2nd KU class denies status of science to design theory

Posted 27 November 2005 by PvM

After being denied the much sought after status as 'scientific', Intelligent Design has run into another roadblock, upsetting the time line laid out in the Wedge Strategy

Intelligent design --- already the planned subject of a controversial Kansas University seminar this spring --- will make its way into a second KU classroom in the fall, this time labeled as a "pseudoscience." In addition to intelligent design, the class Archaeological Myths and Realities will cover such topics as UFOs, crop circles, extrasensory perception and the ancient pyramids.

Intelligent Design arguments, which used to be hidden in the darkness of gaps in our knowledge, have become under intense scrutiny recently. And the result is not unexpected: ID has been found to be scientifically vacuous. Pro-science editorials by Krauthammer and Kriegel have given support to this thesis. Not surprisingly, the immediate response by ID proponents has been to accuse ID critics of not understanding or misrepresenting ID positions by not quoting their positions verbatim. It should come as no surprise that most ID proponents are careful in formulating their 'hypotheses' in a pseudo-scientific manner, carefully avoiding references to revealed religion. However, it also becomes clear quickly, that their 'hypotheses' carry no scientific weight. For instance Krauthammer observed:

[Intelligent design] is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God."

Let's see how this fits with reality: Tautological: Behe testified in the Kitzmiller trial

Q Intelligent design does not describe how the design occurred. A That's correct, just like the Big Bang theory does not describe what caused the Big Bang. Q Does not identify when the design occurred. A That is correct.

Q It [Intelligent Design] says nothing about what the designer's abilities are. A Other than saying that the designer had the ability to make the design that is under consideration, that's correct. Q It sounds pretty tautological, Professor Behe.

Q Intelligent design says nothing about the intelligent designer's motivations? A The only statement it makes about that is that the designer had the motivation to make the structure that is designed. Q How can intelligent design possibly make that statement, Professor Behe? A I don't understand your question. Q How can it possibly say anything about the intelligent designer's motives without knowing anything about who the intelligent designer is?

"theory": Appropriately between quotes because as even ID proponents have admitted, there is no "theory of intelligent design". While ID proponents are still hopeful that a scientifically relevant theory may be forthcoming, the chances of such seem to be quite 'complex' (an ID term meaning improbable). gaps: As Del Ratzsch and others have pointed out, the ID approach is based on a 'set theoretic complement of regularity and chance' or in laymen terms: that which remains when known chance and regularity hypotheses have been eliminated. Statisticians refer to this as the 'null hypothesis' and ID proponents have replaced this notion with a notion of 'design'. It should be clear by now that the ID approach is based on an argument from ignorance and presents no additional scientific knowledge. gaps filled by God: Again, not explicitly acknowledged by ID proponents but inferred simply by observing the following: 1. ID proponents argue that science rejects Intelligent Design a priori 2. ID proponents argue that science successfully applies intelligent design inferences in areas such as archeology, criminology, SETI and cryptography. 3. In other words, Intelligent Design cannot be that which science already successfully achieves. 4. ID proponents lament that science restricts itself to methodological naturalism, precluding any role for the supernatural The conclusion is but inevitable: the Intelligent Designer must be supernatural. In addition, few realize that Dembski has made an important concession:

"Before I proceed, however, I note that Dembski makes an important concession to his critics. He refuses to make the second assumption noted above. When the EF implies that certain systems are intelligently designed, Dembski does not think it follows that there is some intelligent designer or other. He says that, "even though in practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an intelligent agent, taken by itself _design does not require that such an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design inference must not be confused with intelligent agency_" (TDI, 227, my emphasis).
— Ryan Nichols

Source: Ryan Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly, 2003 ,vol. 77 ,no 4 ,pp. 591 - 611 When ID proponents are asked to explain the how, why, when which would give the gap argument some independent support they are quick to show why ID is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous

"As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering."
— Dembski

Source: ISCID forum Brian Sandefur, a mechanical engineer and ID proponent, argued that "The two areas that KU is trying to box this issue into are completely inappropriate," and considers a more appropriate venue to discuss ID in classes discussing chemistry and biology.

But Sandefur said intelligent design was rooted in chemistry and molecular biology, not religion, and it should be discussed in science courses.

An interesting argument: ID is rooted in chemistry and biology?... How... One could make a claim that it is a mathematical claim, but that seems to be the fullest extent of ID. Some recent editorials Ben Bova: Arguments for intelligent design are unconvincing in the Naples Daily News (subscription required)

What do the ID people have to counter this evidence? Nothing except their claims that life is too complex to have arisen without an Intelligent Designer to create it. And what does that statement tell us about life and its origins? Nothing! ID boils down to sheer ignorance. It claims that we can't know how life began because it's too complicated for our poor little brains to understand. Don't ask questions. Be content with the idea that an Intelligent Designer did it all and we cannot, ever, understand how it was done.

...

I find that statement close to hypocrisy. The goal of ID's supporters, it seems to me, is to get Darwin out of the classroom --- or at least to undermine the teaching of Darwinian evolution to our school children. They are determined to remove Darwin from the schools. Honest, God-fearing Christians fear that if Darwin is right, and we humans arose as a result of natural processes, then the entire Christian faith is in doubt, including the belief that Christ died on the cross to redeem us.

SCIENCE TEST Christians can't afford to oppose evolution by Richard Colling

A second important case, to be decided outside the courtroom in the arena of public opinion, also looms large. This case concerns how the public views Christians. And while perhaps not immediately apparent, either way the Dover school board case turns out, intelligent design will continue to severely damage the case for God and Christian faith. Even worse, the damage is largely self-inflicted by Christian leaders' unwitting and undiscerning endorsements of intelligent design.

Richard Colling is very outspoken on Intelligent Design:

In his new book, "Random Designer," he writes: "It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods" when they say evolutionary theory is "in crisis" and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. "Such statements are blatantly untrue," he argues; "evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny. [1]" (Sharon Begley in Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists, Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2004; Page A15 )

96 Comments

Stephen Elliott · 27 November 2005

lol,
Congrats to the KU for fighting back.
There will be some people on the Kansas Board of ~~Mis~~Education that will be a tad miffed.

Registered User · 27 November 2005

Pim

gaps filled by God: Again, not explicitly acknowledged by ID proponents

Actually this was explicitly acknowledged by Michael Behe on the stand in the Dover trial. For me, this was the single most bizarre bit of testimony in the entire channel:

Behe: "the designer is God ....I concluded that based on theological, philosophical and historical facts."

Behe tries to pretend that his conclusion about the identity of the designer is not relevant to a discussion of the scientific vacuity of "ID theory" because Behe did not use the scientific method to arrive at his conclusion.

Please don't waste your time trying to parse Behe's nonsense. It can't be done.

It's as if I claimed that the roughly spherical shape of the moon and the arrangement of craters on its surface "proved" that "some mysterious beings" designed it. But other than that, my theory says nothing about the nature of the mysterious beings or how or when they created the moon. But, based on historical evidence, I believe that God did it. But that has nothing to do with my theory.

The sincere mind reels.

Pim also highlighted the other truly bizarre moments in Behe's testimony:

The only statement it makes about that is that the designer had the motivation to make the structure that is designed.

Let's translate for Behe, inserting Behe's conclusion about the identity of the mysterious designer: the only statement that "ID theory" makes about God's motivation is that God was motivated to make the structure that is designed.

This is Behe's "theory" in a nutshell: God created life on earth just the way he wanted it, right down to the amino acid sequence of every protein in our bodies.

How does Behe know this? He told us in court: "theological, philosophical and historical evidence."

Again, let's translate for "Dr." Behe: the Bible says so.

Of course, none of Behe's personal religious beliefs would matter if he wasn't actively trying to shove them down the throats of public schoolkids on the government's dime.

Hopefully, Behe will get the picture when Judge Jones paints it for him in black and white.

