is legitimate evidence for design

Bioedu,

So would the sticker have affected you? Would you have ended up a Falwellian if the sticker had been in your hish school textbook?

Enough:
How big of a list do you want? You can start with what we have been discussing, the cosmological constant. Fine tuned to one part in 10^120.

So would the sticker have affected you?

Would you have ended up a Falwellian if the sticker had been in your hish school textbook?

We are not talking about little children, but high school students bright enough to take biology. When you were in high school, would the sticker have affected you?

No, but I'm in the minority. If someone wrote in the Washington Post that Bush had committed first-degree murder in 1988 without offering evidence I wouldn't have believed that but he'd still have to pay a lot for committing libel.

I only stated that there is a fine tuning problem in the present big-bang cosmology. If there is a fatal flaw in that statement, please submit your argument to a prestigious journal, say Physical Review Letters—a lot of smart guys are wasting their time and taxpayer dollars.

The refutation of that is already there in A Brief History of Time, which says exactly what I said but without the examples. If you can rest on Hoyle's authority, then I can rest on Hawking's.

(1) fine-tuning is evidence for design, which is unfalsifiable
or
(2) fine-tuning is evidence for parallel universes, which is unfalsifiable

That's wrong. The parallel universes are simply a hypothetical posited to show that the fine-tuning argument is wrong. They're a construct that can be abolished immediately after they show that it is not evidence for design.

All 50 state constitutions are unconstitutional by the logic in Cooper’s imbecilic ruling.

The US Constitution takes precedence over state constitutions.

Wow. The creationists in this thread are just dazzling me with their cleverness...not. You're doing a great job of confirming my low opinion of your ilk.

Would I have had my entire career derailed because of some stupid sticker on one of my high school textbooks? Probably not. That does not mean it's OK to start sticking random freaking garbage in our kids' educations.

So would the sticker have affected you? Would you have ended up a Falwellian if the sticker had been in your hish school textbook?

By that argument, no one but Jews should think that the Holocaust was terrible.

How big of a list do you want? You can start with what we have been discussing, the cosmological constant. Fine tuned to one part in 10^120.

Toss a coin 400 times. The result is deterministic as on the macro level the world is completely deterministic. Hence, that result is fine tuned to one part in 2^400 > 10^120. Hence, the universe must have been designed, because to get a configuration that gives a different result, you have to go back to the period right after the Big Bang, when the macro and micro levels of physics were sufficiently non-distinct for probability to affect future macro event. Further, a different configuration would've made chemical life impossible... so, you see, everything is evidence for fine tuning.

so fine tuned? No it isn't. Regardless of what Hoyle said that doesn't prove an Intelligent design. It may simply be we don't yet understand the process.

It certainly isn't evidence for a designer that exists somewhere outside the plain of it's own creation. And if this superintellect exists then we must accept that the intellect may not be that great given the flaws apparent throughout said design.

The refutation of that is already there in A Brief History of Time, which says exactly what I said but without the examples. If you can rest on Hoyle's authority, then I can rest on Hawking's.

That's wrong. The parallel universes are simply a hypothetical posited to show that the fine-tuning argument is wrong. They're a construct that can be abolished immediately after they show that it is not evidence for design.

Dave, arguing that the universe appears to be designed for us only agrees with evolution. We would not evolve into a universe that couldn't explicitly support our type of life. Everything should look fine tuned.

Would I have had my entire career derailed because of some stupid sticker on one of my high school textbooks? Probably not. That does not mean it's OK to start sticking random freaking garbage in our kids' educations.

Toss a coin 400 times. The result is deterministic as on the macro level the world is completely deterministic. Hence, that result is fine tuned to one part in 2^400 > 10^120. Hence, the universe must have been designed, because to get a configuration that gives a different result, you have to go back to the period right after the Big Bang, when the macro and micro levels of physics were sufficiently non-distinct for probability to affect future macro event. Further, a different configuration would've made chemical life impossible . . . so, you see, everything is evidence for fine tuning.

We understand the process very well.

Which flaws?

No it wouldn't. It would be evidence that exactly that happened. That's not evidence for design.

If the universe had been designed, there would be an even number of days in a year.

And it would have been ever so convenient if pi were a ratiional number, preferably an integer.

I think you should make the same assumption of intellect of your students that you claim for yourself. That, presented with the evidence of evolution, they will make an informed decision regardless of some stupid sticker.

I dispute that it will create any confusion.

It should be noted that I believe there are reasons to fight the sticker. It's just that "we must protect the malleable students from indoctrination" is not one of them.

And, just how am I being "dishonest." I should keep a list of all the things I have been called on here

You are quote mining and using this as evidence.

You can't be serious. I mean you really can't be serious. with 99% of all species who have ever lived gone, with supernoves exploding at distances that have nothing to do with us, with the sun destined to expand to a red giant, and about a million other events that point to a totally unplanned and natural world-you call this design?

No we don't. [understand the process] The field and is awash in new ideas. We have only scratched at the surface of cosmology.

You have people involved day to day in the field yet you will disagree with them-exactly what religion does-makes one arrogant.

David: what would YOU expect to see in the universe if it wasn't designed? I see exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. A crapload of different life forms that have adpated to live in different environments on this plant, in this solar system, in this galaxy, in this universe. You seem to believe that we are an intended end result. Go right ahead and believe that, but that's not evidence for design.

I challenge you to prove that I quote mined. Which, if it means anything, must mean that I have used a quote out of context. After all, using quotes in context is certainly legitimate. Go-ahead, back up your claim of "quote mining" that is so easy to make. Give some evidence that I quote mined.

The comment that the process is well understood stands

Supernovae are also important for obvious reasons. They are certainly not design flaws.

Nor would the sun dying out be a design flaw, why would you say that? It would only be a design flaw if the designer intended to create a perpetual sun and he failed.

PZ just seemed to agree with me that the sticker is ineffectual. And you seem to have some misconception that I am for the sticker.

Don't take the bait here, Keller. Last year he did the same thing with a Krauss quote, and was royally smacked down for it, but refuses to accept it.

It can stand in your head all you want, to assume that cosmology is a known science and well understood AND then make the claim that evolution is not speaks to a dicotomous mind.

Why not? what benefit does it perform for humans on Earth? If it all was designed for us.

Haha, it is a flaw if it expands and devours the planet it was created for as it becomes a red giant. It is a flaw if it has a limited powesource when a omnipotent intelligence could have made it limitless.

You were the one that brought up IQ score correlation to faith in The Church of Darwin.

I merely countered that my IQ is certified at the 99.97th percentile ...

If you were smarter you'd have known that ahead of time.

Holy moley, the religionist are in full force today.

So, DaveScot since your back in residence, I'm still waiting for your explanation of why atheism is a religious belief. You made the assertion way back at 16984. Somehow P and ~P are now equivalent in the upside down kingdom of Christendom. How so?

I would expect to see anything other than stars and galaxies, because of the fine tuning required to produce them. And if stars and galaxies did exist, I would not expect to see rocky planets like the earth, because of the fine tuning needed for stellar evolution and the production of heavy elements.

Haha, it is a flaw if it expands and devours the planet it was created for as it becomes a red giant. It is a flaw if it has a limited powesource when a omnipotent intelligence could have made it limitless. Why, because you say so

Heddle wrote: "I would expect to see anything other than stars and galaxies, because of the fine tuning required to produce them. And if stars and galaxies did exist, I would not expect to see rocky planets like the earth, because of the fine tuning needed for stellar evolution and the production of heavy elements." why? because you say so?

Your correct if you go through the through the bother of creating a universe for a special planet and give it a star, I can see how sensible it is to destroy said planet with said star.

David Heddle,

"I am not talking about ID in terms of biology, but physics. If the universe were not designed, I would expect to see anything other than stars and galaxies, because of the fine tuning required to produce them. And if stars and galaxies did exist, I would not expect to see rocky planets like the earth, because of the fine tuning needed for stellar evolution and the production of heavy elements. Etc., etc."

Doesn't fine-tuning require, by definition, a
Isn't the fine-tuning argument really the Granddaddy of all "just-so" stories? Everything had to be "just-so" for the universe to have formed the way it did, and earth had to be "just-so" for complex life to appear, and everything had to remain "just-so" for us to be the result. The K-T mass extinction, and all the other mass extinctions presumably had to happen "just-so" when they did, etc, etc.

The whole argument rests on the arrrogant premise that since we are here we were the planned and predetermined end product
of the Big Bang; that everything was done specifically and put in place to lead inexorably to us. Sure does appear to be a "just-so" story to me.

Had any little thing in the entire series of events from then to now been at all different,isn't it then the likelihood that some other organism - or none - would be in our place now, playing its own little game of "Lookingback" and praising the "fine-tuning" which produced it instead of us?

The laws of physics tell us that the fine tuning is there.

Most scientists choose to use that evidence as motivation for investigating alternatives. I see it as evidence for design.

"Astronomers" of course - not "atronomers". I've no idea what an "atronomer" would study: darkness maybe?

It is only a design flaw if it happens when the designer didn't expect it.

Oops,

First sentence, second paragraph, should have said "Doesn't fine-tuning require, by definition, a planned and predetermined end product?"

It seems to me that the preambles are unconstitutional since they mention God. The sticker doesn't even mention God and it was deemed unconstitutional. The sticker was unconstitutional, according to Judge Clarence Cooper, for merely suggesting to the average person that it obliquely refers to God. All 50 state constitutions are unconstitutional by the logic in Cooper's imbecilic ruling. What's wrong with that picture? ROFLMAO!

Heddle, I truly and honestly despise people who can't deal with someone's argument and have to rephrase it to derive a meaning 180° opposite from what is intended.

I do not agree with you.

The stickers are a waste of time, a distraction, yet another piece of bureaucratic crapola added by the dimbulbs of creationism, a tiny scrap of anti-education tossed onto the overload we already give our teachers. I oppose adding garbage to the curriculum.

Is that plain enough even for you?

I guess I have to connect the dots for you. 1) People who attend church are more likely to be creation defenders. Wanna argue that? 2) A greater percentage of African-Americans attend church than any other racial group. Wanna argue that? Therefore, African-Americans are more likely to be creation defenders than any other racial group. QED Thanks for playing. There's a consolation prize waiting as you exit stage left. It's an autographed picture of Jesse Jackson shaking hands with Malcom X.

Would I have had my entire career derailed because of some stupid sticker on one of my high school textbooks? Probably not. That does not mean it's OK to start sticking random freaking garbage in our kids' educations.

Heddle, I truly and honestly despise people who can't deal with someone's argument and have to rephrase it to derive a meaning 180° opposite from what is intended.

I have had the extreme pleasure of watching Rev. Jackson work, up close.

Astronomers tend to use the phrase as short-hand; I admit this is potentially misleading for those who are not familiar with science.

But you do so on the basis of no information whatever. In that sense, the scientists are far more rational than you are, since they are actually trying to investigate why the values are what they are. You've simply given up on scientific investigation based on unsupported personal feelings.

Heddle: I'm a nuclear physicist.

DaveScot,

When an IQ test is designed, and after the categories and questions are chosen, a random sample of say 12,000 people are selected to take the test. Based on these results, the test is scaled to make it fit the "bell shaped" curve of IQ scores that Benet originally observed.

When they say that results outside the 55-145 range are unreliable, it means that the number of people who tested outside this range out of the 12,000 tested was too few to allow reliable IQ predictions outside this range.

The idea that SAT results indicate that 1500 takers a year score what would be the equivalent of an IQ of 145 or above is meaningless as far as the reliability of any previously scaled IQ test is concerned.

Whatever one's IQ and other talents, they can be put to good use or not. I hate to see yours wasted on such trivial pursuits.

What a coincidence! So am I. That is why I got into a discussion with "Empiricist" about his contention that photons have zero mass, and therefore somehow show that Einstein proves Newton wrong. I am surprized that you did not jump into that battle and debate him as well. He seems to think that blackbody radiation not being able to be explained in classical mechanics proves that classical mechanics are therefore disproved, when it, in fact, led to Max Planck's big discovery of quanta, and discrete energy states, and the famed Planck's constant. Maybe, you could assist me in showing that person the fallacy of using a theory outside of its established range.

