Teach the Controversy? Why not Teach ALL Controversies?

A good example of this is Dover, PA's anti-evolution statement. The statement claims that evolution has problems and offers ID as an alternative explaination but neglects to mention any problems of ID.

A possible flaw in this argument: there is no evidence against the most generally-drawn 'Goddidit' argument. There is evidence only against specific instances.

Example:

The flagellum is irreducibly complex. Goddidit.

The flagellum turns out to be not irreducibly complex. Goddidit.

the root of all these problems that the "judeo-christian" (as they like to call it) belief system is facing boils down to one simple fact. it simply does not have the power of explanation it once did, and thusly has lost it's moral mojo, so to speak. sure i could believe theat the earth is 5000 years old and was created in a week, but i would be either: a)stupid b)delusional, there isn't much wiggle room anymore for the true believers. sure I.D. smells like flowers, but so doesn't a mortuary. the floral aroma covers up the scent of the dead quite nicely.

As an intellectual challenge, and I use the term loosely, suppose I declared that I was the Designer. Yep, it's been me all along and I've been hiding out here in Texas. I designed the flagellum AND inspired the invention of the outboard motor.

How would you prove me wrong?

p.s. I don't do parlor tricks so don't ask...

Well, if you want to put it that way, the root of these problems is that the IDers, creationists, theocrats, and various other fundie groups have very little understanding of that belief system.

It bears remembering how many Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc religious groups have few problems with evolution, and how many people in this country who belong to these religions have few problems with evolution.

No, the real problem, as has been mentioned ad nauseam, is that ID is both half-arsed science and half-arsed religion.

One problem I point out to theists who hammer on the "design" thing is: how do you know you're looking at design in nature? After all, what is your frame of reference? When you say life looks designed, the question becomes "designed compared to what?" Can they provide an example of a non-designed thing? In order to comprehend design, one must have a frame of reference, an idea of something that isn't designed in order to be able to make the distinction in the first place. If you had never experienced warmth or heat in your life, would you even know to define your environment as cold? Can a stone deaf person understand the distinction between a loud noise and a slightly louder noise?

So what do the ID'ers imagine a non-God-designed universe would look like? Would planets look like bananas and spin in figure eight patterns? Would things fall up and sideways when you drop them? And if so, could they still say that this universe was not designed...by a designer who happened to be mad?

Problem #1 with ID: not falsifiable. Next.

"and various other fundie groups have very little understanding of that belief system."

i beg to differ. they know exactly what it means. where, in the new or old testaments, does it say, "oh, by the way, what you have just read in an allegory and should in no means be taken literally." b---s---. sure, some folks have recognized the need to expand and bend interpretations of texts in order to correspond to a more cohesive view of reality. i applaud those folks for their release of literalism. but let us not pretend that the holy texts are not intended to be "truths." they are presented as truths and taught as truths, and as such they have run square into the scientific method.

that is why fundamentalists fight tooth and nail against science, it is truly an affront to their beliefs, and they cannot possibly win the battle. and it is not because they don't understand their belief system, it's precisely because they do understand it and they know they're going down. it is inevitable, unless through violence or the use of legal force they manage or to suppress the progress of science (which obviously is not unprecedented among these folks). religious literalists have always understood the threat of science and sought to suppress it. I.D. is not science, half assed or otherwise and it is 100% religion. it is merely another attempt by literalists, who understand the threat of science, to cloud people's minds with mumbo jumbo and dress their dead little world up in a pretty new dress.

ID advocates use the Dembski Method for handling controversy and disagreements:
you simply expunge from the record anything you don't agree with!

teach the FSM controversy. And here's a funny FSM photoshop from a fark contest

http://jimmiethescumbag.cliche-host.net/photoshops/fsm.jpg

Please at least read what Dembski says about detecting design as, e.g., specified complexity. It's an answer to the question "how do you know you're looking at design in nature?"
Dawkins, in Blind Watchmaker, agrees that the universe has the appearance of being designed. His claim is that Darwin showed how the appearance of design comes about. He argues that Darwin's theory allowed him to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Darwinian theory explains design; Wm. Paley's notion of how design comes about has been falsified.
Thus ID is falsifiable. Therefore "Problem #1" re. ID is not a problem at all.

Please at least read what Dembski says about detecting design as, e.g., specified complexity. It's an answer to the question "how do you know you're looking at design in nature?"
Dawkins, in Blind Watchmaker, agrees that the universe has the appearance of being designed. His claim is that Darwin showed how the appearance of design comes about. He argues that Darwin's theory allowed him to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Darwinian theory explains design; Wm. Paley's notion of how design comes about has been falsified.
Thus ID is falsifiable. Therefore "Problem #1" re. ID is not a problem at all.

Martin writes: "One problem I point out to theists who hammer on the "design" thing is: how do you know you're looking at design in nature? After all, what is your frame of reference? When you say life looks designed, the question becomes "designed compared to what?" Can they provide an example of a non-designed thing? In order to comprehend design, one must have a frame of reference, an idea of something that isn't designed in order to be able to make the distinction in the first place."
Please at least read what Dembski says about detecting design as, e.g., specified complexity. It's an answer to the question "how do you know you're looking at design in nature?"
Dawkins, in Blind Watchmaker, agrees that the universe has the appearance of being designed. His claim is that Darwin showed how the appearance of design comes about. He argues that Darwin's theory allowed him to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Darwinian theory explains design; Wm. Paley's notion of how design comes about has been falsified.
Thus ID is falsifiable. Therefore "Problem #1" re. ID is not a problem at all.

Darwinian theory explains design; Wm. Paley's notion of how design comes about has been falsified.

See "Irreducible Complexity Demystified" by Pete Dunkelberg at talkdesign.org for an attempt to falsify ID by showing how irreducibly complex systems can evolve. Thus, Dunkelberg belives he falsifies ID. See also Ken Miller's "The Evolution of Invertebrate Blood Clotting" at talkorigins.org. Both essays understand that ID is falsifiable, and propose to falsify it. Thus Martin's idea that ID is "not falsifiable" is itself false. That's all.

See "Irreducible Complexity Demystified" by Pete Dunkelberg at talkdesign.org for an attempt to falsify ID by showing how irreducibly complex systems can evolve. Thus, Dunkelberg belives he falsifies ID. See also Ken Miller's "The Evolution of Invertebrate Blood Clotting" at talkorigins.org. Both essays understand that ID is falsifiable, and propose to falsify it. Thus Martin's idea that ID is "not falsifiable" is itself false. That's all.

Please at least read what Dembski says about detecting design as, e.g., specified complexity. It's an answer to the question "how do you know you're looking at design in nature?"

— John Piipo

Thus, Dunkelberg belives he falsifies ID.

That's all.

Thus Martin's idea that ID is "not falsifiable" is itself false. That's all.

— John Piipo

Yep.

I challenged a couple of IDers to teach the controvery over homosexuality. Answer, 'nope, that's a moral issue'. But the controvery is their and both sides (pro-gay rights, against gay rights) should be argued.

And if alleged weaknesses in evolution theory are to be taught in our schools as science, then scientific evidence against the existence of an intelligent designer or God must be taught, too. That's how science works.

I thought that the scientific evidence against the existence of an intelligent designer was the precisely the evidence for evolution

— Andrew Rowell

I think a lot of this comes down to the age of the Earth. The age of the Earth should not be open to question. There are no alternatives to the accepted age of 4.55 billion years. How can an alternative to this be taught when there isn't one ? Why 45% of Americans (many are very well educated and certainly not stupid), and a growing number of people in the UK, believe that the Earth is just a mere 6,000 years old is still beyond me. Here in Northern Ireland the figure could well be higher in the protestant denominations. At least in this part of the world thay can't change the way science is taught as all public schools here must follow the national curriculum.

Bookman's point about babies being born with severe abnormalities or why so many people loose their lives due to hurricanes or tsunamies can easily be answered by creationists - this is all a result of the fall (Adam's sin) since before this there was no death,genetic imperfections,natural disasters etc. I'm not sure how IDr's view this but Young Earth creationsts are allways going on about it. This supposedly is why christians shoudn't believe in "billions of years" despite the fact that many influential evangelicals like C.S.Lewis for example, didn't have a problem with science or evolution.

A good example of this is Dover, PA's anti-evolution statement. The statement claims that evolution has problems and offers ID as an alternative explanation but neglects to mention any problems of ID.

— Reed A. Cartwright

A possible flaw in this argument: there is no evidence against the most genrally-drawn 'Goddidit' argument. There is evidence only against specific instances.

— Bayesian Bouffant

I'm going to break my self-imposed exile to comment on this post. It's just too good. I cannot speak for the DI, but my guess is they'd happily agree to the proposition: teach both design and the arguments against it. I for one would love to see schools permit a debate pitting the evidence for cosmological ID against the contrary data. Actually, there are no contrary data, just some simple arguments viz., some cosmologies allow (but do not demand) multiverses which, apart from violating general relativity (one of the best tested theories of all time) can never be detected, or (in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) there are "bounce-back" cosmologies that need just the right violation of the 2nd law of thermo at just the right time to avoid the bounces dying out.

Teach the controversy over design? By all means, bring it on dude.