Registered User · 27 November 2005

Pim, thanks for the link to Richard Collings' excellent editorial!!!

But another critical question flowing from the science-faith discussions is how Christians will be defined.

This question will largely be answered on the basis of public perceptions of scientific understanding among proponents of intelligent design.

Here's how those public perceptions will be determined, in part:

Judge Jones will issue his ruling in the Dover case which shows that ID peddlers are creationist trying to peddle their religious beliefs in the guise of pseudoscience.

The media will report on Judge Jones ruling, allowing both sides to explain why Judge Jones was "right" or "wrong."

To the the extent that our country's beloved pundits and "newscasters" on television and radio and in the major newspapers demonize Judge Jones and repeat debunked creationist arguments as if those arguments have not been debunked, the public will perceive that creationists have been treated unfairly.

To the extent that these same pundits ridicule and scorn the ID peddlers for promoting the teaching of bogus pseudoscientific garbage to our nation's children in public school science classes, supported in large part by notorious bigots, Christian reconstructionists and AIDS deniers, the public will perceive that ID peddlers are worthless pseudoscientists who should be filed between astrologists and UFOlogists in the Library of Disgusting Lies (right next to Holocaust Denial, actually).

Here's how the public perception of ID peddlers will not be determined: allowing sincere scientists to debate the ID peddlers about whether the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex or whether the fossil record provides evidence for "macroevolution."

Registered User · 27 November 2005

Pim, thanks for posting the link to that excellent Richard Collings editorial.

But another critical question flowing from the science-faith discussions is how Christians will be defined.

This question will largely be answered on the basis of public perceptions of scientific understanding among proponents of intelligent design.

We live in the year 2005 and we know very well how public perceptions about people are determined.

The kind folks at the ACLU have done a great deal to help shape the public's perceptions of folks like Bill Buckingham and Michael Behe and other fakers.

Judge Jones' ruling will surely offer us another opportunity to help shape the public's perceptions.

Please: let's not squander it by pretending that Michael Behe and Bill Dembski are honest men who care about anything except their own miserable careers.

I really have to applaud the steps taken by the folks at Kansas University. They are not "fxcking around." They are calling spades "spades" which is what every one of us should be doing at every opportunity.

That is how public perceptions of "spades" are formed.

Since it is 2005, we also know how a powerful moneyed organization like the Discovery Institute will proceed to blunt the formation of negative perceptions of ID peddlers in the public's mind: by creating confusion and spreading fear.

We know how the Discovery Institute creates confusion in the public's mind: by swamping the public with bogus scientific-sounding claims about the Cambrian explosion, "gaps" in the fossil record, "irreducible complexity" and the like.

The key to preventing that garbage from entering in the discussion is to cut it off at the knees. In other words: do not go there. There is no need to there, after all. It is utterly irrelevant to the question: if you have a better scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth, then tell us what it is!!! If you don't, then shut up because the overwhelming consensus of the world's scientists is that evolution happened and ID peddlers are religious charlatans trying to wedge pseudoscience and Christianity into public school science classrooms.

End. Of. Discussion.

Let's see who has the guts to do the right thing. Some scientists will have the guts -- we know that already and we know who they are. But others will surely enjoy taking an occasional check from time to time to show up at Liberty University and engage in a "debate" with some Discovery Institute shill about whether the bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex."

Watch and see.

PvM · 27 November 2005

Behe's testimony exemplifies a thesis of another paper which states that ID cannot reliably detect 'Intelligent Design' without some independent information as to the existence of the 'Designer'. Behe, convinced of the existence of said 'Designer' sees 'evidence' of 'Design' based on the ID thesis. Of course, I am still confused why said 'Designer' would present 'evidence of design' in the form of a bacterial flagellum. Was the plague a punishment and said 'Designer' wanted to make sure we got the message? After all the TTS system is implicated in such diseases as the bubonic plague.

If, as Behe argues, we can at least conclude that the intention of the 'designer' was to 'design' a particular 'designed' system then we can also try to speculate as to the nature of said 'designer'. Very Paley-esque... Believing that we can actually peek inside the mind of said 'Designer'.

Andrew McClure · 27 November 2005

Kansas University is already being issued vague threats about people trying to have their funding cut as retaliation for the "ID and mythology" course. It's good to see that rather than backing down, KU is just charging ahead. One gets the impression they really are willing to stand up for their academic principles. I wonder how the people who were threatening the funding cuts last week will react now.

I just wish popular news sources were being a little better about reporting the threats that Kansas University is receiving, as to me that's almost the most fascinating part of the entire thing. First these people decide they don't need mainstream science in the high schools, then they decide they don't really need higher education at all if it's just going to insist on teaching science as science... Really concerned about equipping future generations to move into the future, aren't these people?

Registered User · 27 November 2005

The best part of Pim's link: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/nov/27/2nd_ku_class_denies_status_science_design_theory/?city_local

Intelligent design proponents are unhappy about intelligent design being taught as a myth, and e-mail comments attributed to Mirecki that were posted on a Web site made them angrier. In the e-mail, Mirecki wrote: "The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category mythology."

The ID peddlers are unhappy about that email? I am looking forward to hearing them argue that Mirecki's personal beliefs are somehow relevant to the validity of the proposition that stories about mysterious alien beings creating the universe are properly labeled as "creation myths." Please please please, my ID peddling friends: make my day! Make that argument and wallow in your hypocricy!

Hyperion · 27 November 2005

In reading the Dembski quote in the above post, I finally remembered whom it was that his writing most resembles:

Timothy Leary. Same incoherent, disjointed prose. Same persecution complex. Same smug arrogance and certitude. Same insistence that his metaphysical postulates must be accepted by everyone else because he alone knows the truth.

The difference is that Leary had a fairly decent, albeit somewhat illicit, excuse for his writings. Unless Dembski is going for the "Buckingham excuse," however, I doubt that this is his problem...although it certainly would put his "finding Jesus" experience in a whole new light.

k.e. · 27 November 2005

put his "finding Jesus" experience in a whole new light
-ouch!

shiva · 27 November 2005

How long do you think it will take for Sal to start tut tuting and fuming over this second insulting act of KU's? Let's see IDCists are for academic freedom and want the "controversy" to be taught. And now that it is being taught they are angry? That's funny. Maybe some IDCist professor shd try teaching "Darwinism" or "evolutionism" as myth! Indeed these two topics the way IDCists imagine them are entirely mythical.

k.e. · 27 November 2005

Nice point Shiva the "Development of Myth and the Broken Truth"
does it lead to Totalitarianism ?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 November 2005

Let's see IDCists are for academic freedom and want the "controversy" to be taught. And now that it is being taught they are angry?

They don't want any "controversy" about ID to be taught. Just a "controversy" about *evolution". They do NOT want their own ideas to be subjected to any criticism or evaluation -- they just want them to be taught as true and immune from criticism.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 November 2005

Dembski says:

"The University of Kansas is flexing its anti-religion muscle again, this time by announcing the introduction of a new course in the Religion department: "Creationism, Intelligent Design and Other Religious Mythologies." http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/513#more-513

But ID is SCIENCE, mind you, and isn't about religion. No siree Bob. It's fun watching the IDers self-destruct so spectacularly.

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

Lenny,

It should be obvious that regardless of whether or not ID is science, it is possible to attack it from the basis of anti-religious bigotry. The painfully simple chain would be this:

1) ID is not science
2) ID is creationism
3) Creationism is the province of the religious wingnuts
4) Therefore I will attack this form of creationism, ID

Whether or not KU faculty are attacking it for that reason we can only speculate. That is, except in the case the foolish foot-in-mouth Dr. Mirecki aka "Evil Dr. P." about whom we actually have evidence.

You really should learn how to make arguments that, even if they are wrong, are at least logical and self-consistent.