A much better example of where classical mechanics fails (and the one that led to quantum mechanics and planck's constant) is blackbody radiation.

Your example of photon is an invalid application of Newtonian mechanics for two reasons: 1) photons travel at c 2) photons are nearly massless

That's exactly what I'm denying. JFK federalized the Alabama National Guard and used it to enforce federal de-segregation laws. Perhaps you're confusing state troopers with national guard.

You're still missing the main point David. You're arguing for fine tuning...but fine tuning for what? To say "fine tuning" there has to be a purpose. I can only imagine that you mean that the universe is finely tuned for us. My question is why shouldn't it look that way? Evolutionary theory predicts exactly what we see on earth today. A ton of life forms that can exist in many environments on this planet, in this solar system, in this galaxy, in this universe, with all of it's observable laws and constants. That doesn't prove design, or mean we should see design. You can believe that if you want to. Many people do, but it's not something you can convince anyone of by saying "look at the universe, it's so finely tuned". If we had evolved as oxygen breathers in a universe without oxygen, then yes, you could point to design. Crazy design, but there'd be no other explaination I can think of.

I cited that broad overview at the LoC (that apparently people are not taking the time to read) because it answers your notion that quotes are being taken out of context.

"But, anyone who thinks Thomas Jefferson's reference to "Nature and Nature's God" is rooted in Judeo-Christian scripture is either historically illiterate or dishonest. That language comes directly from a deist view of the world, which views the Creator as a hands-off Watchmaker, with "revealed religion" viewed as a means to enslave the Mind of Man."

Ironically, deists are much more grounded on Intelligent Design and natural revelation than Scripturalists or bibliolaters. And yes, you can see this influence on some Founders. However, it's quite simple to prove that PT has long been dead set against Scripturalists AND Deists, perhaps more set against deism than anything else. That is in exact contrast to the Founder's view of Nature and Nature's God and the structure of government they built based on their philosophy. A Republic based on a belief in elected representation over hereditary leadership, the consent of the governed over might makes right, separation of powers over consolidation, republicanism over democracy, with a foundational set of beliefs based on theistic origins and consequent, transcendent self-evident truths.

There are some here who seem to be saying that theism, deism or questioning evolutionism are "unconstitutional," nothing could be farther from the truth. Frankly, I find it ridiculous, yet revealing, about how far Darwinists are willing to go to avoid a sticker. Are they too sticky? I wonder if a student who also believed in scientism could just peal it off. I suppose the Darwinists envisage a student reading the sticker and thinking, "Hey, I should think about Darwinism? Oh my, oh me oh my!"

And then what, they run around in circles screaming about the dread sticker? Is the sticker a life changing experience? How far will Darwinist proto-Nazis go in severing parental control of their own children's education through oligarchic judicial diktat? And why is it that they seem to be evolving into a group of people who would take such totalitarian control through lawsuit by the ACLU and judicial diktat?

I think they're beginning to over-step the limits of judicial "legitimacy" on this sticker business. It is, after all, just a sticker. And as the Judiciary has said, it must look out for its "legitimacy" after saying the Constitution says something about abortion, sodomy, or whatever pet causes that Nature worshiping pagans typically have. One half expects them to tear down all public crosses and raise some shrines to Molech in their place.

"...by singling out evolutionary theory they insinuate that all other topics taught in school are significantly 'more correct' and better founded than evolutionary biology..."

As is a parental right to teach their child whatever they want to.

On that topic, I somehow doubt that one little sticker that is answered by a whole textbook is going to make a student think, "You know, this is founded! It's a good thing that sticker was there, otherwise I might have thought so!" That can only happen if what is in the textbook cannot stand up to a sticker. And if that's the case, then there is something wrong with the book. How about this, you are able to write one word for every thirty that I write. And let's see who can make their case founded.

"...moreover they are making the devastating didactic point, that critical thinking and having an open mind should be restricted to topics disclaimed as controversial...."

I don't really find that devastating.

Note that on each one of these points my own is, parental rights.

"...implicit recourses on the unease of the public about evolution as opposed to the standing of the theory within science teaches that the value and usefulness of science was dependent on public acclaim and not on scientific discourse, test and application...."

It seems to me that believers in scientism make an appeal to technology often enough. I.e., that is the value and use of science, it gives nice things. Also, they are the ones who are saying that theories and the like must be "useful," not the public. And they reject traditional scientia and the pursuit of knowledge as such in favor of naturalistic explanation because they argue it is "useful."

It is not the public that is defining science by what is useful.

"...the introduction of rivaling theories without showing them to be consistent and useful explanations on their own merits, props up the post-modernist illusion of any hypothesis being equally valid as long as somebody says so just for fairness reasons...."

I'd have to re-read the little stickers. But I think you're reading a lot into them.

My reply is simple, parental rights...and if you're not going to support that then I hope that vouchers are on the way.

There was someone or other saying that the stickers will "damage" science education. But why do students going to religious schools already seem to be doing better than the State schools run by the oligarchy of the Judiciary, judicial diktat, etc.? If religion "damages" or brings about the end of science and education, I wonder why they do so well?

As I said, I hope that vouchers are on the way if people are going to keep acting like totalitarians on little decisions like....stickers. And it is curious that some of the same people failing to educate, seem to be lecturing about the "damage" that religion will bring.

Imposing religious dogma on children is simply child abuse. For practical reasons, we put up with it; but that doesn't change the facts. At the very least, pulbic education shouldn't second the efforts of superstitious parents to impose their screwy and often hateful ideas on innocent children.

Shouldn't the kids at least have some chance to get beyond the insanity they hear at home?

Heddle: You are a physicist? Blackbody radiation is where classical electromagnetic theory breaks down, not classical mechanics.

Photons are massless. Perhaps you were thinking of nutrinos?

So, Dave:

No that I've got your interest, how would you respond to this statement?
"photons are massless, thus they show that newtonian mechanics are false."

I would (and did) reply that newtonian mechanics don't apply to relativistic particles, and so one cannot apply newtonian mechanics to photons. It would be wrong. I went on to say that quantum mechanics arose to solve a number of problems that 19th century classical physics had encountered, such as blackbody radiation. Those problems were solved, and the resultant field of physics is what Einstein built on with his theories of relativity, and numerous other scientists built on in quantum mechanics. But none of that NEGATED Newtonian physics, it just set a range of where it was valid.

Empiricist disagreed. He seemed to think that Newtonian physics should be applied in all ranges and come up with the right solution. And since it didn't it was disproved. His basic argument, wasn't about newtonian physics, but rather a disproved theory should be taught in science class and gave the above example as an argument.

Beig as you are a fellow nucphys, I thought you would have something to add to that.

Would that have been when Jackson was referring to New York as hymie town? I have rarely heard someone say they had the extreme pleasure of listening to a racist.

There are some here who seem to be saying that theism, deism or questioning evolutionism are "unconstitutional," nothing could be farther from the truth. Frankly, I find it ridiculous, yet revealing, about how far Darwinists are willing to go to avoid a sticker.

As is a parental right to teach their child whatever they want to.

As is a parental right to teach their child whatever they want to.

for David Heddle's Comment # 17301 talking about Erik 12345 emailing Krauss here is the link in Comment # 7391

David I think the problem is that you put more weight into the "fine tuning" problem then there needs to be. No matter what universe we lived in scientists should be looking for a reason why. Just because some number is 120 orders of magnitude only show that our model need that precision to fit the data. It does not mean that our model is correct. Maybe one day a more mathematically eloquent model will be found. I would suggest that might be more of evidence for design then the "messy" model of our current theories.

I've also pointed out that if I was exposed to stickers at a young age that I could have possibly been influenced by what they said. I'm intelligent but I know despite that, as a child, I still believed much of what was told to me, like reports that they found Noah's ark. It certainly does run in my family. My mother has been through more religious groups then I have fingers. Last one I knew about was her following of Neale D. Walsch who claims to talk with God and God replies back by controlling Neale's hand while writing. My mother believes that A. Hitler was not evil and we should have done nothing about him because of her interpretation of Neale's writing. My mother is very impressionable. She is not stupid, she's what I'd call a "soul searching for salvation". She's a real estate agent, EMT and nurse.

Where do we draw the line? They put this sticker in high school text books then how long before they move the stickers back to elementary school. How long before they start putting stickers in your physics books saying the age of the universe is just a theory. How long before they just start out right banning teachings that, while completely consistent with the scientific data, contradict someone's literal interpretation of the bible?

If I was exposed to a different upbringing then I was I could see myself being influenced much more then I was. I make every effort with my son to explore every aspect of something he is learning. We talk about the bible, we talk about science, we talk about God. At 9 he believes in God but doesn't ever let something end with "Because God made it that way". This is what Hawking. Rees and other great cosmologist do. They look at the universe and ask "Why". Just because a number is 120 orders of magnitude doesn't mean we should say "Because God made it that way" and walk away.

The cosmological constant which you hold in such high regard was invented by Einstein to counteract the force of gravity to fit what we observe. It is mathematically ugly in that it needs to be this obscure 120 order of magnitude number. Einstein considered this one of his greatest mistakes. The search is on for the force that counteracts gravity but I fail to see why we should infer that the repulsive force having some arbitrary number 120 orders of magnitude is cause for design. It is cause for that force having a range in which a universe like ours could exist.

While I'll agree that super nova are important for our us, because with out them we would not be here, the point is why are they needed else where in the universe? If, as most creationist assert, we humans are the pinnacle of God's creation then why bother with all the fuss of the rest of the universe? note I'm not saying this is your position David. A God could have easily created the world as described in the bible. Flat with the sun and moon as equals in dome of the sky. We can debate what is and isn't "signs of design" but they are theological and not provable because they rely on our bias. I say the universe is to complex to be directly designed. You say that complexity is evidence of apparent direct design. Notice my claim does not exclude a designer just that it need not be directly designed by an intelligent agent. Who's right? More importantly who is right by what we observe? Is your standpoint any more valid then mine? No ... we both have a bit of "gut feel" I could be wrong. God may control every atom in the universe and we actually have no feel will. In which case God is not much more then a 7 year old boy playing with star wars action figures....just on a slightly larger scale.

There is an implication that this is an argument between Christians and athiests. This is not the case at all. Very few Christians support Creationist theories. It is just that those that do appear to reside in the good old US of A. Most Christians put creationists in the same cranky group a believers in little green men, crop circles and the tooth fairy.

Mynym: parents' rights are irrelevant here, because they're no different from the right of a state or a country to massacre citizens. Letting parents determine the information their children will be exposed to is a bad idea; it is a right, in a way, just like the right to murder or to rape. You're arguing that parents should be given a right to deny information, I think, without giving any reason why they should beyond the standard American reverence of the words "rights," "freedom," and "liberty."

David: it's true that any sequence of 400 tosses is equally likely, but so is any value of the cosmological constant (and, by the way, you still haven't told me where you got your distribution of that constant from). One value of the cosmologiacl constant leads to galaxies. Other values lead to other things. Every sequence of 400 tosses is special in some kind of way. Sequences such as all heads are the most obvious, but in fact, every sequence of n numbers can be expressed as the values of a polynomial of degree n-1 for x = 1, 2, 3... n, and restricting the numbers to 0 and 1, fully half are special in that their polynomial is of degree n-2 or less. Relative to some format on which we agree a priori, every sequence is very special. For us, special sequences include all heads, all tails, alternating heads and tails, and so on. For a civilization so strongly based on a sequence that to us appears unremarkable, that sequence and everything very similar to it will appear special.