Wesley, I am sorry that you are still embarrassing yourself by clenching your fists and chanting "Popper" every time someone mentions falsifiablility. You forget, perhaps, what it is actually like to do science, spending all your time in the political arena, as it were. Scientists have their working definition of falsifiability: if the evidence mounts to the point where a theory begins to stink beyond any hope of salvage, it is jettisoned, without asking Popper's permission. I mean, the nerve of Rutherford believing he falsified the plum pudding atomic model without waiting for Popper to grant him a certificate of authenticity.

As an aside, Wesley, as a physics instructor, I sought help and advice on the boldly named National Center for Science Education of which you are a director, only to discover that none is available. Is the NCSE misnamed, or do you not regard physics (or chemistry) as science?

Oh, and Hyperion, you continue the half-lie that religious groups such as the Catholic Church have no problem with evolution. The Catholic Church, for one, at least at the highest levels, has imposed severe caveats. You can drop Kenneth Miller's name all you want, be he ain't the pope, and if he professes belief in full-blown undirected evolution as the explanation for all life, he has gone farther than the Catholic church permits. Panda's Thumb (and the NCSE---does the 'S' really stand for Science?) are culpable in distorting Rome's position on evolution.

Martinwhat would a non designed universe look like? Oh that's very easy. It would have no galaxies or stars. It would either consist of Hydrogen and some Helium (because it expanded too fast) or a big clump because it expanded too slowly.

Evilgeniousabroad, what controversy over homosexuality?

By the way guys, the FSM humor has played out. It was cute and funny for a while, but really now---humor relies (so I'm told) on firing uncommon---as opposed to overloaded---neural pathways.

Mr. Heddle:

in case you forgot during your self-imposed exile, a lot of people here are eagerly waiting for you to tell us how likely our universe's fundamental constants are, i.e. what other values they could assume, and how do you know that.

Oh, and by the way, your description of an "undesigned universe" takes for granted that our universe is designed, which means you are affirming the consequent, which is a fallacy.

I suggest you go back to apologetics, because as a logician you are pitiful.

Aureola,

Sigh. The value of the constants, or indeed how likely those values are, is irrelevant. It is their sensitivity that is important. Otherwise it would be a God in the Gaps argument, and it isn't.

If a given constant has to be within a certain (constrained) range for life to exist, it doesn't matter whether its probability is essentially zero (meaning, perhaps, we don't know why it has its value) or one (some new theory has shown why it has to have that value.) That just changes, philosophically, whether you say God chose the value of the constant to be what it is or He chose the laws of physics to generate the value. The only relevant point is the sensitivity to the value. That is why the cosmological constant fine tuning is so impressive, regardless of (a) the value of the cosmological constant and (b) the explanation, if any is ever forthcoming, of the value.

As for logic, I agree I haven't attained the pinnacle of Panda's Thumb logic, which you reminded is:

1) Question asked (what would the universe look like..)
2) Question answered
3) (This is the part that I just don't grasp, the PT pièce de résitance:) Oh, but that answer doesn't count.

The existence of stars is proof of cosmic design? Oh my!

Mr. Heddle:

if the probability is one, no ID is required. Thank you for supporting my point so well.

As you see, your answer does count, only it shows exactly the opposite of what you pretend it shows. Also, you used to argue something very different, namely that we are very lucky to exist.

In my book, an event with a probability of one is hardly "lucky"; but on the other hand, unlike you, I have no foreordained conclusion to "support".

Oh, and Hyperion, you continue the half-lie that religious groups such as the Catholic Church have no problem with evolution. The Catholic Church, for one, at least at the highest levels, has imposed severe caveats. You can drop Kenneth Miller's name all you want, be he ain't the pope, and if he professes belief in full-blown undirected evolution as the explanation for all life, he has gone farther than the Catholic church permits. Panda's Thumb (and the NCSE---does the 'S' really stand for Science?) are culpable in distorting Rome's position on evolution.

— David Heddle

Aureola,

No, no no. Pretend, for example, the electron had to have precisely the charge 1.60217646.. × 10^-19 coulombs, or life wouldn't exist. It would not matter if we had a theory that predicted that value (probability 1) or had no clue where it came from. The design evidence is in the sensitivity to the value. Now, Popper not withstanding, design is falsified if you demonstrate there are an infinite number of universes with different values for e, perhaps with different laws of physics perfectly explaining their inhospitable values. Then a much better explanation than design is the obvious explanation that we are in the lucky universe because otherwise we wouldn't be here at all.

Frank Schmidt, I know the threads and the debate that raged over the NYT piece. There is nothing new here, the Catholic Church does permit belief in evolution as an expression in God's secondary means (just like it allows that gravity moves the planets). There is a world of difference, however, between the Catholic Church allowing that God may have worked through means that appear materialistic/naturalistic to us and saying that after the spark of life (where did that come from?) all the diversity of life is explained through truly undirected evolution. Does the Catholic Church approve of a teaching that says our species was not (being, as we are, part of God's sovereign plan) inevitable? It does not.

So now David Heddle says it doesn't matter how likely feature of the universe is. David Heddle Intelligent Design is something like "if in making the number much different in some arbitrary system of units, completely regardless of how likely that is, the world would be much different, the Intelligent Designer is implied."

That's not even wrong, it's just a non sequitur.

It's kind of easy to see why in 20 years, Intelligent Design has not accomplished a single scientific thing.

You know James, idiotically misrepresenting an argument (what the hey do units have to do with anything?) only gets you brownie points among, well, idiots. Is that what you seek?

Mr. Heddle:

if you don't realize the absurdity of what you just typed, there's little hope anyone can make you see it.

How do you know that that value (any value) is not the only possible value for that quantity?

Short answer: you can't. Not with a single data point. No matter how "constrained" you make it out to be, as far as we know that value is the only value in existence.

Now, were more data points to be found (i.e. other universes with different values for those constants), you said that that would disprove Cosmological ID.

Would you mind explaining, in your words, what is more likely:

a) you admit that these two positions are contradictory and drop one or the other;

b) you don't acknowledge the contradiction and flip-flop from one position to the other according to rhetorical expediency?

Falsifiability may not begin and end with Popper, Mr. Heddle, but you have no clue of what it is regardless.

I wasn't misrepresenting an argument. What you said isn't an argument at all. It's just nonsense.

Yes, but.... Of course the IDists don't want to teach "all" controversies. They are not advocating that "flying spaghetti monsterism" be taught, for example. The point of view they want taught is the one that is held by a huge number, and huge percentage, of the people whose kids are in the schools. The "which controversy?" point remains valid and powerful (and is distinct from the "what controversy?" question), but the "controversy" which exists, in context and as a fact, is between creationism and evolution. This has nothing to do with the merits of the "controversy," if there are any, but rather that the focus on this particular "controversy" is because of the large numbers of interested people who think that this particular "controversy" is the one which is important.

How do you know that that value (any value) is not the only possible value for that quantity?

When two groups of experts disagree about a controversial subject that intersects the public school curriculum students should learn about both perspectives. Recently, while speaking to the Ohio State Board of Education, I suggested this approach [teach the controversy] (...) I also proposed a compromise involving three main provisions: (1) First, I suggested--speaking as an advocate of the theory of intelligent design--that Ohio not require students to know the scientific evidence and arguments for the theory of intelligent design, at least not yet. (2) Instead, I proposed that Ohio teachers teach the scientific controversy about Darwinian evolution. Teachers should teach students about the main scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory. And Ohio should test students for their understanding of those arguments, not for their assent to a point of view. (3) Finally, I argued that the state board should permit, but not require, teachers to tell students about the arguments of scientists, like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who advocate the competing theory of intelligent design.

I hope the Panda's Thumb crew really seizes the moment here and gives you a thread for your sensitivity sans improbability...talking. Like Jay Richards's comments on Relativity, it can only make ID look crackpot.

I mean, the nerve of Rutherford believing he falsified the plum pudding atomic model without waiting for Popper to grant him a certificate of authenticity.

— David Heddle

James:

indeed Mr. Heddle seems to be grasping at different straws than last time he showed up.

However, a fundamental flaw is quite evident: his ideas cannot be falsified.

He said so himself, probably without realizing it:

"That just changes, philosophically, whether you say God chose the value of the constant to be what it is or He chose the laws of physics to generate the value."

In his fantasy, the universe is designed regardless; it only takes a little rhetorical tweaking, to squeeze his designer a little further upstream.

And yes, this is the tired, old god of the gaps, no matter how many times Mr. Heddle puts his fingers in his ears and shouts "is not!"

I'm just stunned by this set of Heddle posts. There's just no sense to them at all.

— James

I just now realized I can prove that God designed triangles.

Consider: the "side constant" of a triangle in our universe is exactly 3. The sensitivity of this value is infinite. Any deviation from 3, no matter how infinitesimal, would make triangles as we know them impossible.

Since we observe that triangles are possible in our universe, we can safely conclude that God designed this universe to permit triangles.

I'm working on a similar theory about squares....