Stephen Elliott · 28 November 2005

Posted by David Heddle on November 28, 2005 08:19 AM (e) (s) Lenny, It should be obvious that regardless of whether or not ID is science, it is possible to attack it from the basis of anti-religious bigotry. The painfully simple chain would be this: 1) ID is not science 2) ID is creationism 3) Creationism is the province of the religious wingnuts 4) Therefore I will attack this form of creationism, ID Whether or not KU faculty are attacking it for that reason we can only speculate. That is, except in the case the foolish foot-in-mouth Dr. Mirecki aka "Evil Dr. P." about whom we actually have evidence. You really should learn how to make arguments that, even if they are wrong, are at least logical and self-consistent.

Can I assume that this upsets you?

Now, suppose you are a professor about to teach an anti-ID course. Suppose you are Professor and Department Chairman (in the Religious Studies Department) Paul Mirecki at the University of Kansas. Furthermore, suppose that you want to give the illusion that you are in group one, which is clearly perceived as the academic high ground. Then you might give interviews to the national media and say things like: "Creationism is mythology," Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not."

Who better than a professor of religious studies could spot a religion when he saw one?

rdog29 · 28 November 2005

Hey Heddle -

Why don't you stop tap dancing and give us a summary of the theory of ID?

Give ONE example of some observation that is better explained by ID than by evolution. Give ONE example of where ID can provide an explanation for something where evolution cannot.

Anything else you blather on about is mere window dressing and politics. So either give examples or shut the hell up. No one cares about your personal metaphysical opinions.

Why is it that IDiots talk up a storm about "evolution can't exlain this", "Darwinism can't explain that", but when it comes time to put their cards on the table, they grow deafeningly silent?

Why is that, Heddle?

k.e. · 28 November 2005

Stephen Elliott: said Who better than a professor of religious studies could spot a religion when he saw one?

He doesn't even have to do that they have done it all by themselves loud and clear boasted to the world that their "Broken Truth^TM" is Religion. We didn't even have to use the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. ...Dang.

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

Hey rdog29,

I can give lots, but they won't be from biology (actually a couple might be). Perhaps you mistake me for someone who has argued for biological ID, that is for Dembski's and/or Behe's theories?

Still, I'll answer your question. Just one?

How about:

Evolution can explain how either (a) our eyes are most sensitive to the peak of our sun's spectrum or (b) how our eyes are sensitive to a narrow range of radiation to which the atmosphere is transparent. But evolution cannot explain the happy fact that we don't have to choose (a) OR (b), the two parts of the spectrum being one and the same. Design, of course, explains it trivially.

k.e The TM symbol--I doubt if it ever was even midly amusing. But by now even your most ardent supporters must be rolling their eyes. But, hey, if it floats your boat...

Stephen Elliott · 28 November 2005

Posted by k.e. on November 28, 2005 11:35 AM (e) (s) ... He doesn't even have to do that they have done it all by themselves loud and clear boasted to the world that their "Broken TruthTM" is Religion. We didn't even have to use the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch....Dang.

Just as well; Antioch's hand grenade is no longer an option anyway. It has already been used. That was a real vicious rabbit!

k.e. · 28 November 2005

hahah
This must be in the "Religious Artifacts/Craven Idols" department but you *Can* I kid you not actually buy one on the net :)

Rabbits are strange non-Precambrian critters -creatures of habit viciously Territorial and I hate to say it easy targets.(snigger)
They can be taught tricks and have a similar intelligence to a dog, sh*t all over the place but can be toilet trained, and love carrots. :)

Corkscrew · 28 November 2005

Evolution can explain how either (a) our eyes are most sensitive to the peak of our sun's spectrum or (b) how our eyes are sensitive to a narrow range of radiation to which the atmosphere is transparent. But evolution cannot explain the happy fact that we don't have to choose (a) OR (b), the two parts of the spectrum being one and the same. Design, of course, explains it trivially.
— David Heddle

You're using this to imply cosmic Design, as opposed to biological Design, right? In which case it's fairly irrelevant to the biological Design Inference that we're specifically complaining about. There probably is a "How" answer for the happy fact that you raise. I'm no expert but how about: if the atmosphere was opaque to the sun's peak radiation, it'd tend to get burned off. There is unlikely to be a "Why" answer (beyond the weak anthropic principle), but I'd say that that's because there doesn't necessarily have to be a "why".

k.e. · 28 November 2005

Heddle projects -
psst .....David..."God forgives those that forgive themselves"

PvM · 28 November 2005

Evolution can explain how either (a) our eyes are most sensitive to the peak of our sun's spectrum or (b) how our eyes are sensitive to a narrow range of radiation to which the atmosphere is transparent. But evolution cannot explain the happy fact that we don't have to choose (a) OR (b), the two parts of the spectrum being one and the same. Design, of course, explains it trivially.
— Heddle

Design of course can explain 'anything' trivially and as such is scientifically vacuous. Poof... Is that your idea of science Heddle?

k.e. · 28 November 2005

Stephen
No HHoA eh?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200512/lolita

PvM · 28 November 2005

Let me point out that a correlation between two datapoints can be explained by various factors. A causes B, B cause A, C causes A and B and so on.

In the case of life being sensitive to the peak atmospheric light and the solar light being near to the peak of the atmospheric light may find its explanation in the observation that perhaps life arose in circumstances suitable for it.

This is one of the various major problems with the Privileged Planet thesis. We can of course refer to this 'coincidence' as design but what does calling design explain...
Other than a correlation between function and structure :-)

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 28 November 2005

Ben Bova: Arguments for intelligent design are unconvincing in the Naples Daily News (subscription required)

Is that Ben Bova the well-known science fiction author?

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

Corkscrew,

if the atmosphere was opaque to the sun's peak radiation, it'd tend to get burned off.

And what's taking Venus so long? PvM,

Design of course can explain 'anything' trivially and as such is scientifically vacuous. Poof...

That's true, but the question asked for a case where it offers a better explanation.

Is that your idea of science Heddle?

No, did I somewhere say that it was?

In the case of life being sensitive to the peak atmospheric light and the solar light being near to the peak of the atmospheric light may find its explanation in the observation that perhaps life arose in circumstances suitable for it.

So is the earth privileged? Also, this is not a simple matter. Anything resembling photosynthesis probably requires abundant light in the visible range, since this is a good match to relevant atomic levels.

Alexey Merz · 28 November 2005

Heddle typed:

Evolution can explain how either (a) our eyes are most sensitive to the peak of our sun's spectrum or (b) how our eyes are sensitive to a narrow range of radiation to which the atmosphere is transparent. But evolution cannot explain the happy fact that we don't have to choose (a) OR (b), the two parts of the spectrum being one and the same. Design, of course, explains it trivially.

How... Panglossian.

Aureola Nominee, FCD · 28 November 2005

Now Mr. Heddle tries to redefine the concept of "better explanation" to mean "any explanation that does not need to deal with those pesky things like, you know, facts and such".

Once again, the pool marvelling at the exact match with the shape of the hole in the ground...

qetzal · 28 November 2005

I dislike the focus on explanations, for exactly the reason illustrated by Heddle's response in #60437.

The more relevant question, IMO, is "what can ID predict better than evolution?"

I'd love to see a response to this from either the cosmological or the biological perspective.

k.e. · 28 November 2005

Heddle I assume you have read "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov

its his revenge againts solipsistic Fundamentalist IDiots like you Dembski, Behe and the rest of you lot .....Good bye!

Flint · 28 November 2005

But evolution cannot explain the happy fact that we don't have to choose (a) OR (b), the two parts of the spectrum being one and the same. Design, of course, explains it trivially...And what's taking Venus so long?>/quote>I got a chuckle out of this as well. I can imagine devout ID believers on Venus, who quite naturally have highly developed natural infrared detectors, marveling at the wonderful coincidence that their cloud cover causes all the necessary heat to be retained; otherwise, their vision would be far less useful. Must be design...

Flint · 28 November 2005

But evolution cannot explain the happy fact that we don't have to choose (a) OR (b), the two parts of the spectrum being one and the same. Design, of course, explains it trivially...And what's taking Venus so long?