Mynym,

the right of the parents to teach their children whatever they like is undisputed, but you are introducing a dubious demand to have a majority (or even an activist minority) of citizens - not necessarily parents - to dictate to the state what should be taught to all children. If parents object to the standards used, they can still homeschool - an option strangely enough nearly never considered in countries with less sectarian traditions than the U.S. - or put the children in a private school more to their liking. The question posed to a schoolboard and within the discussion of the mention or teaching of non-mainstream topics is whether to bow to special interests from within the electorate or to define standards at least reconcilable with the main lines of expert reasoning.
The former would make more sense from a political point of view and might please people with a egalitarian or anti-intellectual outlook, but only the latter will prepare children for an academic career or for forming an informed opinion as a lay person. In this regard it is important to note that I am not saying that everything an expert says or the scientific community agrees upon has to be right and every thing else has to be wrong. But judging from the huge amount of old, thoroughly refuted canards trotted out time and again in every hearing or discussion on evolution (or in a lot of cultural or historic discussions equally emotionally charged), the general public can be deceived very easily with an air of honesty and competence, while not able to actually assess the claims put forward. On the other hand, due to the high prestige gained by a skillful critique of an accepted theory, the inability to get a certain approach at least considered by the scientific mainstream, indicates at least a severe lack of evidence for or usefulness of said hypothesis. BTW, I am always refering to scientific usefulness, the possibility to apply a theory to explain and predict evidence and the support given to and lended by other useful theories, as a technological application of even the best of explanations is not always feasible (in my own line of work, there are e.g. no direct applications of QCD and short range electroweak processes, although they are based on very useful theories consistently supported by the evidence).
If this latter approach was too 'scientistic' for most citizens, maybe it would be preferrable and more honest to ditch the science curriculum altogether and teach natural history and natural philosophy instead.

Actually, if you're going to be precise, then you should have said that photons have zero rest mass, but as they do have both energy and momentum, then they do have some mass when zipping around our grand universe. (Why do I get the feeling you already knew this, but said what you did anyway . . . was it to get away from arguing against another fellow IDer when you knew they were wrong about a simple physics principle?)

David I think the problem is that you put more weight into the "fine tuning" problem then there needs to be. No matter what universe we lived in scientists should be looking for a reason why. Just because some number is 120 orders of magnitude only show that our model need that precision to fit the data. It does not mean that our model is correct. Maybe one day a more mathematically eloquent model will be found. I would suggest that might be more of evidence for design then the "messy" model of our current theories.

While I'll agree that super nova are important for our us, because with out them we would not be here, the point is why are they needed else where in the universe?

Imposing religious dogma on children is simply child abuse. For practical reasons, we put up with it; but that doesn't change the facts. At the very least, pulbic education shouldn't second the efforts of superstitious parents to impose their screwy and often hateful ideas on innocent children.

and, by the way, you still haven't told me where you got your distribution of that constant from

Hi David,
While you are correct in your statement that I no longer believe that Noah's Ark has been found, and actually don't beleave Noah's Ark was anything like what the story of Noah claims it to be nor do I believe that the story of the arc even involve a man named Noah, there are many that do. Most of them probably American.

So where do we draw the line? I say draw it in the sand before we step of that steep cliff into endorsement of religion at the expense of science.

Creationists keep saying "Why do we care so much about a sticker?" Why do they care so much? They are the ones that want it. How much ground do you give them?

Creationists keep saying "Why do we care so much about a sticker?" Why do they care so much? They are the ones that want it. How much ground do you give them?

I am also guessing that you heard a whole spiel about it, not something like a sticker along the lines of "Some people say Noah's ark was not find. Keep an open mind."

I took my sons to church and Sunday School (even when they didn't want to go.) I also taught them theology. In your mind, am I guilty of child abuse?

Most Christians put creationists in the same cranky group a believers in little green men, crop circles and the tooth fairy

Your nailed David. Thats correct he changed his mind minus a sticker, so whats the point of the creationist wacko's putting it in?

I wouldn't go that far---but you have indoctrinated them with you cultures myths just as was done to you. As such you will to one degree or another have compromised their worldview will unlikely events that will eventually lead to confusion and possibly pain.

David-
make no mistake it's your right to indoctrinate your children with whatever brand of stuff you wish to put in their heads.

But one wonders about your motives.

More to the point, there is no concept of a photon's rest mass. Photons travel at c in all reference frames and therefore are never at rest. Their mass is always zero.

— David Heddle

Besides, I have had success getting into schools and talking about cosmological ID.

I benefit from warm relations with the school,

And the most stupid part is that it creates Christianity vs., science "fight" when, in fact, Christianity and science are compatible, not incompatible.

Actually, Uber, I'll have to agree that Christianity and science are compatible, as long as you see all those funny things appearing on the Bible as parables, examples and fiction written with a moralizing end. Of course, if you take all those things literally, it is clearly incompatible.

I've seen many Christians who are also proud to contribute to the advancement of human knowledge. None of them believe in talking snakes. They believe in God, but, as far as I know, the belief in God is absolutely compatible with science. After all, his existance or unexistance hasn't been addressed by any scientific theory. It is a matter of personal choice.

Of course, people who take things literally are incompatible not only with science, but also with a normal life.

Sarg I wouldn't disagree with your take. But then you inevitably get to which God. Which then they will go and point to the accuracy of the bible. It's a circle.

I agree a belief in God is not incmpatible with science. But which God and why?

Many Christians have done many great things, but that doesn't mean their beliefs gain more veracity because of that.

Please clarify. I took my sons to church and Sunday School (even when they didn’t want to go.) I also taught them theology. In your mind, am I guilty of child abuse?

Yes, you are. When the government does that, it's called brainwashing. Why should it be any different when parents do that?

That’s true, because I have said quite a few times that it doesn’t matter. It is a fundamental physics problem, not a probability issue.

That isn't true. If the Cosmological Constant could take any value between 0.5 and 1.5 and the universe would still contain atoms, stars, and galaxies, would you be saying the same thing about fine-tuning?

Please clarify. I took my sons to church and Sunday School (even when they didn’t want to go.) I also taught them theology. In your mind, am I guilty of child abuse?

Yes, you are. When the government does that, it's called brainwashing. Why should it be any different when parents do that?

That’s true, because I have said quite a few times that it doesn’t matter. It is a fundamental physics problem, not a probability issue.

That isn't true. If the Cosmological Constant could take any value between 0.5 and 1.5 and the universe would still contain atoms, stars, and galaxies, would you be saying the same thing about fine-tuning?

Heddle wrote: "Besides, I have had success getting into schools and talking about cosmological ID." Which school? So you go to school and lie to kids about ID. What a great guy. A dishonest man who goes out of his way to lie to children.

Heddle wrote: "Please clarify. I took my sons to church and Sunday School (even when they didn't want to go.) I also taught them theology. In your mind, am I guilty of child abuse?" Yes, you are. When the government does that, it's called brainwashing. Why should it be any different when parents do that?

Heddle wrote: "That's true, because I have said quite a few times that it doesn't matter. It is a fundamental physics problem, not a probability issue." That isn't true. If the Cosmological Constant could take any value between 0.5 and 1.5 and the universe would still contain atoms, stars, and galaxies, would you be saying the same thing about fine-tuning?

Nice. This goes beyond what I would expect, even on an evolution site. Any others want to comment on whether raisng your Children as Christians constitutes child abuse?

It may well be the part of wisdom not to interfer with the privacy of families except in extreme cases because the cure---an intrusive government---might be worse than the disease and, perhaps worse, would certainly be exceedingly expensive. I do find it amusing that the rights of parents to teach kids that 2 + 2 = 5 is held sacred in American public discourse. Do you guys buy into pater potestas, too? Phooey. Traditions worthy of respect can be passed on without violence and fraud. If they can't be, get new traditions.

By the way, the reason I used the expression "child abuse" to characterize unchallenged religious instruction is not simply because the inculcation of nonsense harms a child's intellectual development, but because of the means used to enforce traditional religion, which frequently involve physical abuse and always the emotional blackmail of withheld love. I used to travel rural areas for weeks on end listening to the radio preachers cheerfully promoting the use of beatings to break the rebellious spirit of children. I recall one doctor of divintiy who, quite correctly, denounced liberal theologians for suggesting that the rod in "spare the rod and spoil the child" was meant metaphorically. "No, the Hebrew means a stick of wood and a good stout one at that!"

It's a lie if you present it as a scientific opinion. You simply have no basis past belief. Stating it like you said it amounts to nothing.

Why not say we just don't know. It's honest and doesn't imply anything.

And add the current scientific arguments are discussing parallel universes.

Anytime you go to the designer it doesn't explain how, why, or when. Then you also have to answer were the designer came from. It's a dishonest approach of which nothing can be gained.

One question for the design crowd if they'll humor me.

What is this designer doing right now? Not what has he done but what is he doing right now?

Where is he?

What does he look like?

We have telescopes that can see objects from virtually the beginning of it all but yet they don't see this designer. It doesn't mean he isn't there but really tell me what you think he/she/it is doing right now?

I ask this question again and again and people always say 'I never really thought about it'. See belief is real to each of us in it's own way. To think about a designer in real terms is something else.

Do you tell them if they don't do this or that they will go to an eternal hell.

Is a muslim indoctrinated to think 72 virgins awaits him after death not also mental abuse?

denounced liberal theologians for suggesting that the rod in "spare the rod and spoil the child"

It's a lie if you present it as a scientific opinion. You simply have no basis past belief. Stating it like you said it amounts to nothing. Why not say we just don't know. It's honest and doesn't imply anything. And add the current scientific arguments are discussing parallel universes. Anytime you go to the designer it doesn't explain how, why, or when. Then you also have to answer were the designer came from. It's a dishonest approach of which nothing can be gained.

One question for the design crowd if they'll humor me. What is this designer doing right now? Not what has he done but what is he doing right now? Where is he? What does he look like? We have telescopes that can see objects from virtually the beginning of it all but yet they don't see this designer. It doesn't mean he isn't there but really tell me what you think he/she/it is doing right now? I ask this question again and again and people always say 'I never really thought about it'. See belief is real to each of us in it's own way. To think about a designer in real terms is something else.

Yes, the basic tenet of Christianity is that without a saving faith in Christ one is eternally damned. I never present it that way: "do this or you will go to hell!" because, there is nothing you can do.

I will not tell you which schools have invited me to discuss ID.

It is really a matter of philosophy at that point, since both views are unfalsifiable. How can you say nothing can be gained? A similar event changed my life. I heard ID and then became a Christian, not the other way around.

No, teaching about a false prophet is bad form but it does not constitute child abuse. And it has no impact on the eternal destiny of the Moslem children.

It says nothing about whether the designer is the Christian, Jewish, or Moslem god, or anyone else, or whether the designer is good or evil or alive or dead. But since I am a Christian I naturally associate the designer with the Christian deity. If you want me to answer from the basis of Christianity, I will. But from a pure ID perspective, they are beyond the scope of ID.

If you take a child, tell or show them images of terrible suffering, present it as a real place you have present yourself as having knowledge you have done nothing pyschologically different than showing they murder victims and other such horrors. It's a terrible thing.

To then make them worship the person who created such a place is truly, truly disturbing.

If God is love, thats a good message.

The above should read:

If you take a child, tell or show them images of terrible suffering, present it as a real place that you have presented yourself as having knowledge of, you have done nothing psychologically different to that child than if you ran imagary of murder victims and other such hoorors into their impressionable brains.

your wrong parallel universes may one day be falsifiable

Ahh so your prophet is the real prophet- 1.2 billion muslims and 500 million jews would gladly disagree with you.

(5) I believe there's no such thing as a "prophet", so none of the above.

But on another note, just out of curiosity, I'm wondering if "Neddle" is a persona invented specifically to needle Heddle.

This has degenrated into stupidity with your last post.

All starts with 'I believe', of course you have no more evidence for your belief than a muslim has for theirs, which is why this stupidity will go on forever. And many will suffer because of it.

Apparently starting with children.

there is no reality to what you are doing

— David

Russel,

Not believing there is such a thing as a prophet means that you believe that Mohammed (and Christ) were false prophets, since they both claimed the title. If you like, change "false prophet" to liar. So there is no (5), I gather you are actually (1), but perhaps afraid that admitting it would be dangerous.

Needle,

C'mon, either Mohammed was a real prophet or a liar. You took me to task for claiming he was a liar. So what do you think? This is not a false dilemma: either Mohammed told the truth when he said Allah was God and he was Allah's prophet, or he didn't. Did he tell the truth, or did he lie? It's not a trick question.