James,

You have dug yourself into a sad hole with the units comments. Sensitivity is fractional, i.e., percentage changes (duh). And I have always argued fine-tuning (though now I often use the synonym sensitivity). I have never gone the Hugh Ross route of computing probability chains. I have discussed probability, but probability never formed the basis for my arguments.

Aureola,

They can be falsified. If physics ever detects a parallel universe with different physics and chemistry, then cosmological ID is falsified.

Jim Wynne,

I understand perfectly well why my "schtick" doesn't work here. It doesn't work out in the provinces either, if by that you mean fundi-country. There, they agree with PT that cosmological ID is total garbage, given that it affirms an old universe. I am in a constant battle over cosmological ID with you PT types and your comrades-in-arms in this debate, the YECs. Between assaults from the likes of PZ Myers and Ken Hovind, why I can barely catch my breath.

qetzal,

Is it really hard to see that that is not what I am suggesting?

By the way guys, the FSM humor has played out. It was cute and funny for a while, but really now---humor relies (so I'm told) on firing uncommon---as opposed to overloaded---neural pathways.

— David Heddle

Mr. Heddle,

yes, you claim so. However, you have failed so far to explain why, since your position on sensitivity is moot without other data points, finding other data points would falsify Cosmological ID.

It's one or the other: finding other universes cannot both support and falsify your "theory".

Once again, why would finding other universes (which is absolutely required by your claim that our cosmological constants might have different values from what they have) disprove Cosmological ID?

The probabilities are inherent in the odds. So if the odds are repeated, the propabilities increase. So the more universes, the greater the probability. Infinite number of Universes = People. Therefore, the existence of people is proof of an infinite multiverse. Falsify that.

I also have a theory about repeating creation over and over again that I call Groundhog Day.

a modest experiment

We should all keep in mind that David Heddle also believes that Communism has been "falsified."

Heddle, I think the designer is quite capable of making multiple universes that contain different constants. Is your Designer (god) not powerful enough to accomplish that feat? I thought she was omnipotent. Are you telling us now that she doesn't have that power?

Extrapolating back in time, vacuum energy gets even more paradoxical. Today matter and dark energy have comparable average densities. But billions of years ago, when they came into being, our universe was the size of a grapefruit, so matter was 100 orders of magnitude denser. The cosmological constant, however, would have had the same value as it does now. In other words, for every 10¹⁰⁰ parts matter, physical processes would have created one part vacuum energy---a degree of exactitude that may be reasonable in a mathematical idealization but that seems ludicrous to expect from the real world. This need for almost supernatural fine-tuning is the principal motivation for considering alternatives to the cosmological constant.-- Jeremiah P. Ostriker and Paul J. Steinhardt, Scientific American, Jan. 2001. (boldface added)

Frank J:
In this quote:
"Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory
and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to
Intelligent Design. The Origins of Life is not taught."
the problems would refer to both Darwin AND other theories, since there is no comma between the two. This is assuming that the school board knows how to punctuate correctly. I m no expert, but that s one rule I do know.

Bruce:

I'm afraid this is not true.

If you distribute the terms of that sentence, you get:

"Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory"

AND

"Students will be made aware of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to Intelligent Design."

Only if you accept the false dichotomy that there are only two alternatives: ID and neo-darwinism. The scientific arguments against ID are counter-arguments to ID's claims e.g. about the IC of the flagellum, clotting mechanism etc.

— Staffan S

Sensitivity can be defined different ways. You haven't defined it well. I assume it has something to do with your 120 orders of magnitude which is specific to the units used. In any case, whether you want to use a new word now, or the old ones you used to use.

In any case, fine, let's talk about percentage change. What would happen if the cosmological constant was 100% greater than it is? You don't know, because you don't know what it is in the first place. And nowadays, you add that it doesn't matter what the odds are that it's anything. Because it's sensitive.

Now, why do you imagine that sensitivity implies design?

When it come right down to it, the whole debate over Intelligent Design really boils down to the continued existence of fundamentalist Christianity. I'm a firm believer in Ockham's razor. The literal interpretation of the Old Testament is the basis of fundamentalist christianity. To disprove creationism would be the equivalent of falsifying fundamentalist christian churches and we can't have all of those mind controlling ministers running around without a means to support the life style to which they've become accustomed to. In my opinion, the true atheists are the fundamentalists and yet they fail to see the elephant standing in the middle of the room.

Why...a growing number of people in the UK, believe that the Earth is just a mere 6,000 years old is still beyond me.

James, why don't you look at the comment from SciAm I posted above (comment #48035), (and, at least look up the article before calling me a quote miner) Those non-ID cosmologists obviously see the design ramifications of the cosmological constant (without knowing its value! Imagine that!) and--in order to avoid the fine tuning problem--are looking for alternatives.

...tell us how likely our universe's fundamental constants are, i.e. what other values they could assume, and how do you know that.

— Aureola Nominee

I think Heddle's on to something here.

My prediction is that we'll find the Intelligent Designer in an Alternate Universe, thus proving both conjectures in one swell foop.

You heard it here, first. I'll invite you all to my Nobel celebration party.

Mr. Heddle,

you keep failing Reading Comprehension 101, I see.

The appearance of design is very strong. That does nothing, however, to rescue your non sequitur "therefore there IS design".

The universe, "amazingly", seems to be centered on Earth; more specifically, it seems to be centered on me! I'm sure that if you look at the universe it seems to be centered on you. It's merely an observer effect. Now, how do you propose to get rid of the observer effect in order to find out whether the universe is designed or simply looks designed?

More of the same from David Heddle.

David: look how fine tuned this is!
others: that argument's crap
David: oh yeah, well, someone else said 'fine tuned', so there!

Don't you have anything more than the junk you failed to promote six months ago? Besides the word 'sensitivity'?

So, Dembski likes to play word games? Check out the first comment on his september 13th blog entry, "What will happen to ID?" (or on his latest entry, "Biologists of the future")

Hint: only read the capitalized letters.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

If this is the guy heading efforts to find evidence of intelligent design, what does it say if he cannot detect my simple yet somewhat hidden intelligent design?

Besides, David, what's the point of the new 'Cosmological ID'? According to Dembski, Biological ID proves god exists. According to Salvador Cordova, the Copenhagen Interpretation proves god exists. According to Mike Behe, IC proves The Designer exists. So what's the point of 'Cosmological ID'? What's it do that hasn't already been done?

bill wrote: My prediction is that we'll find the Intelligent Designer in an Alternate Universe, thus proving both conjectures in one swell foop.

The universe, "amazingly", seems to be centered on Earth; more specifically, it seems to be centered on me! I'm sure that if you look at the universe it seems to be centered on you. It's merely an observer effect. Now, how do you propose to get rid of the observer effect in order to find out whether the universe is designed or simply looks designed?

Mythos,

I am not interested in how many values we can imagine for the fundamental constants.

Mr. Heddle keeps talking as if his imaginary (in a non-mathematical sense, of course) "sensitivity" had any meaning at all. Fine, show me a fundamental constant with a value different from the one we have observed.

That's why I keep reminding him that, in order to assess whether those "constants" are in fact "sensitive" or not, he needs at least another set of them (i.e. another universe).

Since Mr. Heddle used to claim that the five card we hold are "unlikely" and therefore "lucky", and now claims that the card hand is so sensitive that any different card would have screwed us, I wish to know how many cards are in the deck and what the game rules are.

The fact that I can imagine playing with a 10e10-card deck, or with a 5-card deck that is entirely coincident with the hand we've been dealt, is more than enough to deflate Mr. Heddle's claim.

James, that's pretty close, but this is more accurate:

David: look how fine tuned this is!
others: that argument's crap
David: oh yeah, well, someone else said 'fine tuned', so there! Why aren't these other non-ID scientists wrong?
others: that argument's crap, that argument's crap, that argument's crap,...
David: But what about these guys, will you write them and tell them to stop wasting their time because there is no fine-tuning?
others: that argument's crap, that argument's crap, that argument's crap,...

By the way, on this site, with great hoopla and fanfare, about six months ago, it was foretold that Phil Plait and his Bad Astronomy blog would take on cosmological ID cause Phil was finally fed up with all the nonsense. The results have not lived up to the pregame hype, I must say.

What are the other alternatives.... ?

— David Heddle

qetzal, Is it really hard to see that that is not what I am suggesting?

— David Heddle

Pretend, for example, the electron had to have precisely the charge 1.60217646.. × 10-19 coulombs, or life wouldn't exist. It would not matter if we had a theory that predicted that value (probability 1) or had no clue where it came from. The design evidence is in the sensitivity to the value.

The only relevant point is the sensitivity to the value.

James, why don't you look at the comment from SciAm I posted above (comment #48035), (and, at least look up the article before calling me a quote miner) Those non-ID cosmologists obviously see the design ramifications of the cosmological constant (without knowing its value! Imagine that!) and---in order to avoid the fine tuning problem---are looking for alternatives.

IAMB FCD,

Where did I ask "What are the other alternatives.... ?" that must have been in a parallel universe.

qetzal,

The charge on the electron is, of course, a physical constant. Let's suppose we have a theory that tells us why it has the value it does, to arbitrary precision. Now suppose that we discover that if its value differed by (I am making this up for purposes of an example) by one part in a billion, then stable stars would not exist. Nothing design-wise has changed---before the theory we didn't know where the value came from, and so we felt "lucky" that the value, seemingly pulled out of the aether, was the correct value. In our enlightened state we feel lucky that this new law of physics---whose origin is ultimately just as much a mystery as the constant was previously---produces the necessary value.