I enjoyed this as well. I can imagine religious believers on Venus, who have understandably developed highly accurate natural infrared detection, marveling that their eternal cloud cover serves so effectively to retain the heat; if it weren't cloudy, their vision would be so much less effective. It could only be design... (Incidentally, why does this thread crash Internet Explorer about 90% of attempts to open it? No other thread does this...)

Russell · 28 November 2005

Evolution can explain how either (a) our eyes are most sensitive to the peak of our sun's spectrum or (b) how our eyes are sensitive to a narrow range of radiation to which the atmosphere is transparent. But evolution cannot explain the happy fact that we don't have to choose (a) OR (b), the two parts of the spectrum being one and the same. Design, of course, explains it trivially.

Note the two different usages of "explain": The evolution explanation implicitly involves a mechanism. Mutations resulting in better sensitivity in the relevant range are favored by natural selection. The design "explanation" is just that a "designer" (assuming she wants her creatures to see well) would want the conditions to favor that. Not much of an explanation in a scientific sense, which I understood the challenge to involve.

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

qtezel,

Cosmological ID cannot make any predictions that I know of. If it could, then I'd be on here day and night arguing that it was science. I'd be arguing that it should be part of the science curriculum. You'll notice I haven't made such arguments.

Flint,

You can imagine religious believers on Venus? Does evolution predict that? Because ID would definitely predict that there are no religious believers of any sort on Venus. Does evolution predict anything about life on Venus, other than, if it exists, it will exhibit common descent? Anything? What about Mars? We know the environment fairly well. We know there is water. Anything?

Russell,

No the challenge was for nothing more than something (actually it was posed as ONE thing) ID explains that evolution does not. I provided one thing. The challenge was not that you would like the explanation, or that it was scientific. Of course the goalposts can be moved willy-nilly.

rdog29 · 28 November 2005

Mr Heddle -

That's right, you're a "cosmological ID" kind of guy.

Well, it's true that ID can indeed explain why human eyes (I presume you're talking about human eyes anyway) are most sensitive to wavelengths at the "peak of our sun's spectrum". (By the way, is that true? It's been a while since I was in school. Is the peak of the Sun's output in the visual, or is it elsewhere? UV? X-Ray? Gamma Ray?)

But it's also true that ID can explain ANYTHING, which makes it worthless as a scientific theory.

Sounds like your sun's spectrum comment is alluding to the "priveledged universe" idea. Don't you think it's a little premature to be jumping to such conclusions? After all, we know of only ONE universe thus far - ours. We have no basis with which to estimate how extraordinary (or common) our universe may be.

We have no basis on which to estimate the likelihood of our universe's constants taking on the values they have. The "priveledged universe" idea is one huge argument from ignorance.

Stephen Elliott · 28 November 2005

Posted by qetzal on November 28, 2005 03:18 PM (e) (s) I dislike the focus on explanations, for exactly the reason illustrated by Heddle's response in #60437. The more relevant question, IMO, is "what can ID predict better than evolution?" I'd love to see a response to this from either the cosmological or the biological perspective.

I think you just hit the nail on the head. ID can probably explain lots of things better than science can. When it comes to predictions though, ID falls flat on it's face.

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

rdog29,

Well if ID can explain anything, why go the trouble of demanding that it explain just ONE thing?

Yes it's true, our sun's intensity peaks in the yellow. Our eyes are most sensitive to yellow. Which is part of the reason why the sky is blue instead of, say, purple.

You are correct we have no basis to estimate how common or extraordinary our universe is, given that we will forever be limited to a sample size of one.

The fine tuning arguments of ID are not based on the ignorance of the likelihood of the constants. A fundamental theory that explained the constants would not negate the fine tuning which, contrary to what you said, is not based on ignorance but on detailed knowledge. It is not that we do not understand how stars work, but rather that they work on a razor's edge that is impressive.

CJ O'Brien · 28 November 2005

The two are not extricable, really, in terms of empirical epistemology. (Explanation and prediction)

If, by the logic of explanation, a hypothesis explains something, it de facto makes predictions about the future behavior of the phenomenon.

ID, cosmological, biological, whatever it is, can not explain anything, except in the trivial sense that after you've heard the answer, further questions are meaningless. It's the philosophical equivalent of the parent's easy dodge: "Because I said so." There's nowhere to go from there.

Stephen Elliott · 28 November 2005

Posted by David Heddle on November 28, 2005 04:27 PM (e) (s) rdog29, Well if ID can explain anything, why go the trouble of demanding that it explain just ONE thing? Yes it's true, our sun's intensity peaks in the yellow. Our eyes are most sensitive to yellow. Which is part of the reason why the sky is blue instead of, say, purple...

I would agree that a design implication is very strong in cosmology. The strength of gravity; all on it's own, would indicate fine tuning. Far more so than any argument about complexity (specified or irreducible). But ID always falls outside science and into theology (I am not saying you state otherwise but other people would make that claim). It still makes no predictions nor is it falsifiable.

H. Humbert · 28 November 2005

The fine tuning arguments of ID are not based on the ignorance of the likelihood of the constants. A fundamental theory that explained the constants would not negate the fine tuning which, contrary to what you said, is not based on ignorance but on detailed knowledge. It is not that we do not understand how stars work, but rather that they work on a razor's edge that is impressive.

In this instance, the way stars work is an observation. It isn't an "argument of ID" since ID also allows for stars that don't work on a "razor's edge." Impressive or not, it has nothing to do with design. All the design argument is saying is "Wow, that's really impressive. In fact, the more we understand it, the more impressive it becomes. I can't imagine that arising any other way except intelligent design." In other words, "detailed knowledge" or not, the argument is still based in ignorance.

ben · 28 November 2005

ID would definitely predict that there are no religious believers of any sort on Venus

Why? Couldn't the same intelligent designer have designed Venusian life? I thought we didn't know anything about the designer except that it designed life on earth.

rdog29 · 28 November 2005

I can see that my use of the word "explanation" was a bit sloppy. Yes, ID can explain anything trivially. "That's how the Big Guy decided it should be." Wow. Really enlightening, that is.

Perhaps "non-trivial explanation" or "mechanism" would have been a better choice of words. Or "Prediction", as others have suggested.

So can cosmological ID provide a mechanism anywhere where "naturalistic cosmology" (for lack of a better term) cannot?

Yes, the razor's edge of a star's functioning is indeed impressive - and a necessary consequence of the universal constants. Fortuitous for us, yes, but again, without an estimate of the probability of the constants' values, how can you claim "fine tuning"? Aside from the trivial "that's how the Big Guy wanted it", that is.

Flint · 28 November 2005

Heddle:

You can imagine religious believers on Venus? Does evolution predict that?

Don't be silly. My point (which was surely obvious?) was that IF there is life on Venus, it would evolve to thrive in its environment. IF any of it developed intelligence as we know it, it would sooner or later note how well adapted it was for conditions it lived in. It *might* decide that this coordination of requirements with environment wasn't the result of Pure Chance. It must have happened by divine design. What OTHER options could there possibly be?

Flint · 28 November 2005

It is not that we do not understand how stars work, but rather that they work on a razor's edge that is impressive.Horsefeathers. Imagine a set of conditions. ANY set of conditions, I don't care, so long as the conditions are stable. That set of conditions will permit certain phenomena; change the conditions and you change the phenomena. We can regard ALL phenomena within any given set of conditions as "working on a razor's edge" since these phenomena are ramifications of the conditions that permit them. Change the conditions, and of course we trade one set of "razor's edge" phenomena for another. Indeed, this is the only flavor of phenomenon possible. How could it be otherwise?

Flint · 28 November 2005

It is not that we do not understand how stars work, but rather that they work on a razor's edge that is impressive.