Sarge,

Respectfully, we have have not seen photons work that way. No one ever has or ever will see a photon at rest. So there is no reality in its rest mass. If something can never be at rest, how can it have a rest mass?

Does this confirm that I am stubborn?

True Prophets or Liars. Is it really that stark? Which category do your DI friends fall into?

Oh, and back to photons: people sometimes wonder whether it makes sense to talk about the "rest mass" of a particle that can never be at rest. The answer, again, is that "rest mass" is really a misnomer, and it is not necessary for a particle to be at rest for the concept of mass to make sense. Technically, it is the invariant length of the particle's four-momentum. (You can see this from eqn (4).) For all photons this is zero. On the other hand, the "relativistic mass" of photons is frequency dependent. UV photons are more energetic than visible photons, and so are more "massive" in this sense, a statement which obscures more than it elucidates. Reference: Lev Okun wrote a nice article on this subject in the June 1989 issue of Physics Today, which includes a historical discussion of the concept of mass in relativistic physics. Is there any experimental evidence that the photon has zero rest mass? If the rest mass of the photon was non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalizable; also, charge-conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have vanishing rest-mass. However, whatever theory says, it is still necessary to check theory against experiment. It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment which would establish that the photon rest mass is exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would lead to a change in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. There would be a small damping factor making it weaker over very large distances. The behavior of static magnetic fields is likewise modified. A limit on the photon mass can be obtained through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive a limit of 6x10-16 eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laborartory experiment which looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7x10-17 eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3x10-27 eV but there is some doubt about the validity of this method.

You took me to task for claiming he was a liar. So what do you think? This is not a false dilemma: either Mohammed told the truth when he said Allah was God and he was Allah's prophet, or he didn't. Did he tell the truth, or did he lie? It's not a trick question

Not believing there is such a thing as a prophet means that you believe that Mohammed (and Christ) were false prophets, since they both claimed the title.

If you like, change "false prophet" to liar. So there is no (5), I gather you are actually (1), but perhaps afraid that admitting it would be dangerous.

Oh, and back to photons: people sometimes wonder whether it makes sense to talk about the "rest mass" of a particle that can never be at rest. The answer, again, is that "rest mass" is really a misnomer, and it is not necessary for a particle to be at rest for the concept of mass to make sense. Technically, it is the invariant length of the particle's four-momentum. (You can see this from eqn (4).) For all photons this is zero. On the other hand, the "relativistic mass" of photons is frequency dependent. UV photons are more energetic than visible photons, and so are more "massive" in this sense, a statement which obscures more than it elucidates. Reference: Lev Okun wrote a nice article on this subject in the June 1989 issue of Physics Today, which includes a historical discussion of the concept of mass in relativistic physics. Is there any experimental evidence that the photon has zero rest mass? If the rest mass of the photon was non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalizable; also, charge-conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have vanishing rest-mass. However, whatever theory says, it is still necessary to check theory against experiment. It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment which would establish that the photon rest mass is exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would lead to a change in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. There would be a small damping factor making it weaker over very large distances. The behavior of static magnetic fields is likewise modified. A limit on the photon mass can be obtained through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive a limit of 6x10-16 eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laborartory experiment which looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7x10-17 eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3x10-27 eV but there is some doubt about the validity of this method.

The rod previously mentioned (Shaybet in Hebrew, rhabdos in LXX Greek) can be found, for example, at Proverbs 13:24: "He that spareth the rod, hateth his son."

You can ignore passages like that in the Bible, but only if haven't nailed your colors to the mast of scriptural inerrancy. For me, the Jewish Bible is simply an anthology of Hebrew literature so I don't have to pretend it's consistent or defensible in every part. Neither do moderate Christians---one can respect and teach tradition without getting silly.

The support of many traditional religious groups for corporal punishment is not exactly a secret. What's new is the decline in support for the practice among other groups---Victorian fathers thought that whipping their boys was one of the pleasures of paternity.

The rod previously mentioned (Shaybet in Hebrew, rhabdos in LXX Greek) can be found, for example, at Proverbs 13:24: "He that spareth the rod, hateth his son."

Uber makes a fair point: so was Mohammed (a) A true prophet (b) A false prophet (a liar) (c) Deluded It's my experience that many are quick to denounce Jesus as a false prophet (or delusional, or a myth) but few will say the same about Mohammed. Instead they will equivocate. Why do you suppose that is?

It is true that among conservative children corporal punishment is widely practiced. I used it.

Photons do have a nonzero mass, actually (just not a rest one). Consider: if a photon had no mass, it wouldn't be affected by gravity. But one of the first tests of general theory of relativity was a shift in positions of stars because the lightrays were bent in solar gravity well. We know about gravity lenses. And black hole is black because it's gravity can capture photons.

Finally, a momentum is defined as p=m.v . If the mass of photon was zero, so would be its momentum.

"Nearly massless" is therefore correct for photons we encounter in daily life.

It's my experience that many are quick to denounce Jesus as a false prophet (or delusional, or a myth) but few will say the same about Mohammed. Instead they will equivocate. Why do you suppose that is?

If the mass of photon was zero, so would be its momentum.

"Nearly massless" is therefore correct for photons we encounter in daily life.

You got me about the Franklin, though he was certainly echoing the book of Proverbs in its KJV version. The quote from the radio preacher is as near to verbatim as I can recall. I don't know why you'd doubt it. He was right about the interpretation of "rod" and literalists aren't usually apolegetic about corporal punishment. Indeed, I've listened to many a radio sermon on the topic.

would argue that all your possibilities fit under one of these. So which was he, in your opinion? I am getting the sense that you will never say what you think about Mohammed. That's typical---most who are willing to dismiss Christ are usually afraid of doing the same with Mohammed. You know, one religion being intolerant and the other being the Religion of Peace.

If you accelerate a object with rest mass, its mass will go up. The equation you wrote will hold when m = rest mass of the object, yes - but if we are only interested in total mass, then E=mc^2 is sufficient. This gives a photon mass of E/c^2. Since energy of normal photons is fairly low, so is their mass. You are wrong to distinguish between "bending space" by a massive object and the force law of gravity. They are the same thing, just seen from different angles.

However, photons can have measurable mass if they are energetic enough - or if you have lots of them. A simple example is the Sun. The Sun loses about 6.10^6 tons of matter every second (or something like that - I don't have the precise figure). Only a fraction of this are matter particles - most is radiated in form of photons. However, this energy doesn't lose its mass just because it has been converted into photons!

So, my argument is basically like this: mass and energy are inseparable. As long as you have energy - any form of energy - it will have mass, and it will be affected by gravity because of this.

Finally, consider this: a material object's path will be (in usual circumstances) affected by gravity field more than the path of photon. If photon has no mass, how would you compute the change in its path, then? Would two photons with different energies have their paths changed in the same way?

To clarify a bit (English is not my mother tongue): E=mc^2 holds all the time. It provides a "conversion table" between total energy possessed by an object, and its total mass. It's not dependent on whether there is a rest mass or not

he was a man who sincerely believed what he was saying.

Well, I checked "http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html"

"Does light have mass?

The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".

Light is composed of photons so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": The photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits. Even before it was known that light is composed of photons it was known that light carries momentum and will exert a pressure on a surface. This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass. [ For details see the Physics FAQ article What is the mass of the photon?].

Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon. Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc2. They also say that a photon has momentum and momentum is related to mass p = mv. What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an outdated concept which is best avoided [ See Relativity FAQ article Does mass change with velocity? ] Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle which changes with velocity. By convention relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way. But you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to. In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass which is zero for a photon."

So, in a sense, we've been both right - we were just using different definitions of "mass". I apologize - I had no idea that relativistic mass is no longer used in this way.

Marek.

Cool. Let's move on.

BTW, read the rest of that article. It's quite interesting.

But you guys cower in the face of political correctness, and cannot bring yourselves to state the obvious.

Some of the reluctance to call Mohammed a false prophet may be political correctness or simple prudence, but philosophically-inclined religious persons traditionally figured that God = Yahweh = Allah, so that it would be peculiar to come down too hard on somebody who may have been misguided in various ways but who worshiped the same deity. Meanwhile, the state of scholarship about the early history of Islam is in a rather primitive state. Muslim scriptures have yet to be treated to the same thoroughgoing examination to which the higher criticism subjected the Bible. It's my impression that we have no very good evidence about the historicity of Mohammed, either. Of course we can infer some things. Just as we know that Jesus didn't rise from the dead because people don't rise from the dead, we know that the Angel Gabriel did not recite the Koran to Mohammed because there aren't actually any angels.

By the way, just as educated people in the Middle Ages knew that the world was round, most of 'em were well aware of the theological similarities between Islam and Christianity, at least after Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, had the Koran translated into Latin in the 12th Century. For Muslims, of course, Christ, though not a god, is an authentic prophet of Allah and there's no question who Abraham worshipped either.

Russell,

I don't know anything about Bill O'Reilly. I never watch his show. I think it would be an insult to the Christians of the Sudan or of Indonesia to claim that Christians are persecuted in the U.S. Perhaps the seeds are present, which include the notion that Christian parents are guilty of child abuse.

Real persecution of Christians in the U.S. would not be easy. We have large numbers and lots of guns.

A claim of fasle dichotomy is a cheap way to get out of an argument. If you tell me what a Brznggt is, I'll tell you if I think you are a true one or a false one. A prophet is well defined--a messenger from God. Either Mohammed was, or he wasn't.

Jim,

I don't think one can claim it is the same deity. After all, the Christian deity is three-persons one-substance (trinity.) Both Jews and Moslems dispute this and claim Christians are not monotheistic.

A prophet is well defined---a messenger from God. Either Mohammed was, or he wasn't.

Re "I had no idea that relativistic mass is no longer used in this way."
Huh. Me either.

Henry

"Consequently, arms of the state government such as school boards may not make religious statements."

You seem to be relying on a pattern of diktats handed down from the Judiciary, that "...subtle corps of sappers and miners..." working against the Constitution to increase its own power. It is possible to compare Jefferson's text to the text of their decisions, they stand in stark contrast. Yet the Judiciary seems to have a tendency to abuse Jefferson's words, often enough.

The truth behind the founding documents and American history contradict a proto-Nazi trend towards the "experts" in science, judges, etc., making all our discriminations for us. In the instance of this sticker business, such a trend goes directly against the Jeffersonian notion that local community's must be left free from a consolidated federal power, in order to make their own discriminations. One writer here called honoring parental rights in education "child abuse," so what is the solution? Will Leftists advocate to sever the parental role in education further and further, continuing their trend by having social services come to take the children of religious parents? I think that if Leftists ever could get more power the impact of their totalitarian tendency would be felt. They consider themselves "experts" in science and the like, capable of making all our discriminations for us. These are those who have the broad vision necessary for doing so? My but how their glasses grow thicker and thicker, as they stare at their dissections in myopic fashion. I wonder if these "experts" really do have the vision necessary to back up their broad statements and their advocacy of an ever increasing alliance between Science and the State.

"The stickers are religious statements, not scientific statements."

And? And then you'll tell me that "religion" is "unconstitutional," when such ahistorical and textually degenerate claims are on the level of the judicial diktats to be found in Dred Scott. Perhaps we should throw the text of the Constitution on the floor and stomp on it, then see what new text evolves from it?

"There is no well from which a school board may draw the authority to use or require such "warnings" against science on textbooks."

Their local community gives them the authority and they can take it away.

"All your hoo-haw about the founders is completely beside the point."

I think your attitude about text will be the same that you have to DNA. So shall we disregard the writers of the text, entirely, and stomp on the Constitution to see what evolves from the text? Perhaps we can enter our own biases into the text later, by hypothesizing about what the remnants of the text means and fill in the blanks with whatever we want it to mean. Do texts really have authors anyway, are the patterns of symbols and signs intelligently designed?

"I think one must dance awfully hard to avoid the fact that it is parents who are suing to stop the stickers. The stickers are imposed by a governmental entity, against the rights of parents."

I think you must dance awfully hard to pretend that the representatives of the community are going against the communities wishes. If that were really so then totalitarians would not have to threaten to call in the National Guard to support their diktats.