Likewise, if life is not sensitive to e, then there is no evidence for design, regardless of whether we have a theory that explains its value.

RGD,

the argument "Therefore, given that we exist, the various cosmological values will be appropriate for our existence." does indeed falsify ID--if there are multiple universes. Otherwise you are left with man are we lucky or what? in which case, given the degree of that luck, Ockam's razor favors csomological ID.

That's my opinion, of course. But the fact that your point can falsify cosmological ID stands. You could, of course, ask Ostriker and Steinhardt's grant agency to cut funding because, after all, there is no mystery whatsoever in the cosmological constant--if it were not what it is, then we wouldn't be here talking about it.

And I will go back to lurking, very soon I promise.

Mr. Heddle:

before you go, please, please, try once again to avoid dodging my question...

The existence of other sets of fundamental constants (i.e. of other universe) is the only way Cosmological ID can get any traction (otherwise, as I patiently explained, your handwaving on "sensitivity" loses any significance).

How can you then, with - I suppose - a straight face, claim that the existence of multiple universes would DISPROVE Cosmological ID?

Thank you.

you do not appear to have any argument here whatever. If life is dependent on a specific value of a given constant (e.g. the fine structure constant), and that constant was different, then life (e.g. us) would not exist to raise the question. Therefore, given that we exist, the various cosmological values will be appropriate for our existence.

— Rilke's Granddaughter

Ben Re comment 48043: This is my current perception of young earth creationism in the UK ie it seems to be growing within the evangelical churches.In March Ken Ham packed the waterfront hall in Belfast to capacity (nearly 2000 people) and if you read his blog on the UK tour in general he seemed to have a good attendance at most of the venues where he spoke (I could be wrong-maybe AIG exaggerate things !)If you have a look at the AIG website and click on the events page you will see that many of the AIG talks are in evangelical churches. I have no doubt that Monty White's tour of NI next month will have a good following (the Cresent church will have an attendance of around 1,000 people as it does on most Tuesdays although he will probably attract more than usual). There are also a number of independent christian schools teaching young earth creationism as science.

but let us not pretend that the holy texts are not intended to be "truths." they are presented as truths and taught as truths, and as such they have run square into the scientific method

Aurola,

I don't need other universes for sensitivity to have significance. In this one universe, our one and only data point, we know that life is sensitive to the expansion rate. This is beyond dispute. And it is true whether or not the expansion rate was somehow selected from a distribution of possible expansion rates, or if it is the only possible expansion rate. No matter where it comes from, if it were a little different, then we wouldn't be here.

If you detect other universes with different constants, then the anthropic argument as RGD presented is the simplest explanation for our good fortune. Cosmological ID is dead.

If you detect other universes and they have the same constants (which is not expected) that would be a more ambiguous result. Some might say that an infinity of miraculous universes is even more evidence of design. I would conclude that the loss of the uniqueness of our universe brings ID to its knees.

Jim Wynne,

Again, if the explanation is "it's obvious, we are are here aren't we?" then it is your duty as a citizen to contact the NSF and DoE and tell them to stop funding any ridiculous projects aimed at avoiding the fine tuning of the present models. If the explanation embodied by what you quoted from RGD's post is correct, we should expect fine tuning, in which case we surely shouldn't spend any money trying to explain it away.

I love Heddle's logic. Of course, this speck of dust on my computer screen can also only exist because of the cosmological constants are fine tuned in order to allow dust, computer screens, and me to exist. Thus, this speck of dust is designed.

But wait, that's not all! The conditions that allowed this very speck of dust to exist here now on my computer screen are much MUCH more restrictive than those that allow this entire Universe to exist. Indeed, there certainly can be many more Universes essentially like this one, with the same cosmological constants, computer screen, and me, but no speck of dust on my computer screen.

The presence on my computer screen of this very same speck of dust also required, in addition to the above cosmological constants etc, very special conditions, including apparently chance electrostatic interaction of specific molecules, and of those molecules with my computer screen, and a series of essentially infinitely improbable apparently chance contingencies, such as specific air movements in the air-conditioning system of the building and around this room, dirt tracking on visitors' shoes, etc. Had any of those parameters been even slightly different (for instance, had I arrived to my office at 8:45:01 am this morning, instead of 8:45 am, or had Caesar failed to defeat Vercingetorix a couple thousand years ago, perhaps resulting in Rome becoming a Gaul colony, and my ancestors to eventually move to Lutecia - now Paris - and me to work at the Pasteur Institute, instead of here), and this speck of dust would not exist (while the Universe itself would look otherwise just about the same).

Thus, the speck of dust on my computer screen, being much more improbable, and infinitely more sensitive to minimal variations in cosmological and historical parameters than the Universe or myself, is all the more a product of design. We must therefore conclude that the Universe was probably designed for the specific purpose of this speck of dust sitting on my computer screen right now. Kind of puts things in perspective, uh?

"No matter where it comes from, if it were a little different, then we wouldn't be here."

No matter where it comes from, exactly. So, whether this universe is designed or not, it IS. Therefore, it is not evidence of design.

Game, set, match.

Go play with the other kids now, Mr. heddle.

GCT, You make the common mistake of equating falsifying God with falsifying ID. I grant that God can create infinite universes without the appearance of design. ID has nothing to say about that. Cosmological ID rests on two planks: the fine-tuning in our universe, and the uniqueness of our universe. ID (as I see it, I know many ID types are loath to mention God) states that God left evidence of creation. He didn't have to. You can falsify ID without falsifying God.

— David Heddle

I guess the universe must have been designed because it's exactly like it is. If it were NOT designed, then it might be exactly like it is but it might be different too. And if it were different, we wouldn't be here. Therefore it must be the way it is. How can we tell the difference between a universe exactly the way it is by design, and one exactly the same but not designed? Well, if it weren't designed, it might be different. It would only have to be a TINY bit different to be undesigned. But it is NOT even a tiny bit different than it is, therefore it was almost surely designed, even though ANY undesigned unverse would be exactly the way it is. But it might be different, see, and it's not, so it must have been designed.

I think I have Heddle's logic down pat.

Andrea, you almost get it, you are tantalizingly close, perhaps closer than anyone I have ever seen on PT. Now add one more ingredient: If the habitability of the universe depended on that speck of dust being on your computer screen then, and only then, would it be stupendous, irrefutable proof for design---unless, as you suggest, there are many parallel universes where the speck doesn't exist, in which case there is no design at all--we are simply here because if the speck weren't, then neither would we.

Without the habitability sensitivity, then we are simply talking about any one statatistical mechanical state being just as likely as any other. No design.

GCT,

Gee, once again, if there are multiple universes, then seeing as I believe in God, I'll believe that he designed all of them. However, I can no longer claim there is any evidence for design. ID requires, in a nutshell, that our universe is a miracle. If it is but one of many, it is, by definition, not a miracle.

Aureola,

Nice try. "No matter where it comes from" means that no matter where it comes from--unknown or a fundamental theory--design is still implied by the fine tuning. Is that that only way you have ever learned to argue--to extract a phrase and pretend somebody meant it to mean something else? Game-set-match? To the sycophants, perhaps.

I think I have Heddle's logic down pat.

— Flint

Heddle,

nice try. As everybody can see, your arguments have been reduced to rubble by several people from several different points of view.

As far as my approach goes, I did not extract anything. Your sentence was unwittingly (you seem to say a lot of things you don't realize, but that's not a good sign) spot on.

No matter whether the universe is designed or not, the fundamental constants are what they are. That's the key point.

Let me focus your fleeting attention on even fewer words, Mr. Heddle:

"...if it were a little different, then we wouldn't be here."

Get it yet, Mr. Heddle? "If". However, it ISN'T a little different. Flint openly mocked you for your utter inability to understand this. We have a proverb, in my mother tongue, that goes,

"If my grandmother had wheels, she would be a wheelbarrow."

I'm pretty sure Dr. Bottaro would be glad to explain its meaning to you.

As I said, you can go resume your game of Wishful Thinkingâ„¢ with the other kids.

No one bothered to mention the alternative offered by one guest on the daily show referenced by Dembski,
Ellie Crystal. Her ideas are somewhat unorthodox, though she does provide a compilation of creation stories.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Andrea's right. I confess. I put that speck of dust on your screen. Sorry for the inconvenience, but prove me wrong.

(I would also like to point out that the ridiculousness of my comment is equally ridiculous as Heddle's "thesis." In fact, my comment has possibly more merit than Heddle's in that my comment is intended to amuse, therefore, has a purpose however inane.)

cereal breath wrote: and it is not because they don't understand their belief system, it's precisely because they do understand it and they know they're going down. it is inevitable, unless through violence or the use of legal force they manage or to suppress the progress of science (which obviously is not unprecedented among these folks). religious literalists have always understood the threat of science and sought to suppress it.