Horsefeathers. Imagine a set of conditions. ANY set of conditions, I don't care, so long as the conditions are stable. That set of conditions will permit certain phenomena; change the conditions and you change the phenomena. We can regard ALL phenomena within any given set of conditions as "working on a razor's edge" since these phenomena are ramifications of the conditions that permit them. Change the conditions, and of course we trade one set of "razor's edge" phenomena for another. Indeed, this is the only flavor of phenomenon possible. How could it be otherwise?

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

H Humbert,

No, that's not right. The fine tuning of carbon and oxygen production in stars does not make or break ID. Cosmological ID is based on the collective weight of a set of fine tuning observations of which Hoyle's "monkey business" is but one example. ID might, as you suggest, allow for stars that don't work on a razor's edge. But it would collapse if there was not a critical mass of fine tuning examples. That, in fact, is one way it can be falsified. PT's Victor Stenger was, at least at one time, trying to demonstrate that fine tuning was an illusion. If he ever accomplished that, there wouldn't be anything left to argue as evidence for ID.

Ben,

Too complicated for a detailed answer in a blog comment. Also, I hold (apparently) a minority position in the ID world: I identify the designer as God, so I don't know how other IDers would answer you. So you are wrong because God uses science as secondary means. Your question is like asking: why didn't God (or the designer) put us in the center of the universe, since he can do anything, right? Well no, God cannot do anything. There is that pesky Law of noncontradiction. He cannot create a universe with no center and then place us in the center. Likewise he cannot create a physics and chemistry that dictate that complex life be carbon based and in the presence of liquid water, and then have complex life show up in a completely inhospitable place.

rdog29,

The fine tuning is based on, typically, an argument like this: if you change the value of this constant by some small percentage, there is no life. It does not matter if that is the only possible value for that constant or if it is drawn from a distribution of possible values. In the former case the "design" would be in the fundamental law that provides the necessary value. In the latter, it would be in the person (designer) who selected the value. The only way to void the argument is to demonstrate that life really is not dependent on that value. (Or to demonstrate that we are just one of an infinite number of universes.)

Flint,

I knew you were not serious, but I think you still made a point. Often a caricature of ID is presented along the lines that any life would claim fine tuning. But part of ID is that there can't be just any type of life, at least not complex life. Life is constrained by science. And what life seems to require is, in fact, very rare in the universe. Complex life on Venus would also effectively falsify ID. If you disagree, then once again I would suggest that you are equating the truth or falseness of ID with the existence of God, but these are quite separate. Now, would complex life on Venus be a problem for evolution?

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

Flint,

Horsefeathers. Imagine a set of conditions. ANY set of conditions, I don't care, so long as the conditions are stable. That set of conditions will permit certain phenomena; change the conditions and you change the phenomena. We can regard ALL phenomena within any given set of conditions as "working on a razor's edge" since these phenomena are ramifications of the conditions that permit them. Change the conditions, and of course we trade one set of "razor's edge" phenomena for another. Indeed, this is the only flavor of phenomenon possible. How could it be otherwise?

This is just the "all card hands are equally unlikely" argument. It is true, but misses the point. The razor's edge we encounter in stellar evolution is necessary for life to exist. It is true that with different constants, any set whatsoever, there would be other razor's edge phenomena--but they wouldn't be life-enabling razor's edge phenomena.

MartinM · 28 November 2005

The only way to void the argument is to demonstrate that life really is not dependent on that value. (Or to demonstrate that we are just one of an infinite number of universes.)
— David Heddle

Absent a demonstration that life is not dependent on the values in question, how exactly do you propose we differentiate between ID and a multiverse?

H. Humbert · 28 November 2005

But it would collapse if there was not a critical mass of fine tuning examples.

Oh, and what is that critical mass?

H. Humbert · 28 November 2005

But it would collapse if there was not a critical mass of fine tuning examples.

Oh, and what is that critical mass?

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

Martin M,

I don't know of any way to distinguish. Which leads to the question: why can you find discussions of multiverses in the peer-reviewed literature? (Not that I object, I find the topic fascinating---it's just that multiverses are not exactly poster children for falsifiability.)

H Humbert,

Well that would vary from person to person, just like with most theories. For example, not all cosmologists jumped off the steady-state bandwagon at the same time. The same would be true for evolution. If evidence began mounting against it, some would renounce it early, some later, some never.

H. Humbert · 28 November 2005

This is just the "all card hands are equally unlikely" argument. It is true, but misses the point. The razor's edge we encounter in stellar evolution is necessary for life to exist. It is true that with different constants, any set whatsoever, there would be other razor's edge phenomena---but they wouldn't be life-enabling razor's edge phenomena.

Explain why "necessary for life" should be our criteria for detecting design and not any of the other razor's edge phenomena you freely admit would exist in its place. It seems as if "necessary for life" has been chosen randomly in this regard.

Flint · 28 November 2005

Heddle:

Often a caricature of ID is presented along the lines that any life would claim fine tuning.

How is this a caricature? Any life would BE fine-tuned. Evolution is a tuning process. The joke is on those who ring in magic when they clearly don't need to.

But part of ID is that there can't be just any type of life, at least not complex life.

I don't understand this. We have a sample of one (1) universe. We know it contains complex life. Does ID say we don't exist?

Life is constrained by science.

Huh? Science is the process of explaining the natural universe. Life surely has constraints; science finds these. It doesn't cause them in any way.

And what life seems to require is, in fact, very rare in the universe.

If you mean, the kind of life we are, then I'd agree. Most of the universe is nearly a vacuum, in which we can't survive. Is there life of a sort inside the sun (for example)? If we're willing to stretch our concept of life a little bit, this seems more than likely. And perhaps that sort of life is ubiquitous.

Complex life on Venus would also effectively falsify ID.

I don't see why. Surely if the Designer were intelligent enough, He could cobble together something living that could thrive on Venus. Why not? Is the Designer's imagination so limited?

If you disagree, then once again I would suggest that you are equating the truth or falseness of ID with the existence of God, but these are quite separate.

I don't understand this, then. If there's life on Venus, wouldn't this be prima facie indicaton of an even MORE intelligent designer? How can yet another design falsify the claim of design itself?

Now, would complex life on Venus be a problem for evolution?

Not necessarily. Why would it? I think the mistake you are making is in limiting your notion of life, to your own. But if we generalize our notion of life to "anything that changes over time through the reproductive natural selection of variation", that is, anything that evolves as evolution applies to life as we do know it, then this permits a very broad range of possibilities. I personally have no problem with the idea that life forms, perhaps highly complex, inhabit the sun. They have abundant energy available to them. Perhaps they take the form of modulations in magnetic fields that have evolved the ability to manipulate those fields to their advantage (survival). Why not? One thing we can be pretty sure of: if any process can replicate, it WILL replicate until limited by some feedback mechanism. Once any life starts, it spreads explosively. When free space runs out, more expensive space (that occupied by others) provides the need for selection. Individual variation provides grist. The process evolves. There is, of course, some question as to whether such a life form could possibly notice that ours even exists, and vice versa.

W. Kevin Vicklund · 28 November 2005

No the challenge was for nothing more than something (actually it was posed as ONE thing) ID explains that evolution does not. I provided one thing.

Unfortunately for you, as I attempted to demonstrate earlier but was blacklisted because of being on a DHCP server, you have done no such thing. I posted it over at the equivalent After the Bar Closes thread in hopes someone would repost it for me, but so far no-one has, so I will repost it in a few minutes, now that I am on a different computer.

MartinM · 28 November 2005

Which leads to the question: why can you find discussions of multiverses in the peer-reviewed literature?
— David Heddle

Because they're natural extensions of the observable Universe. Assuming that GR remains a good description of reality on large scales, then a flat or open Universe with trivial topology leads automatically to an infinite number of causally disconnected patches, of which our observable Universe is one. Non-trivial topology will make the number of 'Universes' finite, but will also leave its mark on the CMB, allowing us to place a lower limit on the size of the 'multiverse'. A closed Universe also leads to a manifold covered by some number of causally disconnected patches. In short, our data about the observable Universe allow us to make reasonable inferences about the size of the Universe beyond our particle horizon.