Textbooks containing the mythological narratives of naturalism (as well as known frauds and the like) have been imposed by a "governmental entity," yet there was not a peep out of evolutionists then.

"If you're so concerned about parents' rights in this case, why do you support the oppressive government against the parents?"

Because that's a ridiculous statement. Who has to rely on the supporters of pederasts like the ACLU, judicial diktat and totalitarianism? It's always the proto-Nazis who are attempting to sever youth from their parents, especially on education.

"Creationism requires contortions of thought and philosophy that almost inevitably put creationists in such odd positions as this: Mynym claims to support parental rights, but supports the government against the parents.
Go figure."

If the parent's governmental representatives were really going against the wishes of parents then I would support the parents. They aren't. And they clearly would not be. They wouldn't put themselves through standing up to oligarchs and believers in scientism who consider themselves "experts" capable of defining all religion, science, "child abuse," and whatever else comes into their head at the moment if their own community were also set against them. This sticker business illustrates just how far the believers in scientism have come into their typical pattern of totalitarianism. For these are those who would be the "experts" to make all your discriminations for you, this time through a willling sort of oligarchy.

Why does the "hoo-haw" about the Founders matter? Why correct the distortions and "evolution" that some would change text by? As Jefferson noted the Constitution could easily become a "thing of wax" in the sweaty little hands of textual degenerates, those who seem to feel that text tends to "evolve" by degenerative principles.

Who has to rely on the supporters of pederasts like the ACLU, judicial diktat and totalitarianism? It's always the proto-Nazis who are attempting to sever youth from their parents, especially on education

"Creationists keep saying "Why do we care so much about a sticker?" Why do they care so much?"

I don't. I do care about some of the principles involved that will inevitably come out of the situation. I find quite humorous the comments about "defacement," the "unholy," etc., as they seem to indicate that those who believe in the vast mythological narratives of Naturalism consider some books their holy books.

"They are the ones that want it. How much ground do you give them?"

The ground is not your's to give. The ground at issue is the parent's, their money, their community school, their educational interest. If they want to put a sticker on an English textbook saying, "This is all a bunch of memes. Language does not mean much of anything, it is an artifact of your brain events. This is a scientific fact."

That's fine with me. I think that language can stand up to a little sticker. I do not fear that a child will think, "Hey...I guess I won't write now!" from a sticker. Nor would I think that a sticker has the capacity to refute a whole textbook, no matter what it is. It is....a sticker.

"Unholy" as it may be....maybe we could say that only the really sticky stickers are unholy? Even if you think parents are dumb, "Me scientist, me smarter than dumb parents!" etc., they must not be severed from their child's education. Somehow I doubt that there will be a lot of support for vouchers among evolutionists, which would demonstrate that they are interested in indoctrination.

"Is it just me, or do others think that we've crossed the line into offensive mouth-frothing here?"

Uh huh.

One writer writes that religious parents are as "child abusers."

Another,
"So here we have Dave who beat his kid and indoctrinated them with stories of hell."

"Sounds perfectly rational for someone who subscribes to that type of 'thinking'."

Etc.etc....

I think you have a problem with strong rhetoric because it can be backed up. So you are working yourself toward a position of censorship? Do you realize how many false claims have been made by the believers in scientism about rubes, bigotry, anti-science, etc., abusing strong rhetoric?

If you have any questions about my strong rhetoric, I'll answer them. It is not suprising that murmurings of censorship come from the Left. It is the same situation with the ACLU, they're too busy defending pederasts and attacking the Boy Scouts to be bothered with protecting the free speech of Pro-Lifers. Tolerance? What a meaningless word that is on the religious left.

I looked for your contributions Russel. All you did was question the intents and motivations of Meyer and said that religion is of madman, etc.

Note,
"....he seems to have drunk deeply of the KoolAid."

"Should I derive a certain sadistic pleasure in having goaded DaveIQScot into humiliating himself with this public display of dorky, um, self-gratification?"

It seems like you are one of those who will write whatever you want, yet lack the capacity to allow opposition. I can back up my rhetoric if you would like to point to a problem that you supposedly think justifies killing speech.

On the other hand some of your rhetoric seems to be on shakey ground, at best. Maybe you should be censored.

Not all us card-carrying members of the ACLU are pederasts. Some of us aren't even particularly fond of kids. Maybe, mynym is thinking of priests; but then some of them probably aren't pederasts either.

One note for David Heddle who wrote: "I don't think one can claim it [i.e. Yahweh, God, Allah] is the same deity. After all, the Christian deity is three-persons one-substance (trinity.) Both Jews and Moslems dispute this and claim Christians are not monotheistic."

Yep, and if you look around the web, you can find Sunni sites where Shiites are routinely denounced as polytheists. Along side such sectarian polemic, however, there used to be a consensus, at least among educated people, that everybody was finally talking about the same God because the God in question could be partly known by universal philosophical reason---you can have as many Thors or Mercuries as you like, but it doesn't make much sense to multiply prime movers or perfect beings whose essence includes their existence. Informed Christians called Mohammed a heretic---Dante put him in with the schismatics in the Inferno--but they usually didn't claim he was an idolater and Aquinas and other scholastics obviously regard Mamonides and Averroes and even Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics as monotheists. With some famous fanatical exceptions, the Muslims in India also managed to interpret mainstream Hinduism as a kind of theism even though Vishnuites and Shavites aren't listed as peoples of the book in the Koran.

It is not exactly obvious to me in what respect it's progress to talk about the Christian God as essential different than the Muslim Allah. If neither being is knowable to reason, I guess the only way to settle things is a sort of cosmic wrestling match.

The our-God-is-better-than-your-God version of Christianity strikes me as a variety of paganism whose idol just happens to have the same name as the central figure of an earlier and very different religion. Mind you, I'm not a votary of the earlier Christianity either. It's too left wing for me.

"Not all us card-carrying members of the ACLU are pederasts."

I didn't say you are. You are supporting an organization that uses its limited resources to support pederasts, while attacking the Boy Scouts and failing to protect the free speech of pro-lifers. This is all factual and can be proven. The other elements of my vitriolic rhetoric can also be backed up....yet I was thinking, I did not know that these forums are censored in favor of views comporting with scientism. So how much of the opposition has been censored away? Is that why it seems like a bunch of people mindlessly repeating the same memes? This sticker business and the drive to censor the views and free expression of a community seems very similar. I.e., it seems to illusrate the same point about a drive to smother and censor the expression of opposing views. Then there is the communalizing "scientific community," that also seems to be relying on censorship in various ways. So I am increasingly curious, just how much of the opposition has been censored away here, continuing the same trend?

There is objection to me pointing out a certain type of trend that matches historical patterns? I would think you can almost lift up your minds out of scientism enough to see it yourselves, as easy as it is to see.

If you have any questions about my strong rhetoric, I'll answer them. It is not suprising that murmurings of censorship come from the Left. It is the same situation with the ACLU, they're too busy defending pederasts and attacking the Boy Scouts to be bothered with protecting the free speech of Pro-Lifers. Tolerance? What a meaningless word that is on the religious left.

OK Mynym. I'm ready. Back this up:
" supporters of pederasts like the ACLU "

Perhaps it's just a question of whose ox is gored, but I'd say your rhetoric goes beyond my obvious metaphor. (I.e. do you think I'm referring to literal KoolAid or "self-gratification"?) And, no, I don't think I need to apologize for questioning Meyer's intent - and loyalty oath.

And where did I say religion was "of madmen"?

Reading comprehension problems, Mynym. Serious problems.

PZ said:

"Of course we teach science critically and with an open mind."

Why not, then, be open minded about the possiblity of an intelligent designer? It's not unscientific to consider the possibility that design (and all evolutionists see design) is designed by intelligence. The people at SETI do it all the time, and they are scientists. Aren't they?

ID-Claire

Why not be open minded? Because there's no evidence. Scientists are open to new evidence, but the ID crowd has no evidence, only dishonest rhetoric.

"all evolutionists see design"

No, your putting words in their mouths. Evolutionists see adaptation which produces the appearance of design. They also see counter-evidence to design such as inefficiencies and historical but not necessary material constraints.

The people at SETI are searching for intelligent life that may produce artificial radio signals. They are not searching for the intelligent designer of Life, The Universe and Everything, you're equivocating between multiple meanings of the term 'intelligent design'.

Why not, then, be open minded about the possiblity of an intelligent designer?

— Claire

Why not, then, be open minded about the possiblity of an intelligent designer? It's not unscientific to consider the possibility that design (and all evolutionists see design) is designed by intelligence. The people at SETI do it all the time, and they are scientists. Aren't they? ID-Claire

Clair wrote

"Why not, then, be open minded about the possiblity of an intelligent designer? It's not unscientific to consider the possibility that design (and all evolutionists see design) is designed by intelligence. The people at SETI do it all the time, and they are scientists. Aren't they?"

Considering possibilities is speculation, not science. One can speculate about the natural world, but then in order to do science, one must go beyond speculation to formulate testable hypotheses and test them with observations.

As for the SETI people, I personally think they're on a wildly non-rational quest, not doing science. But at least they have a concrete hypothesis that they're testing. Proponents of ID, on the other hand, have done nothing to attempt to discover the nature of the Designer.

I also said that it is important for students to know that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete and wrong. The theory has been superseded. I think that this is common sense.

I don't want to bash the SETI people too hard, but -

Their quest is based on hope, not on any observable evidence or scientific theory (other than the fact that there are lots of stars out there, and that organic chemicals are observed elsewhere than on Earth).

The quest is also based on some huge assumptions about intelligent life elsewhere, e.g.

- they use radio waves to communicate
- they understand patterns the same way we do
- they have roughly the same concept of time that we do
- they communicate on the same time scales that we do

To me, it seems entirely possible that intelligent life elsewhere might be utterly different from what we understand. But of course, I have no scientific evidence one way or the other. ;)

(Right - see you at the Bathroom Wall)

mynym said: I think you have a problem with strong rhetoric because it can be backed up. So you are working yourself toward a position of censorship? Do you realize how many false claims have been made by the believers in scientism about rubes, bigotry, anti-science, etc., abusing strong rhetoric?

It is not suprising that murmurings of censorship come from the Left.

Textbooks containing the mythological narratives of naturalism (as well as known frauds and the like) have been imposed by a "governmental entity," yet there was not a peep out of evolutionists then.

The truth behind the founding documents and American history contradict a proto-Nazi trend towards the "experts" in science, judges, etc., making all our discriminations for us.

In the instance of this sticker business, such a trend goes directly against the Jeffersonian notion that local community's must be left free from a consolidated federal power, in order to make their own discriminations.

One writer here called honoring parental rights in education "child abuse," so what is the solution?

Will Leftists advocate to sever the parental role in education further and further, continuing their trend by having social services come to take the children of religious parents?

I think that if Leftists ever could get more power the impact of their totalitarian tendency would be felt.

They consider themselves "experts" in science and the like, capable of making all our discriminations for us.

These are those who have the broad vision necessary for doing so?

My but how their glasses grow thicker and thicker, as they stare at their dissections in myopic fashion. I wonder if these "experts" really do have the vision necessary to back up their broad statements and their advocacy of an ever increasing alliance between Science and the State.

Heddle said: Whenever this subject comes up, I renew my challenge for any of the evolutionists on this site to admit that they are feeble minded enough that the stickers would have had affected them.

About the only line of thinking on PT that gets my blood soaring is that a scientist's Christianity matters.

One's Christianity is relevant because it means that one is likely to see God in the Gaps. While that is possibly true, a double standard arises because there is no acknowledgment that an atheist might similarly deny any evidence for design because it would force him to examine his position.

Here the denial phase is blatant. I am assuming the number he refers to is the cosmological constant. It has been pointed out many times that, because of the expansion of the universe, the present theory demands an extreme restriction on the range of values that would result in a universe with galaxies.

And this most bizarre denial is in spite of the fact that virtually all cosmologists acknowledge the fine tuning "problem" of the cosmological constant.

He doesn't add that Penzias sees it in spite of a Nobel Prize, Hawking sees it in spite of being one of the great intellects of our era, etc.