Andrew - Other alternatives besides ID and neo-darwinism include (but are not limited to) "pure" YEC and OEC creationism, raelianism and any number of alternative evolution theories (both those that are disproven and those that are not yet concieved).
What I objected to was that you wrote that an argument for one theory is an argument against the other theory. I believe that that is almost as much a fallacy as when the creationists try to argue for creationism by arguing against the ToE. I also noted that you wrote as if the evidence for "evolution" was evidence against ID. I believe that it isn't that simple, since evolution (at least taken to mean descent with modification) is compatible with ID. That means that you can present any amount of evidence for common descent and the ID'ists can still say: "Sure, no problem. And God, hrm... the Nameless Designer intervened somewhere along the line to produce today's species.

bill,

Mr. Heddle's misguided comments also have a purpose. It's not a scientific purpose, mind you, but it is a purpose nonetheless.

And that purpose is to find a way, any way, to retrofit (his description of) the universe to somehow conform to his predetermined conclusion.

Don't believe me, I beg you; go read his blog for yourself. And that will clarify the matter of why Mr. Heddle says the things he says.

Note for wannabe logicians: this is not an argumentum ad hominem, as I've already argued why Mr. Heddle is very wrong, and am now simply giving evidence of why he clings to his erroneous notion.

David Heddle wrote: Andrea, you almost get it, you are tantalizingly close, perhaps closer than anyone I have ever seen on PT. Now add one more ingredient: If the habitability of the universe depended on that speck of dust being on your computer screen then, and only then, would it be stupendous, irrefutable proof for design---unless, as you suggest, there are many parallel universes where the speck doesn't exist, in which case there is no design at all---we are simply here because if the speck weren't, then neither would we.

Comment #48076 Posted by PatrickS on September 14, 2005 01:35 PM Me thinks you know precisely what is at stake here! The use of legal force is the part that scares the hell out of me! Me thinks the real enemy of democracy is already in America disguised as "fundamentalist christians"!

The point of view they want taught is the one that is held by a huge number, and huge percentage, of the people whose kids are in the schools.

Then let the parents teach that point of view to their own kids, in the comfort of their own home.

Why is that so hard?

#1. Heddle you are way too smarmy for me.
I mentally scrape you off my shoe while holding my metaphorical nose.

#2. Slightly off-topic, Dembski is setting up his excuse for an undoubtadly poor showing on the Daily Show, as he says on his website that he was "under the weather" at the taping.

Gee, once again, if there are multiple universes, then seeing as I believe in God, I'll believe that he designed all of them. However, I can no longer claim there is any evidence for design. ID requires, in a nutshell, that our universe is a miracle. If it is but one of many, it is, by definition, not a miracle.

— David Heddle

Extrapolating back in time, vacuum energy gets even more paradoxical. Today matter and dark energy have comparable average densities. But billions of years ago, when they came into being, our universe was the size of a grapefruit, so matter was 100 orders of magnitude denser. The cosmological constant, however, would have had the same value as it does now (my emphasis).

GCT, no holes being dug here, please avoid the usual PT Pavlovian rebuttal of claiming logical fallacy instead of providing a substantive response. I know it is hard, since there are so few examples on this site, but for your own sake, try.

The dots all fit together---assuming you can grasp the concept that there is a difference between agreeing with an argument and acknowledging that, while you disagree, the argument is self consistent.

I am a theist, so I believe God created the universe(s) and is actively engaged, no matter what. So in light of that, there are two possibilities as far as I can tell.

(1) For whatever reason, he created one or more universes and decided to leave no evidence behind, or

(2) He left evidence behind.

That evidence, apart from direct revelation, and if it exists, must be of the form of general revelation. That is, there must be something about the universe that is inexplicable without invoking the supernatural. Cosmological ID says there is: it is the fine tuning combined with the uniqueness of the universe. To me, at the moment, the evidence is overwhelming that there is fine tuning---it is as certain as the fossil record. (And that is not only not just me, and it is not just ID physicists, it is many physicists of all stripes who acknowledge fine tuning---even as they characterize it as a fine tuning "problem".) After all, we can calculate what the universe would be like if, for example, it had another expanding dimension of if G had a different value or if the weak nuclear force were a bit stronger. And there is no reason to discuss parallel universes until such time as they can be tested.

So there is no hole here---all you can say is you disagree with my theist premise. From that premise is it self consistent to say that God may have left evidence, or he may not have. That is why, for the nth time, falsifying ID is not the same as falsifying god.

jeebus,

There are a number of scalar field theories that attempt to solve the cosmological constant problem. (The SciAm article discusses the quintessence hypothesis, for example.) None have been demonstrated, and all have fine tuning problems of their own, involving constants changing at just the right way at just the right time. We'll have to wait, probably another decade, to see how it all pans out.

"...we can calculate what the universe would be like if, for example, it had another expanding dimension of if G had a different value or if the weak nuclear force were a bit stronger."

...except that none of these calculations can tell us whether such-and-such a universe is really feasible.

I agree, imagination is a beautiful quality. Its link with reality, however, can be quite tenuous.

And there is no reason to discuss parallel universes until such time as they can be tested.

— David Heddle

See "Irreducible Complexity Demystified" by Pete Dunkelberg at talkdesign.org for an attempt to falsify ID by showing how irreducibly complex systems can evolve."

THis may be an unnecessary distcinction, but what Dunk does falsify Behe's claims the IC systems are not evolvable, or to improbable to have evolved by evolution.

"Thus, Dunkelberg belives he falsifies ID."

What Dunk has done is shot down an argument used by ID, but not ID itself. You can't falsify a faith-based initiative.

"See also Ken Miller's "The Evolution of Invertebrate Blood Clotting" at talkorigins.org. Both essays understand that ID is falsifiable, and propose to falsify it. Thus Martin's idea that ID is "not falsifiable" is itself false. That's all."

What both studies do is falsify the notion that IC systems are not evolvable.

Does the Catholic Church approve of a teaching that says our species was not (being, as we are, part of God's sovereign plan) inevitable? It does not.

— David Heddle

arguments from design are not amenable to scientific scrutiny because they lack a proper frame of reference, i.e., a coherent view of what an undesigned universe would look like. See Elliott Sober for details.

— I

Heddle writes: No, no no. Pretend, for example, the electron had to have precisely the charge 1.60217646.. × 10-19 coulombs, or life wouldn't exist.

Proof?

James Taylor,

Point taken. Cosmological ID is on about the same footing as multiverse theories--both offer explanations for the fine tuning. Neither can be tested in a positive sense. The difference is, that it is OK to speculate about multiverses in peer reviewed journals, but not about ID--even though they both suffer from a lack of testability. Now if there is a level playing field as PT alleges either (a) multiverse theories should not be given space in journals or (b) cosmological ID should--but only on PT do we actually believe in the myth of a level playing field.

Neither, of course, has the predictive power of evolution. Why I am astounded by the predictive power of evolution. When I ask, if there is life on Marks, what will it be like? Will it be microbes only, or will things as complex as insects have evolved or even more complex beasties, and if not, why not, why I get very detailed predictions which can be summarized by this precise statement: what life there is on Mars it will have evolved exactly as evolution says it would have evolved, and not a bit different, whatever it is.

Here is one ID prediction when ID is extended to the planetary level. Sagan was wrong by more than 17 orders of magnitude when he estimated ~1 million earth like planets in the galaxy (leaving himself wide open to Fermi's question---if there are a million earths in the galaxy, thousands should have civilizations far more advanced than ours---where the hell are they?) There are probably no other earthlike planets in the universe let alone the galaxy, and the money spent on SETI should be redirected to Katrina relief or methadone treatments or evolution research.

Frank Schmidt,

I disagree with the premise that we do not know what an undesigned universe would look like. It would have no life (complex or othewise) because it would have no rocky planets. Rocky planets depend on supernovae exploding after they have created the metals. That, in turn, depends on fortuitous nuclear chemistry (ask Hoyle, who was no theist.) That in turn depends on the correct ratio of the strengths of the fundamental forces. And that's assuming there are stars and galaxies in the first place, which there would not be unless the expansion rate was just right. (That's a bare thumbnail, I left out many links in that chain.)

As for Sober's paper, could you refer me to the version published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Stuart Weinstein -- read carefully my quote that you posted. You do understand the meaning of the word "Pretend", I assume?

Oh Frank Schmidt, by the way, the business of the Catholic church is not trivial. PT likes to display Kenneth Miller as a good Catholic boy and demonstrate how Rome is just peachy with evolution. The fine print is is always left out: it is true only if evolution is understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality (JP II's words). The Catholic Church also affirms biblical inerrancy which includes that fact that God's plan for man was in place before the earth was created (e.g., Eph. 1:4). So "Catholic" evolution must include that God directed genetic alterations, at some level, so that man appeared, and that He continues to exert dominion over his creation. That is hardly the form of evolution you read about on PT. So Miller is either in agreement with PT, or with his church, or neither, but definitely not both.

I disagree with the premise that we do not know what an undesigned universe would look like. It would have no life...

James,

I find it curious that you find some sort of comfort in the myth that it is "Heddle's" idea or heddle's cosmological constant. That fact that ALL or virtually all physicists acknowledge the fine tuning problem seems to hold little significance--as long as you can maintain the delusion that it is just heddle and his ilk.