Flint · 28 November 2005

H. Humbert:

Explain why "necessary for life" should be our criteria for detecting design and not any of the other razor's edge phenomena you freely admit would exist in its place. It seems as if "necessary for life" has been chosen randomly in this regard.

Yes, and more. Heddle is assuming that even though life as he knows it exists, that it's unlikely. On what basis, given a sample of one? And that life as he knows it is the only kind of "life" that can possibly exist, or matter somehow. Why? Basically, I think Heddle is saying that while all card hands are equally likely, WINNING hands are as rare as is established by whatever set of rules of the game have been set up. And Heddle has taken it upon himself to set up the rules of the game, AFTER the cards have been dealt, and "discovers" that he holds not only a winning hand, but one that's vanishingly unlikely. Imagine that! People have been telling Heddle for a long time that for his conclusion to be supported, he needs to create the rules BEFORE the cards are dealt. He hasn't grasped this concept yet.

W. Kevin Vicklund · 28 November 2005

I attempted to post this earlier, but was blocked. It shows how evolution can provide explanations for both points Heddle brings up. Not only that, it contains several predictions about what we might find, some made more explicit than others.

Evolution can explain how either (a) our eyes are most sensitive to the peak of our sun's spectrum or (b) how our eyes are sensitive to a narrow range of radiation to which the atmosphere is transparent. But evolution cannot explain the happy fact that we don't have to choose (a) OR (b), the two parts of the spectrum being one and the same. Design, of course, explains it trivially.
— Heddle

The problem here is that Heddle posits the wrong question for point a). Point b) is trivial for evolution of the eye - the eye has evolved to view radiation that is abundant and has wavelengths amenable to cellular construction (the second part explains in part why we see in the 100's of nanometers {visible light} as opposed to radio frequencies, which require a longer "antenna length", or x-rays, which damage cell structures). Evolution would favor the peak energy frequencies permitted by the atmosphere, even if those frequencies were not the peak range output by the sun. However, evolution also can account for (the proper phrasing of) point a), which is "Why is the atmosphere transparent at the peak frequency output of the sun?" Sound-byte answer: It's the energy, stupid. Life that relies primarily on energy delivered by the sun will prefer atmospheric conditions that maximize the usable energy (see wavelength amenable to cellular life argument above) delivered by the sun. And since life affects the composition of the atmosphere, differential reproduction favors a balance that keeps the atmosphere transparent to the peak radiation band. It also explains in part why the atmosphere is opaque to harmful radiation. Note: this doesn't prevent life from living (sorry, poor choice of words there, but I'm hitting writer's block) in opaque atmospheres, provided sufficient energy does make it to the surface to support minimal life. It does mean that we should expect to see transparent atmospheres on planets where evolution has had time to significantly alter the atmosphere. Disclaimer: This is written from an educated layman's perspective. It is not intended to be a rigorous discussion of evolutionary or electromagnetic theory, and there are many places where I likely could have used better phrasing. This is, at it's heart, speculative, based on my understanding of evolutionary and elctromagnatic theory.

JS · 28 November 2005

What amazes me most is the fact that the IDists have had the sheer gall to even suggest that funding be cut for the KU. Says something or another about their - ah - questionable relationship with reality.

On this side of the Pond, they would have been absolutely crucified for making a suggestion that even smelled like it had once known an idea that had the slightest resemblance to cutting the funding for a university because they didn't like the classes it teaches. That simply is not done.

I think* so, at any rate. Nobody has had the guts (or the stupidity) to do it yet.

*That's pronounced hope

If this ever makes GoogleNews these people are going to be either the biggest laughing stock or the worst wake-up-call for the rest of the world. Why does this remind me of the phrase 'a third-world country with nukes'?

- JS

ben · 28 November 2005

The only way to void the argument is to demonstrate that life really is not dependent on that value. (Or to demonstrate that we are just one of an infinite number of universes.)

Or to put it another way, (like biological ID) your "cosmological ID" theory can account for any and everything you want it to, all of which lies outside (or is undetectable by and irrelevant to) science. It explains nothing about how, when, or where anything happened, or what will happen in the future, just that, gee whiz, it's all so amazing and "unlikely" that god must have done it. So why, other than to be a pedantic and annoying prosyletizer, are you on a science blog compulsively flogging your mythology? You've discovered the anthropomorphic principle and want us--need us--to accept that it proves your god. Just like biological ID, you amaze yourself with a set of facts, decide that god is the only possible explanation, and without actually explaining anything in that is useful in any scientific way, assert that something has been explained? Maybe there are some things that science cannot explain. So what? Science is about explaining what can be explained, not convincing others to buy into metaphysical explanations for things that have not been explained yet. Thousands of years of human thought have shown that accepting superstitious BS like yours as an "explanation" only impedes the progress of science, and history offers us only examples of science conclusively showing metaphysical explanations to be incorrect, and never the other way around--because "god did it" doesn't explain ANYTHING. When will you realize we're just not interested in your god?

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

H Humbert (and flint),

Explain why "necessary for life" should be our criteria for detecting design and not any of the other razor's edge phenomena you freely admit would exist in its place. It seems as if "necessary for life" has been chosen randomly in this regard.

Yes, color me chauvinistic but I think "necessary for life" is the ultimate razor's edge criterion. A universe fine tuned for life seems qualitatively different than, say, a universe fine-tune for short-lived stars or a universe fine-tuned so that boron is the most abundant element (or whatever razor's edge phenomena arise from changing the constants.) MartinM, No, certain inflationary models make untestable predictions about multiverses. (Actually, it can be said they are compatible with multiverses) Even if these theories are consistent with all data for the observable universe (and they are very good), untestable predictions are traditionally outside the realm of science. The fact that the flatness and accelerated expansion of the universe are explained by these models does not mean that their predictions of multiverses are given a get-out-of-jail-free card. W. Kevin Vicklund I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying life was possible on earth because, fortuitously, the atmosphere was transparent. Then, as life evolved, our eyes naturally evolved in such a way as to be sensitive to yellow? This argument I can understand. But I am not sure if that is what you are saying.

H. Humbert · 28 November 2005

Yes, color me chauvinistic but I think "necessary for life" is the ultimate razor's edge criterion. A universe fine tuned for life seems qualitatively different than, say, a universe fine-tune for short-lived stars or a universe fine-tuned so that boron is the most abundant element (or whatever razor's edge phenomena arise from changing the constants.)

You wouldn't think that if you were boron. I agree with Flint. You are trying to set up the rules of the game after the cards have been dealt, but you honestly have no way of knowing what they are. Perhaps the designer is inordinately pleased by neutrinos and so created a Universe that produces them in abundance, with the irrelevant side-effect being that life is produced. That's why these "fine tuning" arguments go nowhere. You have to pretend to know what the Universe is fine-tuned for.

MartinM · 28 November 2005

No, certain inflationary models make untestable predictions about multiverses. (Actually, it can be said they are compatible with multiverses) Even if these theories are consistent with all data for the observable universe (and they are very good), untestable predictions are traditionally outside the realm of science. The fact that the flatness and accelerated expansion of the universe are explained by these models does not mean that their predictions of multiverses are given a get-out-of-jail-free card.
— David Heddle

Clearly you didn't get the point I made. Under no cosmological model does our Universe simply stop at our particle horizon. The simplest models are those with trivial topology - that is, those in which the manifold is simply connected. In such models, a Universe at or below critical density is infinite in spatial extent, and so at any finite cosmological time is covered by an infinite number of causally disconnected patches. Welcome to the multiverse; no inflation required, just basic GR. (One can introduce non-trivial topology, of course, but CMB observations can place lower limits on the size of such a Universe.)

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

H Humbert,

You are correct, I would be very unhappy if I were naught but elemental boron. You may declare victory.