By the way, as far as ID is concerned, the tidy little idea that a scientist's religion matters also doesn't account for those of us who (humanly speaking) are not IDers because we are Christians, but are Christians because we were first IDers. (I am an IDer when it comes to cosmology, and it was ID that led me to Christianity, not vice versa.)

I'll make this short and sweet. As far as I can see the current argumentation resembles an old adage, "Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it."

If you walked into a bookshop or library and open any of the thousands of books displayed, you would not expect to see little stickers warning you about the content. If you walked into 99.99% of schools in the world and opened a text book you would not expect to see a warning sticker about the content.
Warning stickers are reserved for for dangerous items like chemicals or cigarettes.
So why should ordinary text books that are available in unadulterated form everywhere else have to be subjected to little stickers warning the reader sbout the content.

David, I would appreciate it if you stopped arguing from authority. But just because you asked for it, I'll present you with a few quotes from A Brief History of Time, Bantam paperback edition, 1998.

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe... So long as the universe had a beginning, we could also suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" (145-6)

"However, suppose that only in the smooth regions were galaxies and stars formed and were conditions right for the development of complicated self-replicating organisms like ourselves who were capable of asking the question: why is the universe so smooth [this follows a few sentences in which Hawking postulates that this may not be the case]? This is an example of the application of what is known as the anthropic principle, which can be paraphrased as 'We see the universe the way it is because we exist.'" (128)

I would also appreciate it if you took my argument that forcing religion down children's throats is child abuse as a real argument rather than as a farce. It's intended to be real. Laughing at someone instead of refuting him is always poor dialectic, and in a forum where your opinion is in the minority, such as this one, is also poor rhetoric. On LGF, you'd be able to just frame what I said as another reason to hate liberals, and convince your audience that I'm not to be listened to. That's be viciously anti-rational, but it'd make good rhetoric. Here you can't do that.

Do you deliberately continue quoting the American New Testament without thought or skepticism, or is it just inertia? The fact that Jefferson did not like technocracy doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. I could explain to you why you're wrong, but my explanation is no more than an elaboration on a slogan you've probably heard ("would you tell a surgeon how to operate on you?").

Mynym, your argument that "I think that if Leftists ever could get more power the impact of their totalitarian tendency would be felt" ignores one brand of totalitarianism that everyone forgets, namely local totalitarianism. The family is a totalitarian regime - your parents have total control of you, near-complete knowledge of what you do, and the ability to almost destroy you when you don't do what they say. To control East Germany's citizens effectively, the Stasi had to rely on hundreds of thousands of informers. Parents need no one to help them, and still they know more than any totalitarian state that has sprung in real life. So, to use a well-known demagogical slogan, won't anyone please think of the children?

I don't believe you. If ID doesn't have anything to do with Jesus, why pick Christianity? I'm guessing you were raised Christian (or otherwise surrounded by a lot of Christians) and needed only a modest push to accept it. David, since you believe the universe is fine-tuned, what is it fine-tuned for? (I assume you'll agree that it is nonsensical to talk about "tuning" without a reference to some particular state or goal.)

I don't believe you. If ID doesn't have anything to do with Jesus, why pick Christianity? I'm guessing you were raised Christian (or otherwise surrounded by a lot of Christians) and needed only a modest push to accept it. David, since you believe the universe is fine-tuned, what is it fine-tuned for? (I assume you'll agree that it is nonsensical to talk about "tuning" without a reference to some particular state or goal.)

I said AT LEAST 10 TIMES that Hawking (1) recognized the fine tuning in the PRESENT big-bang model and then (2) Made his famous quote that the presently models essentially imply a God because of the necessary fine tuning and (3) then goes on to offer alternative speculation.

It doesn't matter how often you say it if it isn't true.

Oh, btw Alon, I enjoy your comments that I am a child abuser. It shows what kind of bedfellows they keep on this site.

You're still engaging in pure, unsubstantiated rhetoric. You're taking the fact that you're not a child abuser as an axiom and using it to tar anyone who thinks otherwise.

It doesn't matter how often you say it if it isn't true.

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." --Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 127

Cop out. That means he was either a true prophet or delusional. C'mon, why don't you say.

The bottom line is that it was shocking that I would say Mohammed was a false prophet.

I think most of you agree that he was, but won't say it.

You know what? A Moslem (some) wouldn't be offended by my statement, they would just say that I was wrong (and hellbound.)

Likewise, I would expect a Moslem to say Jesus was not God. After all, a Moslem is not a Christian. It wouldn't offend me. But you guys cower in the face of political correctness, and cannot bring yourselves to state the obvious.

"If you're so concerned about parents' rights in this case, why do you support the oppressive government against the parents?" Because that's a ridiculous statement. Who has to rely on the supporters of pederasts like the ACLU, judicial diktat and totalitarianism? It's always the proto-Nazis who are attempting to sever youth from their parents, especially on education.

— mynym

Oh, btw Alon, I enjoy your comments that I am a child abuser. It shows what kind of bedfellows they keep on this site.

Then please explain, in context, as I do Hawking's quote from the same book: "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." ---Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 127

— troll and prevaricator David Heddle

This means that that initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model model was correct right back to the beginning of time.

In an attempt to find a model of the universe in which many different initial configurations could have evolved to something like the present universe, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Alan Guth, suggested that the early universe might have gone through a period of very rapid expansion.

The work on inflationary models showed that the present state of the universe could have arisen from quite a large number of different configurations. This is important, because it shows that the initial state of the part of the universe that we inhabit did not have to be chosen with great care.

But what ever you do don't accuse him of quote mining.

He doesn't like that at all.

Non-scientist ts

Hawking is saying precisely what I claimed: that the present big bang theory has fine tuning and so should be abandoned. That is what all the quotes you posted attest to.

You last quote refers to new models meant to replace the current ones--and even those have anthropic difficulties (and they still remain speculative, not accepted.)

I have never said that Hawking believed in ID. I have only said, over and over, that he sees fine tuning in the current big bang model. Exactly what your post confirms.

He then goes on to postulate an alternative cosmology (which has gone nowhere, but that's not the point)

— troll and prevaricator David Heddle

Non-scientist ts

It's not the inflationary model, but a inflationary model. And it is not in any way, shape, or form required for COBE, the standard models do quite well. It is not the prevailing model, at all, period. Just pick up any graduate level cosmology book.

I have never said that Hawking believed in ID. I have only said, over and over, that he sees fine tuning in the current big bang model.

But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

I suspect Neddle is GWW.

Non-Scientist TS:

You are stupid beyond belief. What is your Hawking quote supposed to prove? He is describing an alternative theory (which has NOT gained acceptance) Why does he want that theory? Because it doesn't contain the fine tuning problems of the current model.

If his theory has been accepted, and the standard big-bang model is dead, which would surprise a lot of people, why did Krauss say in Scientific American in 2004 that cosmological constant puzzle is the worst fine tuning problem in physics? Why didn't he say "it WOULD have been the worse if those models Hawking speculated about in his book hadn't come along to save us!"

who is GWW?

I see Mr.Heddle is showing his true stripes today.

I haven't made any comments one way or the other about the fine tuning problem because I'm not a cosmologist---not that they agree on much. I will comment on the move from fine tuning to a creator God, however, because that's a philosophical move.

i wouldn't be at all surprized if the nature of the universe were not closely determined by the values of various constants or other initial conditions. But even if the current state of things were uniquely determined by such constraints and would be markedly different were they different, it would hardly point to the existence of a designer freely creating because the creator God would himself be bound by the natural necessity of the same laws that establish the reality of fine tuning---you only get Spinoza's god that way---deus sive natura---which is OK, I guess, but not very inspiring.

Of course, you can imagine that God makes up the laws---theological folks give themselves the right to imagine anything---but then you have to admit the good lord has contrived a mighty complicated way of ordering things granted he can do anything. In particular, it becomes very strange that there aren't an even number of days in a year or that pi isn't an integer.

One other cavil: if you imagine that God made the world for life, isn't it odd that there is so little life in the Universe? Once again, you could argue that God had to make life in homeopathic doses because that's the only way he could make it at all---the recipe calls for a zillion parts dirty vacuum for every green, wet planet. But if God is sovereign, why does he contrive so absurd a recipe?

You probably don't claim to fathom the purposes of God, but then again, you do claim to fathom 'em some on the basis of the evidence of the world. Obviously I don't think invoking Gods furthers explanation, but if I believed in a creator, I guess I'd have to conclude from the state of the universe that one of the least of his purposes was life since he made so little of it. Maybe life is just an unavoidable side effect of his real purpose, which is to contrive pulsars or contemplate gas clouds? I imagine God whistling, "I got plenty of nothing."

Hawking, as far as I know, hasn't adressed the problem of cosmological constant in Brief History of Time. He was addressing a problem of fine-tuning of the overall geometry of universe (which is extremely close to Euclidean), as well as problems of homogeneity and isotropy of the known universe. Cosmological constant was entering and leaving physics several times, this last occurence is because of data from observing distant supernovae which show that the expansion of universe is speeding up. That is exactly what cosmological constant is supposed to do, and so it was revived once again. But this came long after Brief History of Time. In other words, Hawking DIDN'T KNOW about this fine-tuning of cosmological constant, when he wrote the book, and the inflation theory WASN'T supposed to take care of it. It was supposed to solve problems with isotropy and apparent flatness of the universe - and it did so with great success.

To support my notion, please see the following link:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/8/4224 , which claims that the acceleration of expansion was detected in 1998. This was when cosmological constant acquired its current spotlight.

Brief History of Time was published in 1988 - ten years earlier. From this, I derive that problems with fine-tuning of cosmological constant couldn't be addressed by Hawking in that book at all. He could and did address other fine-tuning problems. but not this particular one.

Marek,

You are right. My point was that Hawkings proposed cosmology, if it were accepted, would have rendered the Cosmological constant puzzle of the current model moot.

This link:

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Watson/Watson_contents.html

is an university course that teaches inflationary cosmology. It says "In recent years, inflation has become accepted as a standard scenario making predictions that are testable by observations of the cosmic background." Therefore, if the "proposed cosmology" you are talking about was the inflationary model, then it WAS, in fact, accepted.

So I have to ask this: what is your base for reasoning that it would render the cosmological constant puzzle moot? Because I confess, I don't get this at all. Inflation theory presents a very short time, at the beginning of our universe, where cosmological constant had incredibly high value. It doesn't say anything, as far as I'm aware, about it's current value. Almost twenty years ago, it was widely believed that it is zero, and the inflation theory is compatible with that notion (although it doesn't require it).

Maybe we should read what Professor Hawking says about this, here:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/inflate.html

Geez! Surely you are not saying that Hawking introduced the idea of inflation in his book? Hawking proposed a cosmology with no beginning. In that cosmology the cosmological constant puzzle is moot.

You might not notice this yet, but I'm not here to argue. My intelligence is high enough to not argue in areas where my education is mostly by self-study of interestingly-looking books. I don't even own a copy of Brief history of Time, I read it a long time ago, and I didn't realize this was what you were talking about.

The idea of inflation is from 1981 - so obviously Hawking couldn't introduce it in 1988 book, but I digress.

Still, though, I simply fail to see why cosmological constant puzzle would be moot in no-beginning cosmology. Most probably the problem is on my side, though.

Marek,

The paper you linked is very good. It shows how Hawking's thinking evolved in the light of the non-zero cosmological constant that is presently required and how he is trying to modify his cosmology to avoid the problem. Clearly this is ongoing research.

You might not notice this yet, but I'm not here to argue. My intelligence is high enough to not argue in areas where my education is mostly by self-study of interestingly-looking books. I don't even own a copy of Brief history of Time, I read it a long time ago, and I didn't realize this was what you were talking about.

The idea of inflation is from 1981 - so obviously Hawking couldn't introduce it in 1988 book, but I digress.

Still, though, I simply fail to see why cosmological constant puzzle would be moot in no-beginning cosmology. Most probably the problem is on my side, though.

Marek--sorry for the foul tone. When you are under constant attack you assume everyone is out to get you--or is that just paranoia? I really appreciate the link you provided, it shows how the cosmological constant problem has affected his work.