As for your second point, it is the same-old same-old PT methodology---ask a question, get an answer, claim the answer (which you probably weren't expecting) doesn't count, just because you say it doesn't, because you don't really want the question to be answered.

...or because David Heddle dissembles and sends smoke out of his ears, as you have already done several times on this thread alone.

As far as we all know (you included, despite your silly attempts to pretend otherwise) our universe might well be undesigned, so your claim that an undesigned universe would be without life is just plain fallacious.

You are, as usual, affirming the consequent, a.k.a. begging the question.

Really, you are not answering, and shouting to the top of your lungs that you responded, yessir, if only people here weren't so closed-minded. You think you can preempt us from pointing that out by pretending your replies are somehow substantive, but alas, you're wrong on that count, too.

Here is one ID prediction when ID is extended to the planetary level. Sagan was wrong by more than 17 orders of magnitude when he estimated ~1 million earth like planets in the galaxy (leaving himself wide open to Fermi's question---if there are a million earths in the galaxy, thousands should have civilizations far more advanced than ours---where the hell are they?) There are probably no other earthlike planets in the universe let alone the galaxy, and the money spent on SETI should be redirected to Katrina relief or methadone treatments or evolution research.

— David Heddle

That is why, for the nth time, falsifying ID is not the same as falsifying god.

— David Heddle

an undesigned universe ... would have no life (complex or othewise) because it would have no rocky planets. Rocky planets depend on supernovae exploding after they have created the metals. That, in turn, depends on fortuitous nuclear chemistry (ask Hoyle, who was no theist.) That in turn depends on the correct ratio of the strengths of the fundamental forces. And that's assuming there are stars and galaxies in the first place, which there would not be unless the expansion rate was just right. (That's a bare thumbnail, I left out many links in that chain.)

— David Heddle

As for Sober's paper, could you refer me to the version published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

So "Catholic" evolution must include that God directed genetic alterations, at some level, so that man appeared, and that He continues to exert dominion over his creation. That is hardly the form of evolution you read about on PT. So Miller is either in agreement with PT, or with his church, or neither, but definitely not both.

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree[emphasis added]...An unguided evolutionary process --- one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence --- simply cannot exist because "the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence" (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

— The document

Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that "new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge"("Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution"1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father's message acknowledges that there are "several theories of evolution" that are "materialist, reductionist and spiritualist" and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. (boldface added)

About the Dover statement:

Bruce, if you are right, then Dover had better show how they will give equal time to gaps/problems in the alternatives.

Aureola, if you if you are right, then Dover had better explain why they will deny equal time to gaps/problems in the alternatives.

Either way, it seems like a deliberate, if poor, attempt to be evasive. The "origins of life" comment leaves no doubt.

Posted by John Piippo

Hey there, Mr Heddle. Long time no see.

Last time you were here, I asked you why on earth anyone should pay any more attention to your religious opinions than they should mine, my next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas.

You, uh, never seemed to answer that question.

After all, David, as I pointed out to you before, your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else's religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Right?

I'm a little confused as to how this thread was taken over by this heddle character. The original post was about how teaching the controversy would necessitate discussing the flaws in ID too.

If "teaching the controversy" looks anything like this thread, the students of America are in for a whale of a headache.

I'm not an astrophysicist, but regardless of sensitivity of constants or anything else you cannot make any conclusions from the fact that it is unlikely that we exist, because we exist. The basic argument has already been explained a couple of times already, but taking a different tack can always be useful :)

p(Universe having correct constants for human life) = some value < 1 (possibly infinitesimally small, possibly reasonably large depending on current theories)

p(Universe having correct constants for human life | humans exist) = 1

Our being here proves nothing except that it is possible for a universe to exist that is suitable for humans to live in. Even if our Universe is the only Universe, we don't know if any of the constants could be different or what the options are.

Personally, I think the difference with Cosmological ID and multiverse theories are that the latter may at some point in the future produce predictions that are possible to test (if they haven't already - this is not my area). On the other hand, Cosmological ID (like all ID) involves simply giving up and proclaiming that things are so well-tuned (or complex) that Goddidit, which can't ever produce any testable claims or contribute to human knowledge.

That is why multiverse theories should be preferred over Cosmo ID.

On the other hand, who wouldn't want the life of a CosmoID researcher? Simply sit down quoting how sensitive the constants are (reading other people's papers on the subject rather than doing your own research, obviously) whilst waiting the many years it will take actual scientists to painstakingly design experiments that may validate their own theories.

Bruce

I'm afraid this is not true.

If you distribute the terms of that sentence, you get:

"Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory"

AND

"Students will be made aware of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to Intelligent Design."

You're right! I didn't notice the crucial "of".

Bruce

Damn, mark up problem in my above post - that should be:

p(Universe having correct constants for human life) = some value [less than] 1 (possibly infinitesimally small, possibly reasonably large depending on current theories)

Of course, the less than symbol in my original comment was completely erased thanks to the wonder of HTML.

Sorry, lack of intelligent design by me there :)

Mr. Heddle:

your restatement, which is actually a major revision, of your claim is now a very, very different kettle of fish.

So, you claim that "In an undesigned universe, if there is life, it should be abundant a la Sagan".

This is equivalent to saying that one planet in 100,000 has some life on it. Let's reduce that to one solar system in 10,000. Considering that the stellar density in our vicinity is of about one star per cubic parsec, our nearest friends, in this "abundant" scenario, might very well be amoebas in an ocean of a planet some 70 light years from here.

So, I'm curious: what would the opposite claim look like?

How rare should life be to imply design?

And am I correct in guessing that you believe life to be unique, so that finding any life anywhere else would be, let's say, a major disappointment for you?

Gee, all the oldies-and-moldies seem to have returned. What is this, a reunion or something?

When's the screaming monkey gonna show up again?

an undesigned universe ... would have no life (complex or othewise) because it would have no rocky planets.

Hey there, Mr Heddle. Long time no see. Last time you were here, I asked you why on earth anyone should pay any more attention to your religious opinions than they should mine, my next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas

Hey there, Mr Heddle. Long time no see. Last time you were here, I asked you why on earth anyone should pay any more attention to your religious opinions than they should mine, my next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas

I don't know Lenny, probably the same reason why anyone should pay more attention to your incessant, lunatic chanting than they should my next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, or the Hare Krishna down the street.

What's curious here is why Heddle is not satisfied with "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" Perhaps only a single poster here would continue to berate him for stupidity, blindness and incoherence if he did so. But Heddle can't be satisfied with "I believe this"; he seems also to require that his faith be scientific, that it be rationally derived, that it be based on logic and evidence. And as a result, he is reduced to denying that doubletalk is doubletalk, that contradictions actually contradict, or that logic is logical.

I'm also fascinated at how many people continue to bash their head against his brick wall so repeatedly, as though if they only reworded clear logical statements more clearly, Heddle would suddenly see the obvious -- as though they were dealing with a rational but slow learner. Instead, we are dealing with the same pathology we see all the time. Heddle isn't rational, he is bound by faith-based needs. Nor is he slow - he is frozen solid.

I admit I marvel at those here who claim to be religious or to Believe, in light of Heddle's example of what religion can do to an otherwise serviceable brain. Aren't you people kind of playing with fire?

No, no no. Pretend, for example, the electron had to have precisely the charge 1.60217646.. × 10-19 coulombs, or life wouldn't exist.

— David Heddle

Heddle should have stayed in exile. He is just repeating himself, and everyone's already explained why he's wrong. He's got a new word to help try to run away from his lack of probability distributions, is all.

Now suppose that we discover that if its value differed by (I am making this up for purposes of an example) by one part in a billion, then stable stars would not exist.

Heddle writes "
Stuart Weinstein --- read carefully my quote that you posted. You do understand the meaning of the word "Pretend", I assume?

Sure. I was pretending you actually had an argument.

Pretend, for example, the electron had to have precisely the charge 1.60217646.. × 10-19 coulombs, or life wouldn't exist. It would not matter if we had a theory that predicted that value (probability 1) or had no clue where it came from. The design evidence is in the sensitivity to the value.

Pretend, for example, the electron had to have precisely the charge 1.60217646.. × 10-19 coulombs, or life wouldn't exist. It would not matter if we had a theory that predicted that value (probability 1) or had no clue where it came from. The design evidence is in the sensitivity to the value.

Ummm, and??? Why do you assume that "stable stars" are necessary for any form of "life"?

Mr. Heddle,

repeat after me:

"We haven't the foggiest idea how many cards are in the deck... we know nothing at all about what is a "winning hand"... for all we know the deck might consist of exactly five cards, dealt exactly one time..."

Your analogy hides so many assumptions that it is a pain having to point them out again and again.

Aureola Nominee:

Repeat after me: "My assumptions are required by my conclusions. My conclusions are required by my faith. My faith is required by God. Therefore I'm right."

After a few repetitions, you'll get the idea...

Flint:

do you seriously think I'm unaware of that? Or that I expect a sincere reply from Heddle?

The only thing I intend to accomplish is expose his faulty reasoning style.