MartinB,

And are these causally disconnected universes detectable? Even in principle? Without violating GR?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 November 2005

Design, of course, explains it trivially.

Show me how. What, trivially, did the designer do, specifically. What mechanisms, trivially, did it use to do whatveer you trivially think it did. Where, trivially, can we see it using such a mechanism to do . . . well . .. anything, trivial or not. Or is "POOF!! Goddidit!!" the extent of your, uh, "theory of ID" . . ? And are IDers like Behe and Minnich just lying to us, under oath, when they say it's not?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 November 2005

The fine tuning of carbon and oxygen production in stars does not make or break ID.

Indeed, **NOTHING*** can make or break ID. Nothing at all whatsoever. Mostly because ID doesn't, uh, actually SAY anything. Just like you, Heddle. (shrug)

steve s · 28 November 2005

Lenny, how did you miss the inarguably true, revolutionary, Theory of ID? It says the following: Because if some given number was different by an unknown amount, and everything else was the same, life wouldn't exist, something something, God exists! How'd you miss that Lenny? It's irrefutable.

H. Humbert · 28 November 2005

H Humbert, You are correct, I would be very unhappy if I were naught but elemental boron.

Actually, if you were naught but elemental boron, it is doubtful you would feel any human emotions at all. What you mean is that contemplating your own non-existence makes you very unhappy now. Perhaps so unhappy and uncomfortable it leads you to conclude that things could never have turned out different, that you were always destined to appear. [shrug] You may find such psychological soothing arguments pursuasive, but I see no use in cultivating such naked bias. It can only cloud one's thinking and obscure the truth.

You may declare victory.

Over what? It seems while you are capable of acknowledging how your fears directly inform your beliefs, you have no intention of trying to overcome your fears or modify your beliefs. I would settle for an admission that ID (of any type) isn't science.

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

H Humbert,

That's easy. Cosmological ID is not science, in my opinion. You might scroll up to where I said it doesn't make any predictions. (I don't count vague things like we will never detect another universe) As for biological ID, I have no opinion.

MartinM · 28 November 2005

And are these causally disconnected universes detectable? Even in principle? Without violating GR?
— David Heddle

The proposition that the Universe is infinite in spatial extent is falsifiable, which is good enough for me.

W. Kevin Vicklund · 28 November 2005

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying life was possible on earth because, fortuitously, the atmosphere was transparent. Then, as life evolved, our eyes naturally evolved in such a way as to be sensitive to yellow? This argument I can understand. But I am not sure if that is what you are saying.
— Heddle

No. That is you projecting your argument onto mine. First, a side path into some corrections on spectrum and sensitivity. The peak radiation output of the sun is between 480-500 nm, which is actually more of a teal - somewhere between blue and green. The peak color sensitivity (this is the three types of cones) of the average human eye is at 450 nm, or blue. Other color peaks are at 540 nm (green) and 580 nm (red). Local minimums in color sensitivity occur at 590 nm (teal) and to a lesser extent at 570 nm (yellow). The peak spectral sensitivity (rods) corresponds to 550 nm, or green yellow, though this is only used for low-light conditions so is perceived as black and white. So you see, the peak output of the sun, which is a teal, actually occurs at a local minimum for human vision, and yellow also is a local minimum. So your Privileged Planet argument is already loosing some of its privileges. On to the substantive points. My speculation is that as long as the sun (used here to mean local star) can deliver energy to the surface, life is possible. Furthermore, said life will, via evolution, tend to alter the atmosphere to a)be transparent to useful and abundant radiation, b)be opaque to harmful radiation, and c)be neutral toward unusable or unavailable radiation. Also note that the harmful radiation is in general blocked by atoms and ions in the atmosphere for the same reason that they are harmful - the wavelength is short enough to interact with individual atoms, plus is quite energetic. So, let's assume that to support life, we need a thick enough atmosphere to block most of the high-energy radiation and a sun that has a peak radiation frequency that is lower frequency than high-energy radiation. So, we need a sun that has a peak radiation wavelength of longer than 380 nm (very-violet), which corresponds to about 7500 K. Looking at our main sequence stars, any star that is cooler than 7500 K will do - which means more than half of the main sequence stars are eligible! Even with a cut-off at 3000 K (1000 nm, infrared) any F thru K star will suffice. At this point your objecting, because if the light doesn't get through, there can't be photosynthesis. My response is that photosynthesis is not the only way to get energy from the sun - temperature gradients and other heat driven chemical synthesis can support metabolism. Chemoautotrophes precede photoautotrophes in my speculation, as indeed ToE suggests happened here on Earth. The chemotrophes will change the composition of the atmosphere due to scrubbing certain compounds to fuel metabolism and by adding the waste products of said metabolism. If an organism stumbles on a metabolic pathway that reduces the opacity to type A light(see previous paragraph), more energy will reach the surface, increasing the odds of reproductive success. And so the feedback cycle builds, until life has evolved to the point where the atmosphere is transparent to as much type A light as is feasible. And sometime during or after this change to a transparent atmosphere, two things happen. An organism begins directly converting the now abundant light via a metabolic pathway we call photosynthesis. And an organism gains a sensory organ (or organelle) that can detect this light. Sorry, it took me quite a while to pull all this together.

H. Humbert · 28 November 2005

That's easy. Cosmological ID is not science, in my opinion.

Oh, good. I must have gotten confused on that point when you were comparing cosmological ID to other scientific theories, like evolution. By the way, what would you classify Cosmological ID as then?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 November 2005

It should be obvious that regardless of whether or not ID is science, it is possible to attack it from the basis of anti-religious bigotry.

It should be equally obvious that it's kind of silly to attack anti-IDers as "anti-religious bigotry" when IDers fall all over themselves (including in court) to tell us that ID ****is not religion****. If you can think of some way in which attacking something that ****is not religion**** is "anti-religious bigotry", I'd be very interested in hearing that. How, exactly, can one be "anti-religious" about something that all its supporters declare ****is not religion****? Unless, of course, all those IDers who declare (and testified in court) that ID ****is not religion**** were . . . well . . . just lying to us when they declare that . . . . ?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 November 2005

Cosmological ID is not science, in my opinion.

Then why should science give a flying fig about it. And why are you wasting everyone's time here preaching about it. In your opinion. Speaking of which, why, again, are your religious opinions any better than anyone else's? Other than, well, your opinion?

W. Kevin Vicklund · 28 November 2005

A clarification. High energy radiation (cosmic, gamma, X-, and UV rays) are blocked by ions and atoms in the atmosphere. Less energetic radiation (very-violet {the UV that causes sunburns}, visible, infrared, and microwave) are blocked by molecules. Change the composition of the molecules in the atmosphere, and you will change the opacity at the corresponding wavelengths.

Jason · 28 November 2005

WOW! I love that thread with Demski in there! Man, he was getting totally schooled. My favorite post is:

Dembski has just required omniscience on the part of scientists if they are to convince him that something like the immune system evolved. Plain-old hypothesis testing, successfully employed in the case of evolutionary immunology as even Peonie and Gene probably acknowledge and as documented to anyone who follows the references I have posted, has been left by the wayside. Dembski of course does not apply his own standards to himself, evidently he thinks that: no immune system --ID--> immune system ....

Just read the rest. It's so simple yet it totally flattens the way too self-important Demski.

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

Actually the range of the peak wavelength is a bit higher (up to say 520nm--I can provide references if you want). But that is a minor point. You data are more accurate than my statement that the sun peaks in yellow. However the data are not accurate enough to say that the peak of the sun's emission falls in a valley of our eye's sensitivity. But that is a minor point. I am still trying to understand your argument. My speculation is that as long as the sun (used here to mean local star) can deliver energy to the surface, life is possible I take it you mean a necessary but not sufficient condition. I agree.

life will, via evolution, tend to alter the atmosphere to a)be transparent to useful and abundant radiation
This I don't get, It would help if you answered this question: was there life on earth before our atmosphere was transparent to visible light? (it must have been transparent to some non-optimal frequencies for life to get started by your first premise.) Do you have references for this theory? And by what mechanism did evolution alter the atmosphere? If some organisms, through the gases they produced, shifted the transparent range in one direction and other organisms shifted it in another direction, how was one selected over the other? (Given that there is no a priori reason why the shift they caused would, in fact, be beneficial.)

k.e. · 28 November 2005

Gee heddy babe

How is the seduction of THE TRUTH going ?