If his theory has been accepted, and the standard big-bang model is dead

— troll David Heddle

this model suggests questions which it can not answer, which brings about its own demise.

why did Krauss say in Scientific American in 2004 that cosmological constant puzzle is the worst fine tuning problem in physics? Why didn't he say "it WOULD have been the worse if those models Hawking speculated about in his book hadn't come along to save us!"

— prevaricating troll David Heddle

Oh, make no mistake - I agree with evolution, too. I simply restrict myself to pointing out either flaws I perceive or things I don't understand. I don't believe that debates in places like this lead to anything useful. I freely admit that I have naturalistic bias - I simply find the notion of supernatural appalling, it's something that shuld not exist my world. But I know it's a bias - and not totally rational at that - and although I can't get rid of it completely, I can limit the extent to which it affects my behaviour.

This is why I don't go for long arguments - I don't consider likely that I could convince anyone (not with my education) and it's equally unlikely that I could be convinced myself, since my core philosophy is to be NEVER convinced - always being in doubt. So what use is arguing, then? Just a waste of time both me and my opponent could use for something more useful.

LOL

Stickers on the holy book of Darwin

Such a fuss.

How dare those unschooled creationists demand that we be honest about the reliance of magic in evolution...

The darwin holy book would read...

In the biggining there was nothing then Magic happened and we will call it the big bang, but you are foolish if you believe God spoke at this point there is no God this is SCIENCE.

And the Earth was devoid of life except for amino acids then Magic happened and there were single cell organisms that either used RNA or DNA we don't know because we have no evidence. But we are SURE that it wasn't a God there is no evidence for a God and you are a foolish naive child if you dare say otherwise in SCIENCE class.

And then the single cell organisms evolved using a Magic procedure which somehow increases the complexity of the RNA or DNA so that they formed multi-cellular DNA organisms (we think there is no good DNA material surviving). But there is no God and you are stupid for believing there is....And no we can't demonstrate this evolution in any great detail.

You are not scientists, you are anti-creationists zealots. Your Magic is stronger than their God in your mind.

foolish

Thank you both for not trying to hide your religious lunacy. Evolution is not a fact like gravity or electrons are facts in the world of science.

[T]here is no evidence for a God and you are a foolish naive child if you dare say otherwise in SCIENCE class.

— DonkeyKong

Stickers on the holy book of Darwin

How dare those unschooled creationists demand that we be honest about the reliance of magic in evolution . . .

In the biggining there was nothing then Magic happened and we will call it the big bang, but you are foolish if you believe God spoke at this point there is no God this is SCIENCE.

But we are SURE that it wasn't a God there is no evidence for a God and you are a foolish naive child if you dare say otherwise in SCIENCE class.

And no we can't demonstrate this evolution in any great detail.

You are not scientists, you are anti-creationists zealots. Your Magic is stronger than their God in your mind.

foolish

Stickers on the holy book of Darwin

How dare those unschooled creationists demand that we be honest about the reliance of magic in evolution . . .

In the biggining there was nothing then Magic happened and we will call it the big bang, but you are foolish if you believe God spoke at this point there is no God this is SCIENCE.

But we are SURE that it wasn't a God there is no evidence for a God and you are a foolish naive child if you dare say otherwise in SCIENCE class.

And no we can't demonstrate this evolution in any great detail.

You are not scientists, you are anti-creationists zealots. Your Magic is stronger than their God in your mind.

foolish

Comment #17665 Posted by Chance on February 23, 2005 10:30 AM who is GWW?

GWW is a female. Just thought I'd point that out too.

Colin

When you typed that "We can." in reply to my stating that you can't verify evolution in any detail did you really stop to think about it?

To produce real evidence for evolution you will first need to show HOW. HOW do genes change. What changes are IMPOSSIBLE? What is the mean expected time for each mutation to occur? What factors alter than mean time? What mutations are so common that they block other mutations etc etc etc. What enviornments eliminate complex life soley by pushing the genetic mutations in the wrong direction etc. Play the game of life(simulation program called "game of life" or "life") with different enviornments to see what I am talking about if you are missing what I am getting at.

ONLY once you know HOW can you look back in time and expect to be able to specify IF. I am not convinced that you have any clue of HOW.

Evolution is inheriently a theory that relies on statistical proof.

What is the probability that evolution is incorrect?

CAUTION THIS IS A TRICK QUESTION THAT WILL PROBABLY EMBARRASS YOU...

Name a currently accepted theory in science that doesn't rely on statistics for its support.

Henry J

The point I was getting at is that theories that rely on sparce statistical data as does most galaxy level science all experess their uncertainty in some form or another.

The universal gravitational constant has an uncertaintly expressed in the number of significant figures. Even though the data is not sparce.

The lack of a numerical representation of anything indicates a severe lack of understanding.

The inability to express the odds of incorrectness is a symptom of a non-scientific mind set.

gravity is confirmed 100s and 1000s and 10000s of times per day. Because all of these confirmations agree with the stated theory in detail we don't mention the odds that gravity is wrong because they are very very very small.

But in evolution this isn't the case. Only within the areas where genetics allows exaustive testing can any significant checks be made, even here you have major issues with Monkey DNA and human DNA structure being different even though the bases and genes are very similiar. You only have greater than say 10 observations in a very small percentage of the 1000 year periods between present and the start of evolution.

Which is why evolution never mentions numbers or odds of being wrong. Its because they can't prove similiarity in detail past the recent DNA evidence and they can't prove cause at all.

If they could the new revelations like the bunny, the ancient modern human or the pigmy human would have been predicted ahead of time in detail. They weren't. Because evolution was unable to predict them due to an inability to understand based on not enough evidence to form a valid numerical theory.

Predicting evolutionary results beforehand would be somewhat like predicting the weather beforehand. Too many variables. They can however predict some things about genetic comparisons before they're performed, and some features of fossils before they're found, and some things about geographic distributions of related species.

Similarities can be shown also in anatomy, which isn't limited to still living creatures, although genetics is more precise where it can be used.

As for the odds of "gravity" being wrong: Newton's description of gravity is limited to speeds low relative to that of light, and gravity fields weak relative to those of stars. Einstein's theory is limited to densities low enough to avoid quantum effects. So when commenting about whether "gravity" is "wrong", one needs to specify what description of gravity is being considered.

As for numerical representations, I was kind of under the impression that geneticists do have numerical analysis of gene frequencies and their changes in populations. Which makes me question the accuracy of the claim that they lack numerical analysis.

Henry

DonkeyKong, what you asking is like asking a meteorologist for a accurate forecast for Stoughton Mass on 15 March 2020 today. Surely they should know. I mean with all we know about weather patterns, fluid dynamics, solar activity, and big fat pigs flatulating surely we can predict the weather from now to the end of time.

Just as creationist warp the meaning of "Theory" you warp the meaning of "Predictive"

I just wanted to add that I agree with alot of David's theology, some i don't of course and enjoyed playing a little Devil's advocate with him.

I think he is misguided on the evolution issue however.

test

icle

Wayne and Henry...

How can you say with a straight face that you know evolution occured but you can't predict anything with it. Prediction is science, no prediction no science. Are we talking about the philosophy of evolution?

I can assure you that if the weatherman was not a better predictor of the future than me I would be on TV and not him.

Weathermen can make predictions and show that although not 100% they are much much much better than random noise.

Any multi-variable theory that is too complex for you to understand and by that I mean make meaningful predictions that are testable by a non kool-aid drinker, is not science.

The majority of the types of predictions of evolution have been proven false. It is only that within species there is an amazing similiarity and that similiar species are genetically similiar that matches. The non-genetic evidence is all rather circumstantial.

But take the monkey -> human thing in isolation.

Evolutionists laugh at the if humans evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys.

But at the very same time they explain the lack of a missing link because it died out and evolved.

You are playing both sides of the isle. How do you explain the gaps in species? Or more importantly how do you explain the missing details?

Why are there no species with 7 arms? 2,4,6,8 why no odds? Why no species with 3 eyes? why can't all animals see in the dark? Was that a recent mutation because no species would have had an advantage to mutate away from that...

There are tons tons tons tons of unanswered questions. The non-genetic evidence for evolution is rather weak and has consistently failed to deliver a strong death blow to those who argue that evoultion fails to appriciate how increadibly unlikly biogenesis is. The genetic evidence has only been applied recently and does not go back very far.

And before you try to say evolution and bio genesis are unrelated hold your breath, they are unrelated because you consistently lose the biogenesis arguments. Otherwise one follows the other and if the IF is not a natural process than the THEN is also probably not a natural process.

This group of peole is the strongest proof of the kool-aid evolution crowd I have seen. Give someone a PHd and they forget Jr High science basics like the scientific method.

QUOTE-Evolutionists laugh at the if humans evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys.

But at the very same time they explain the lack of a missing link because it died out and evolved.-UNQUOTE

awesome point, I shall use it in the future.

Remember, according to evolution we all come from a puddle of chemicals that was struck by lightening. The puddle came from the big bang. hmmmmmmmmmm........ and you make fun of me for Believing in God?

Why are there no species with 7 arms? 2,4,6,8 why no odds? Why no species with 3 eyes? why can’t all animals see in the dark?

There are tons tons tons tons of unanswered questions.

And before you try to say evolution and bio genesis are unrelated hold your breath, they are unrelated because you consistently lose the biogenesis arguments. Otherwise one follows the other and if the IF is not a natural process than the THEN is also probably not a natural process.

But at the very same time they explain the lack of a missing link because it died out and evolved.

— DonkeyKong

How do you explain the gaps in species? Or more importantly how do you explain the missing details?

— DonkeyKong

Why are there no species with 7 arms? 2,4,6,8 why no odds?

— DonkeyKong

Why no species with 3 eyes?

— DonkeyKong

why can't all animals see in the dark?

— DonkeyKong

There are tons tons tons tons of unanswered questions.

— DonkeyKong

And before you try to say evolution and bio genesis are unrelated hold your breath

— DonkeyKong

Jon Flemming

I said
"There are tons tons tons tons of unanswered questions."

You Said
"But there are many orders of magnitude more answered questions. The fact that not everything is known does not obviate what we know."

Sorry but your reply speaks volumes. Do you honestly believe that evolution has answered more questions than remain to be answered yet cannot explain in any detail WHAT, HOW and even WHERE and WHEN are fuzzy.

Also how many of these questions do you think were correctly answered BEFORE as opposed to AFTER then were "confirmed"

Wayne

Couple of quick things for you to think about.

1) Being able to state your theory neither makes it true or me ignorant for expecting proof that can be verified or falsified by a neutral third party.

2) In your above senario with gradual evolution of two seperate species you would expect to have a common ancestor which is todays humans which would be the missing link, or if one of the species did not change at all you would have a complete line of evolution in the fossils of the other branch. So unless your theory is that something took the missing link to another planet and then brough fully formed modern humans back then you have some explaining to do...

3) its called the 3rd law of thermodynamics...google it.

Ignorant is a very dangerous word to use when you are wrong...

"The third law of thermodynamics is usually stated as a definition: the entropy of a perfect crystal of an element at the absolute zero of temperature is zero."

(from http://www.psigate.ac.uk/newsite/reference/plambeck/chem2/p02042.htm)

This is the 3rd LoT. Please, DK, explain why you keep mentioning it as if it was of some great significance in relation to cosmogony. (We already know you don't understand the difference between cosmogony, abiogenesis and evolution, so you can skip that part).

hey DonkeyKong, you should go hang out at this website:

http://www.fixedearth.com/

That's more for your type of person.

1) Being able to state your theory neither makes it true or me ignorant for expecting proof that can be verified or falsified by a neutral third party.

— DonkeyKong

2) In your above senario with gradual evolution of two seperate species you would expect to have a common ancestor which is todays humans which would be the missing link, or if one of the species did not change at all you would have a complete line of evolution in the fossils of the other branch. So unless your theory is that something took the missing link to another planet and then brough fully formed modern humans back then you have some explaining to do . . .

— DonkeyKong

3) its called the 3rd law of thermodynamics . . . google it. Ignorant is a very dangerous word to use when you are wrong . . .