The fact that he's a "pious fraudster" is clear, but that doesn't mean his claims should be left unchallenged.

Comment #48222 Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on September 15, 2005 09:21 AM (e) (s) Mr. Heddle, repeat after me: "We haven't the foggiest idea how many cards are in the deck... we know nothing at all about what is a "winning hand"... for all we know the deck might consist of exactly five cards, dealt exactly one time..."

Comment #48220 Posted by David Heddle on September 15, 2005 08:54 AM (e) (s) Arne, Your card anology, on a scale of one to Steve, is utterly fatuous.

do you seriously think I'm unaware of that? Or that I expect a sincere reply from Heddle?

The fact that he's a "pious fraudster" is clear, but that doesn't mean his claims should be left unchallenged.

David, I know you are beyond reason and maybe even hope (although I am praying for your faith to be strengthened so you can see the wonders of evolution), so my response is not directed to you, but to someone new to PT who might think you have a point.

Arne's card analogy is actually pretty good, because it involves selection. Those benumbed by Dembski's silly mathematics-waving or Gonzalez' equally silly claims of privilege or the "miraculous" nature of the cosmological constants are fond of positing a large probability space, and then saying "Look how unlikely." Here's a wonderful demonstration of the power of selection that I learned from a colleague, and use to demonstrate the point to nonscience major first-year college students: Get 2 tubs of 100 dice each. The task is to get 100 6's. One team shakes the dice until they get 100 6's. The other pulls out the 6's as they occur, then shakes the rest of the dice, pulling out 6's as they occur. Guess which team wins?

My students get it. IDC'ers don't.

So far our planetary searches, still in their infancy, are only turning up gas giants close to their suns.

— David Heddle

Flint:

your analysis is accurate, I am pretty sure that Heddle is impervious to anything that does not assume his IDiosyncratic version of god-of-the-sensitive-gaps as a given.

I simply think that some people honestly interested in the subject might be fooled by Heddle's sleight of hand, and that would be a pity.

Comment #48161 Posted by Flint on September 14, 2005 09:10 PM (e) (s) What's curious here is why Heddle is not satisfied with "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" Perhaps only a single poster here would continue to berate him for stupidity, blindness and incoherence if he did so. But Heddle can't be satisfied with "I believe this"; he seems also to require that his faith be scientific, that it be rationally derived, that it be based on logic and evidence. And as a result, he is reduced to denying that doubletalk is doubletalk, that contradictions actually contradict, or that logic is logical. I'm also fascinated at how many people continue to bash their head against his brick wall so repeatedly, as though if they only reworded clear logical statements more clearly, Heddle would suddenly see the obvious --- as though they were dealing with a rational but slow learner. Instead, we are dealing with the same pathology we see all the time. Heddle isn't rational, he is bound by faith-based needs. Nor is he slow - he is frozen solid. I admit I marvel at those here who claim to be religious or to Believe, in light of Heddle's example of what religion can do to an otherwise serviceable brain. Aren't you people kind of playing with fire?

Finding gas giants orbiting another star in no way demonstrates that there are no rocky planets orbiting that star. If anything it confirms the idea that our solar system is fairly typical, and that we just need to keep looking. (italics added)

Your card anology, on a scale of one to Steve, is utterly fatuous. A card analogy for design is more along these lines. Supposes I had a deck of cards and you were told that I had to shuffle thoroughly and deal you five cards. Unless I dealt you a royal flush of clubs, you'd die. And just to make it interesting, suppose I had to repeat the process three times. (The odds would be one in 17,554,917,235,355,136,000.) Now suppose I shuffle, deal, shuffle, deal, shuffle deal. Each time you get the needed royal flush of clubs. So you live. Three competing explanations are: 1) (Anthropic) What's the big deal? If hadn't happened, you'd be dead and we wouldn't be talking about it. 2) (Materialistic) There are an infinite number of parallel universes, and in most of them you died. However in an infinite subset, including ours, you survived. 3) (Design) The dealer cheated.

— Heddle

What I find most interesting about attempting to solidify ID with probability arguments is that however improbable some events may be, if an event has some probability to occur then it is clearly possible for that event to occur. And, even if the probability for the event is really low, the event may occur multiple times in a relatively small sample because statistics are a guide, not a rule.

For example, I was playing Hold 'Em one night and was delt a pair of aces. On the ensuing hand, I was delt another pair of aces. I don't expect this to ever happen again because it is highly improbable, but I certainly do not think that it is impossible especially because I observed it.

Maybe the electron charge is a consequence of the Big Bang.

Mr. Heddle,

Your declaration that an inference from ignorance is a "god-in-the-details" is truly pathetic.

Your Intelligent Designer is either a god-of-the-gaps (don't know where that value came from, must have been god) or a god-of-smaller-gaps (don't know where those laws of physics came from, must have been god). That's all.

By the way, my card analogy works even with the objections (all clubs, only A-10, whatever) for the same reasons--it doesn't matter. Was Arne lucky because the dealer was skilled at shuffling or because the dealer stacked the deck? Either way requires intervention.

Likewise, the distribution of universes resulting from the big bang is irrelevant. If there is a continuum, then we are lucky that of that continuum of mostly sterile universes a habitable one emerged. If a habitable one is inevitable, then we are lucky that the laws of physics happen to demand a universe that is fit for human habitation. In either case, we are faced with either extreme luck or intervention.

Heddle obviously has all the bases covered. If the hand was highly unlikely, it shows design. If the hand was extremely likely (or even guaranteed), this ALSO shows design. If our universe is the only one, design. If it's one of many, design. If the others are very different, design. If they are not, design. And so on ad infinitum.

I admit I'd dearly love to play cards by Heddle's rules: FIRST, see what I was dealt. THEN, declare that hand to be the winning hand. Step one (seeing what I was dealt) is of course strictly optional.

See Flint, like all others you try to dismiss it with the "all bases covered" argument, leaving out the most important part--which is that your life depended on getting the correct hand. It is not that something unlikely happens, that occurs everytime cards are dealt.

By the way, my card analogy works even with the objections (all clubs, only A-10, whatever) for the same reasons---it doesn't matter. Was Arne lucky because the dealer was skilled at shuffling or because the dealer stacked the deck? Either way requires intervention.

— David Heddle

Also, it's interesting that you assume the deck is always stacked. I suppose that this belies your theological beliefs and I certainly would never play poker with you.

Yes James, your argument that anything occurring, as long as its probability is not identically zero, should not pique our curiosity, is compelling. And your assertion that "By stacking the deck you only increase the probability, but in no way does this affect possibility" leads me to speculate that you and Steve are classmates.

See Flint, like all others you try to dismiss it with the "all bases covered" argument, leaving out the most important part---which is that your life depended on getting the correct hand. It is not that something unlikely happens, that occurs everytime cards are dealt.

— David Heddle

Sigh. The cards have been dealt once, from a deck of unknown size and unknown contents, producing a single data point from which we can draw no conclusions whatsoever. Or alternately, from which we can draw any conclusion we can dream up. Heddle is fabricating as thin a rationalization for his fixation as any I've seen lately, and listening to him mutter "I can't see anything" while his face is repeatedly crammed straight into it, becomes boring after a while. Even the speculation as to whether we are dealing with abysmal stupidity, dishonesty, or delusion gets dull.

Where did I argue that we should have found a small rocky planet? I'm waiting?

— David Heddle

I should have stated it this way: In an undesigned universe, if there is life, it should be abundant a la Sagan.

[an undesigned universe] would have no life (complex or othewise) because it would have no rocky planets.

If anything, [finding gas giants] confirms the idea that our solar system is fairly typical, because we are finding that other solar systems have planets.

it is not our lack of knowledge about the origin of the constants that matters, it is the sensitivity of life to their values. It merely changes our perspective as to where we got lucky---in pulling the correct constants out of the air or in the laws of physics that produced the life supporting values.

— Heddle

[Arne]:Ummm, and??? Why do you assume that "stable stars" are necessary for any form of "life"? Gee Arne, I'm not really going out on a limb to assume stable stars are a necessity.

David Heddle,

You say the evidence for cosmological design is that if certain fundamental constants had even slightly different values, life could not exist. That's the central claim, right?

Doesn't that presuppose that life is a desired outcome? If life isn't special, constants that permit life aren't special, right? Life is special to us, of course, but we can't design universes. So, for your argument to work, you have to assume life is a desired outcome of some being that can design universes.

In other words, if a designer exists, and if s/he created the universe, then we can infer that s/he probably set the values of any sensitive constants to ensure the outcome s/he desired (i.e. life). If we don't presuppose that life is special to a universal designer, we lose any basis to argue that sensitive constants are teleologically special.

If you disagree with this, please explain - how does your argument hold up if we assume that life is an irrelevant outcome?

That sound you just heard was qetzal knocking the ball out of the park. Then again, how dare you call me and my bunny irrelevant?!

Arne, David Muddle huh? You are both childish and so very unorginal. That's a bad combination.

Grey Wolf -- dark matter creatures--sure life had a hard enough time forming with matter that interacted strongly--yeah why not life forming from particles that (virtually) don't interact.

qetzal, I agree, ID implies that life was a desired outcome.

And as usual, Mr. Heddle assumes his conclusion.

It is not that ID implies that life was a desired outcome; it is that Mr. Heddle has assumed, for reasons utterly unrelated to the fundamental constants that describe our universe, that a God exists; furthermore, that this God is peculiarly interested in the quantity of ritual calls that a species of mammals (which, entirely coincidentally, Mr. Heddle happens to belong to) addresses to it; from this, Mr. Heddle has concluded that such an entity simply had to make sure that such a species would eventually come into being; therefore, the entity fine-tuned the universe to satisfy this craving of its.

Now Mr. Heddle is simply trying to retrofit the data to his massively anthropocentric (or is it Heddlecentric, David?) idea of God, the universe, and everything else.

When I told Mr. Heddle that from my POV the universe appears singularly centered on me, and guessed that from his POV it must similarly appear centered on him, I got no reply.

That's fine. I think the reply is perfectly evident to everybody here.

Gee, I guess I can look at a painting of a tree and infer design. UNLESS I assume the painter intended to paint a tree, then my logic is circular and design is nullified. I get it, thanks Aureola.

This was entertaining for a while, but the befuddled one is now simply repeating himself--something we know from past performance he is capable of doing ad nauseum--and which threatens to turn this into the Unending Thread.

As an inevitable result, the PTers are now starting to repeat themselves as well, albeit in a more intentionally-entertaining and much more intellectually-honest manner (kudos to the infinitely-patient Aureola Nominee).

I doubt there's much more for the undecided to learn from all this, beyond this last all-important lesson:

"How to Stop Feeding the Troll."

The controversy over ID is not scientific, but social. It has been made a huge controversy by political activitists who have sold a conspiracy theory: "We have shown Darwinism false, but the godless scientific establishment suppresses all findings that might support belief in God." Now a huge number of Christian conservatives are riled, and this motivates President's Bush's statement that we should let students decide for themselves what to believe about science.

There is no scientific debate over ID. The real issue for the American public is whether ID gets a fair evaluation in the scientific mainstream. Politically, the very most important thing to do now is to convince Americans that scientists are not anti-religion. Some biologists need to come forward and say that Dawkins is utterly wrong to couple neo-Darwinism with his personal atheistic agenda. It is important also to identify some things that ID claims neo-Darwinian processes cannot achieve and show that they can, perhaps in computational experiments.

Mr. Heddle:

The point is, if you look at a rain puddle, notice that it resembles a tree, and infer design, you are mistaken.

But what you are doing is something else again: you look at a rain puddle and declare that you are looking at a painting, that a painting needs a painter, and that therefore a painter painted the rain puddle.

And with this, I'll show Steviepinhead that I do know how to stop feeding a troll.

1) (Anthropic) What's the big deal? If hadn't happened, you'd be dead and we wouldn't be talking about it. 2) (Materialistic) There are an infinite number of parallel universes, and in most of them you died. However in an infinite subset, including ours, you survived. 3) (Design) The dealer cheated.

Well Lenny, because my religion is the true religion, while Islam, Buddhism, JW, Mormanism, etc. are false religions.

Your card anology, on a scale of one to Steve, is utterly fatuous. A card analogy for design is more along these lines. Supposes I had a deck of cards and you were told that I had to shuffle thoroughly and deal you five cards. Unless I dealt you a royal flush of clubs, you'd die. And just to make it interesting, suppose I had to repeat the process three times. (The odds would be one in 17,554,917,235,355,136,000.) Now suppose I shuffle, deal, shuffle, deal, shuffle deal. Each time you get the needed royal flush of clubs. So you live. Three competing explanations are: 1) (Anthropic) What's the big deal? If hadn't happened, you'd be dead and we wouldn't be talking about it. 2) (Materialistic) There are an infinite number of parallel universes, and in most of them you died. However in an infinite subset, including ours, you survived. 3) (Design) The dealer cheated.

Well Lenny, because my religion is the true religion, while Islam, Buddhism, JW, Mormanism, etc. are false religions.

Was Arne lucky because the dealer was skilled at shuffling or because the dealer stacked the deck? Either way requires intervention.

Well Lenny, because my religion is the true religion, while Islam, Buddhism, JW, Mormanism, etc. are false religions.

Well Lenny, if you are not a Moslem, then I assume you think Islam is a false religion. Because if you think Islam is a true religion, and yet you are not a Moslem--well that would make you an idiot, wouldn't it?

So what is it?

1) Do you think Islam is a false religion or

2) Do you think Islam is a true religion, and if so

(a) Are you a Moslem or
(b) Are you an idiot?

Now apply that to all religions and flavors of religions and you reach Dave Thomas's comment above--which was spot on.

Likewise, the distribution of universes resulting from the big bang is irrelevant. If there is a continuum, then we are lucky that of that continuum of mostly sterile universes a habitable one emerged.

Hey Dave Thomas, are you OK with Arne telling me to commit suicide on your post? Imagine the scandal if I actually did. Why, you'd be infamous.

qetzal, I agree, ID implies that life was a desired outcome.

Hey Dave Thomas, are you OK with Arne telling me to commit suicide on your post? Imagine the scandal if I actually did.

Thanks, Arne. I debated whether it was worth pointing that out. You saved me the trouble.

Mr. Heddle, your last response above is incomprehensible. It doesn't parse. I think you're trying to communicate something to us, but I don't know what that is.

Lenny asked a very simple question: where is the actual evidence, that we all can peruse, that would support your claim that your version of religion is the only Truth out there?

Your response made no sense at all. Suppose Lenny did as you suggested, and decided whether each separate religion, in turn, was True or False; and, if True, then additionally choosing between believing that religion or being an idiot.

I imagine that when Lenny gets to your religion, he will find it False, because you haven't given him even one good reason to see that it's True.

The way I see it, Lenny won't even get to the "accepting Heddle's religion or choosing to be an idiot" stage.

What the hell has happened to this thread, anyway? What happened to "Teach ALL controversies?" Where's the juicy arguments about the ichneumon fly, whose apparently exquisitely-designed ovipositor (an egg-laying instruments) can pierce several inches of wood, and is used for injecting its young into the bodies of hapless insects who are then eaten alive from the inside? Huh?

If this feature is too complex to have evolved, i.e. if it was, like the flagellum, 'designed,' what was the Designer's intent? Hmmm?

Oh, that's right. Mustn't "second-guess" the Designer. Silly me. He probably doesn't like butterflies and moths (the ichneumon's prey).

So what is it? 1) Do you think Islam is a false religion or 2) Do you think Islam is a true religion...

No, Mr. Heddle, please do not commit suicide on account of this blog.

Others, please do not ask Mr. Heddle, or anyone else, to break the law. And please avoid Carlin's favorite swear words. We got families out there, people. Play nice.

Amyway, I'm outta here guys. I have three ID talks to give next month, maybe four. Have to prepare. It's been fun. See you in six months. Bye Lenny.

How come nobody yet pointed out that we have found at least one extrasolar rocky planet?

Hey Dave Thomas, are you OK with Arne telling me to commit suicide on your post? Imagine the scandal if I actually did. Why, you'd be infamous.

I have three ID talks to give next month, maybe four. Have to prepare.

Ah yes, Mr Huddle has singularly demonstrated that the Intelligent Design movement is improperly and deceptively named. ID would be more aptly named the Ignorance Divine movement. With his arguments in smoldering ruins, he turns to a "My God can beat up your God" posture and loudly yells "Runaway!" while banging two coconuts halves together.

Others, please do not ask Mr. Heddle, or anyone else, to break the law.

Amyway, I'm outta here guys. I have three ID talks to give next month, maybe four. Have to prepare.

National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield also gave daily pre-storm videoconference briefings to federal officials in Washington, warning them of a nightmare scenario of New Orleans' levees not holding, winds smashing windows in high-rise buildings and flooding wiping out large swaths of the Gulf Coast. A photo on the White House Web site shows Bush in Crawford, Texas, watching Mayfield give a briefing on Aug. 28, a day before Katrina smashed ashore with 145-mph winds.

—

I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.

— W

I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.

— W

I don't think...

— W

...anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.

— W

Posted by David Heddle on September 15, 2005 06:57 PM (e) (s) Well Lenny, because my religion is the true religion, while Islam, Buddhism, JW, Mormanism, etc. are false religions.

What the hell has happened to this thread, anyway? What happened to "Teach ALL controversies?" Where's the juicy arguments about the ichneumon fly, whose apparently exquisitely-designed ovipositor (an egg-laying instruments) can pierce several inches of wood, and is used for injecting its young into the bodies of hapless insects who are then eaten alive from the inside? Huh? If this feature is too complex to have evolved, i.e. if it was, like the flagellum, 'designed,' what was the Designer's intent? Hmmm?

Re "Didn't some creationist claim that all the nasty, violent stuff in nature was designed 'after the Fall'?"

I have this temptation to ask the fall of which year, but never mind.

Henry

Mormanism????? Obviously no one here is from the beehive state. That word transcends even divine design.

Mormanism??? What is that? No one here from the beehive state. Even Rep. Buttars wouldn't spell it that way. Donnie and Marie are crying in their Mormon tea.