— DonkeyKong

1) That life and indeed the whole universe once did not exist. 2) That life and the universe now exists. 3) Therefore the transition from 1->2 must have occured and because there are no (massive) acknoledged spontaneous violations of the 3rd law of thermo then it must have been slow (well they take the opposite tact on big bang yet miss the irony).

— DonkeyKong

OK basic science 101.

3rd law of thermodynamics.

Basicly the entrophy(chaos) of a closed system (no energy/matter in or out) increases or remains the same over time.

In lay terms the amount of chaos increases unless energy is used to resist it. Or there is a natural statistical force pushing towards randomness unless energy is used to resist it. Big waves degenerate into little waves and not the other way around unless you have an energy source etc etc etc.

In general, 3rd law explains why complex things with low entrophy (chaos) are hard to make and require constant energy to maintain. The 3rd law is simple to state and understand and explains a large number of outcomes (by large I mean every single outcome of every test science has ever completed and bothered to look barring quantom and even there statistically it holds up). It is the single strongest scientific theory known to man and the only one Einstein believed would stand the test of time.

Evolution in general seeks to use Natural selection as a mechanism whereby entrophy can be reduce from generation to generation. In order to do this you need a mechanism that consistently favors genetic complexity over previous genetic simplicity(the generation before). This mechanism can then supply the counter chaos force.

However Evolution has failed miserably at describing how this mechanism would work without violating the 3rd law.

Simple example,
White people are better genetically suited to the poles, Black people to the equator. However white people used to be black people and when mixed with black people become black people again (or darker at least). The majority of all observed mutations are like this.

Even in the Gallapogos the mutations that are observed are not static as when the enviornmental force that fights the natural chaos is removed then the mutations tend back towards the starting threshold.

This means that in order to evolve without violating the 3rd law you need a constant force pushing the genome towards greater complexity. If you remove this force organisms will evolve in the wrong direction faster than in the right direction by simple virtue of there being more wrong directions than right directions and the process being random (unless you are an ID type).

This adds massive massive massive statistical problems to evolution that evolutionists generally duck without an answer. They tend to revert to the we are here therefore it must have hapened.

Which as I have said before......

IS A RELIGOUS BELIEF.

OK make that 2nd law of thermodynamics

:p

I said
"Being able to state your theory neither makes it true or me ignorant for expecting proof that can be verified or falsified by a neutral third party."

You said
"This gets varified ALL the time. There are tons of papers every year supporting it."

Am I the only one who sees the Irony? Are you unfamiliar with these papers? Are you unaware that there are sermons suporting 7 day creation preached EVERY SUNDAY!!! ohh wow...

All evolution is based on fossil evidence being similiar to other fossil evidence. That explains SIMILIARITY.

We agree on SIMILARITY.

You have a RELIGIOUS belief in DESCENT.

I am agnostic regarding DESCENT.

BECAUSE I GET IT AND YOU DON'T.

you only see half the coin and feel confident that your ignorance is a shield against others who see both sides.

1) FACT: evolution has no explaination for the rapid rise of complexity and the lack of any simple genetic organisms.

2) Fact: The current simpliest organisms are STAGERINGLY more complex than can be explained by evolution unless you start from a magic pop.

3) Fact: Every gap between species involves a male and a female making compadible genetic mutations at the same time or ratchet like genetic mutations where sexual production gradually shifts which would both be dramatically more rare than normal genetic mutations. Add to that the staggering distance between most species in gene space in terms of base pairs. Humans and our closest monkey relatives are way way way different in absolute terms, that evolution step alone violates the enviornment available to all of evolution.

4) Fact: If you gave one set of people the theory of evolution and another set of people all the enviornmental evidence for earth, the solar system and the galaxy and asked them if it was likely they would say no. The requirements on the enviornment made by the evolution proponents simply does not seem to have existed in earth, sol or the galaxy's history. It is only when you start saying we are here it MUST be possible that you squeeze the timeline into the earths timeline. Common sence screams for more time at every leg of evolution.

Please post how often you think a new base in put into the genenome of life. how many unique bases do you think there are in the whole of the life genome. Now multiply the two numbers together.......

Are you getting this yet??

Now put together a map of the tree of life with the appropriate distance in time that relates to the difference in genetic content.

Are you getting the picture yet?

There are 3 BILLION bases in the human genome. The earth has been non-molten for only 4.1 billion years. And evolution dogma states that almost all this change in complexity occured in 40 million years during the cambrian explosian....

Comment #16321 Posted by DonkeyKong on February 15, 2005 11:47 AM ... Do you realize that science tells us that we live in a 12 dimensional space? 3D and time is 4 D...

— DonkeyKong

Comment #19010 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 5, 2005 12:05 AM ... Why are there no species with 7 arms? 2,4,6,8 why no odds? Why no species with 3 eyes? why can't all animals see in the dark? ...

— DonkeyKong

Comment #19038 Posted by Wayne Francis on March 5, 2005 08:49 AM I know this will be lost on DonkeyKong but I'll embelish his questions ... Obviously you've never seen star fish. Next questions. DonkeyKong wrote: ... There are a few animals with 3 eyes. Scorpions can have anywhere between 0 and 12 eyes depending on the particular species of scorpion. Next Question. ... Because not all creatures evolved that ability. If they all did that would be more of an indication design because not all creatures really need to see in the dark. ...

— Wayne Francis

Comment #16322 Posted by DonkeyKong on February 15, 2005 12:05 PM ... 1) That life and indeed the whole universe once did not exist. 2) That life and the universe now exists. 3) Therefore the transition from 1->2 must have occured and because there are no (massive) acknoledged spontaneous violations of the 3rd law of thermo then it must have been slow (well they take the opposite tact on big bang yet miss the irony). Where this theory is weak. ...

— DonkeyKong

Comment #19038 Posted by Wayne Francis on March 5, 2005 08:49 AM ... Before you grovel at DonkeyKong's brilliance remember he can't even regurgitate the creationist play book here . . . or even just any science concept properly. DK saying some dribble about the 3rd law of thermodynamics *cough* its supposed to be the 2nd Law and even that is old and proven false 1000 times over. ...

— Wayne Francis

Comment #19257 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 7, 2005 10:32 PM ... 3) its called the 3rd law of thermodynamics . . . google it. Ignorant is a very dangerous word to use when you are wrong . . .

— DonkeyKong

Comment #19259 Posted by Emanuele Oriano on March 7, 2005 11:05 PM "The third law of thermodynamics is usually stated as a definition: the entropy of a perfect crystal of an element at the absolute zero of temperature is zero." (from http://www.psigate.ac.uk/newsite/reference/plambeck/chem2/p0 . . . ) This is the 3rd LoT. Please, DK, explain why you keep mentioning it as if it was of some great significance in relation to cosmogony. (We already know you don't understand the difference between cosmogony, abiogenesis and evolution, so you can skip that part).

— Emanuele Oriano

Comment #19262 Posted by Wayne Francis on March 8, 2005 12:53 AM Comment # 19257 ... DonkeyKong wrote: 3) its called the 3rd law of thermodynamics . . . google it. Ignorant is a very dangerous word to use when you are wrong . . . Please show me how DonkeyKong wrote: 1) That life and indeed the whole universe once did not exist. 2) That life and the universe now exists. 3) Therefore the transition from 1->2 must have occured and because there are no (massive) acknoledged spontaneous violations of the 3rd law of thermo then it must have been slow (well they take the opposite tact on big bang yet miss the irony). 1) apply to the to the 3rd law? 2) you can say that the whole univers once did not exist? Science is still investigating this with no conclusive answers. It sure looks like you are trying to use the common creationist 2LoT arguement agianst natural formation of life here.

— Wayne Francis

Comment #19264 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 8, 2005 01:42 AM OK basic science 101. 3rd law of thermodynamics. Basicly the entrophy(chaos) ...

— DonkeyKong

Comment #19265 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 8, 2005 01:44 AM OK make that 2nd law of thermodynamics :p

— DonkeyKong

OK basic science 101. 3rd law of thermodynamics. Basicly the entrophy(chaos) of a closed system (no energy/matter in or out) increases or remains the same over time. In lay terms...

Wayne

Ignorance is defending a theory that contains no numbers with attacks on simple mistakes using 3 instead of 2 or 12 instead of 11.

You didn't respond to what I was SAYING.

Because the CONCEPTS were too hard to face...

11 or 12 did not change the point I made and you didn't respond to.

3rd or 2nd did not change the point I made that you still fail to appreciate.

You are ignorant at your very core of HOW science works.

Evolution has a very poor history of predicting future events based on the descent hypothesis. There is no uncontested examples of speciation. The biogensis argument has been desserted and now you all claim that it is irrelevant.

You all say silly things like even if God exists and created LUCA then evolution is still true. Even a grade school kid would understand that if God created LUCA then its just as likely if not more so that God created man rather than him evolving from Apes. There is a gap between Human and Ape its real.

Don't hide your head in the sand....

12 isn't 11 therefore evolution is true.
3 isn't 2 therefore evolution is ture.
God isn't real therefore evolution is true.
Let me restate, evolution is true.
You are ignorant, evolution is ture.

The ignorance in your arguments is total.
You really don't appreciate how fragile the evolution hypothesis is.

Nor do you understand that most of evolution isn't science. Or at the very least isn't tested science.

Claim of evolution: All life descended from LUCA.

Dependancy: LUCA must have existed.
Evidence to support: Descendants of LUCA exist.

Ignorance is not seeing the circular reasoning...

Honestly did you not see this?
Are you blind to the obvious flaws in the reasoning pattern?

In my time here I have brough up several real issues that true scientists would acknoledge but you all are silent....

Here is a list for those to lazy to read

1) Evolution has proof of similiarity not proof of descent. Descent is only one of many explainations for why the similiarity exists.

2) Evolution is dependant on LUCA's existance. This is problematic on two levels, Biogenesis seems to be astronomically^2 unlikely raising the need for another mechanism to start evolution and then somehow not interfere later. All the proof of LUCA's existance assumes evolution is correct and is circular reasoning.

3) Gaps in evolution are problematic as they are inconsistent with small mutations accumulating over time and if small gaps are not problematic then why are larger gaps? If large gaps are not problematic then why not have all life biogenesis/be created independantly?

4) The majority of predictions made by the evolution community have been false. It is only via selective memory that one can believe otherwise. This is not a characteristic of a mature theory.

5) Within a species parents and children are similiar. There is no support for species being similiar to their parent species that does not first assume that the second species descended from the first based on similiarity. You can't use your theory to prove your theory...

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM Wayne Ignorance is defending a theory that contains no numbers with attacks on simple mistakes using 3 instead of 2 or 12 instead of 11. You didn't respond to what I was SAYING.

— DonkeyKong

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM ... Here is a list for those to lazy to read 1) Evolution has proof of similiarity not proof of descent. Descent is only one of many explainations for why the similiarity exists.

— DonkeyKong

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM . . . 2) Evolution is dependant on LUCA's existance. This is problematic on two levels, Biogenesis seems to be astronomically^2 unlikely raising the need for another mechanism to start evolution and then somehow not interfere later. All the proof of LUCA's existance assumes evolution is correct and is circular reasoning. . . .

— DonkeyKong

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM . . . 3) Gaps in evolution are problematic as they are inconsistent with small mutations accumulating over time and if small gaps are not problematic then why are larger gaps? If large gaps are not problematic then why not have all life biogenesis/be created independantly? ...

— DonkeyKong

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM . . . 4) The majority of predictions made by the evolution community have been false. It is only via selective memory that one can believe otherwise. This is not a characteristic of a mature theory. . . .

— DonkeyKong

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM . . . 5) Within a species parents and children are similiar. There is no support for species being similiar to their parent species that does not first assume that the second species descended from the first based on similiarity. You can't use your theory to prove your theory . . .

— DonkeyKong

Comment #19440 Posted by DonkeyKong on March 10, 2005 05:03 AM . . . Don't hide your head in the sand . . . . 12 isn't 11 therefore evolution is true. 3 isn't 2 therefore evolution is ture. God isn't real therefore evolution is true. Let me restate, evolution is true. You are ignorant, evolution is ture. ..

— DonkeyKong