Your squirming a bit there aren't yah ?

Are you starting to feel the heat

But no matter what you are able to turn around and justify to YOURSELF

what is obvious to EVERYONE else except the INNOCENT.

Wow Hedy old boy -----what sort of person would use those techniques ?

AND on CHILDREN no less.

I knew there were people like you but I didn't realize it was THAT BAD.

hear that rumbling Hedy, you and your boys started it yes......

That rumbling is the all the dead Galileo's who WANT THE TRUTH BACK.

"God forgives those that forgives themselves"

obscurantism
n. prevention of enlightenment. obscurantic, a. obscurantist, n.

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_51_100/obscurantism.htm

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/obscurantism.htm

You know Shakespeare WHAT would have said today ? He would have said not just death to all Lawyers but

DEATH TO ALL SOLIPSISTIC LAWYERS, POSTMODERNISTS, AND OTHER SOLIPSISTIC OBSCURANTIST'S.

But in his day he wouldn't have had to say that, he would just say "death to all Lawyers" the meaning in those days was obvious.

Steviepinhead · 28 November 2005

Well, I think we can give the plaintiffs' lawyer in Dover a pass.

PvM · 28 November 2005

That's true, but the question asked for a case where it offers a better explanation.
— Heddle

How does ID offer a 'better' explanation. I'd say ID offers no explanation at all.

I don't know of any way to distinguish. Which leads to the question: why can you find discussions of multiverses in the peer-reviewed literature? (Not that I object, I find the topic fascinating---it's just that multiverses are not exactly poster children for falsifiability.)

They are at least potentially falsifiable. Unlike ID. You have yet to address the logical argument that a correlation between A and B may very well be explained best by a third variable? In your example, that life arose may very well have been dependent on the coincidence of max solar radiation in the visible range and the earth atmosphere being mostly transparent in these frequencies. In other word, no big deal.

k.e. · 28 November 2005

Steviepinhead

whew I'm Glad I qualified that before posting.

yeah "thank god for the devil"

I've only just seen the sheer evilness of the whole DI/ID plan

I wondered why I was so Mad at them

More evil than "BRAVE NEW WORLD" or "1984"
....and the scale of it.... shudder.

frank schmidt · 28 November 2005

Heddle shows (again) that he doesn't know biology:

Evolution can explain how either (a) our eyes are most sensitive to the peak of our sun's spectrum or (b) how our eyes are sensitive to a narrow range of radiation to which the atmosphere is transparent. But evolution cannot explain the happy fact that we don't have to choose (a) OR (b), the two parts of the spectrum being one and the same. Design, of course, explains it trivially.

So, um, how come birds can see in the UV? Bees, too. Ah, yes, they were designed to do so, but our species is superior to theirs. Sheesh.

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

W. Kevin Vicklund, Actually, the upper limit to the range of the sun's peak wavelength is more like 520 nm. (I can provide references) But that is a minor point. (However, the data are not precise enough to claim that the sun's peak falls in a valley of the eye's sensitivity---and in any case that has nothing to do with the privileged planet argument.) As for your more substantive points, I am trying to understand. Let me just make it through the first two before moving on. 1. Life requires a substantial amount of radiation to make it to the surface. This I agree with. So what you are saying, if I understand, is that before life began on earth, the atmosphere was already transparent to some range of the spectrum---but not the visible range. (It had to be close since that it where the peak occurs.) Point 2:

life will, via evolution, tend to alter the atmosphere to a)be transparent to useful and abundant radiation, b)be opaque to harmful radiation, and c)be neutral toward unusable or unavailable radiation.

So evolution caused the atmosphere to be transparent in the visible, to block out harmful wavelengths, etc? Do you have references for this?

David Heddle · 28 November 2005

PvM,

How are multiverses falsifiable?

If you say that life arose because of the coincidence between the sun's spectrum and the atmosphere's transparency, then you are making a privileged planet argument.

Henry J · 28 November 2005

Re "Life that relies primarily on energy delivered by the sun will prefer atmospheric conditions that maximize the usable energy [...]"

While I agree said life would prefer an atmosphere that's transparent to the needed energy, I don't think evolution would optimize it. If species that mess it up happen to be highly successful it could easily go the other way. (Consider if the atmosphere was without oxygen but successful species started pumping O2 into the atmosphere - they could easily poison themselves into a mass extinction that way.)

Re "That's why these "fine tuning" arguments go nowhere. You have to pretend to know what the Universe is fine-tuned for."

Beetles, apparently. :)

(No, not the musicians or the car.)

Henry

PvM · 28 November 2005

How are multiverses falsifiable?

I said in principle. See Tegmark

If you say that life arose because of the coincidence between the sun's spectrum and the atmosphere's transparency, then you are making a privileged planet argument.

Not really PP is about the coincidence between habitability and measurability. What I am saying is that the same circumstance which was conducive to life may also explain the coincindence. Privileged Planet goes way beyond this and seems to infer that this correlation is somehow relevant to ID.

W. Kevin Vicklund · 28 November 2005

My response was not intended to be historical (eg, that this is what actually happened on this planet). Rather, it addresses the general question of whether life could, in principle, arise on a planet that originally had an atmosphere opaque to the peak spectral range of the local star. It is entirely possible that our orignal atmosphere was more or less transparent at the relevant frequencies - I don't know either way.

In essence, I see the point you are attempting to make to revolve on two essential issues. A) Did evolution cause the transparency of the Earth's atmosphere, or was it just a fortunate circumstance? B) If a fortunate circumstance, was it required for life, or merely favorable for life?

I would argue that, in all likelyhood, it was a merely favorable circumstance (perhaps with a dose of evolution at certain wavelengths). But since you posed the question as how evolution would address transparency, I gave a response that considered how transparency could arise via evolution.

W. Kevin Vicklund · 28 November 2005

Henry J, please note that I added a qualifier to account for this. "And so the feedback cycle builds, until life has evolved to the point where the atmosphere is transparent to as much type A light as is feasible." As with most systems, optimization in evolution is at best a local phenomenon.

Henry J · 29 November 2005

W. Kevin Vicklund,
Re "As with most systems, optimization in evolution is at best a local phenomenon."

Ah, but the atmosphere isn't local. If there were barriers that could localize changes to the atmosphere then evolution might have a way to optimize its composition. As it is though, I seriously doubt that atmosphere-improving traits would give their owners any advantage over those of their species that lack those traits.

Henry

W. Kevin Vicklund · 30 November 2005

Henry, my local was meant in terms of fitness functions (landscapes), not necessarily physical location. Certainly, the selection pressure from atmospheric effects is generally small compared to other pressures, such as motility. But in an energy-scarce environment, increasing the total amount of available energy is beneficial to all life-forms in the environment, so symbiotic relationships may increase the positive pressure. I do agree that it would require it to fix in a substantial population to se much actual benefit. But once it does fix, it can rapidly see benefits.

vandalhooch · 30 November 2005

W. Kevin Vicklund

In response to your earlier musings on life evolving without an opaque atmosphere . . . You might want to familiarize yourself with the ecology of deep sea vents and other ecosystems that utilize energy contained within inorganic compounds alone. No input from light. The question of which came first, photosynthetic life or chemosynthetic life seems to be leaning towards the latter. But this is by no means conclusive.

I can't wait to bore through the ice sheets of the Galilean moons to search for an independent experiment in chemosynthetic life origins.

Vandalhooch

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 December 2005

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/13303968.htm Posted on Thu, Dec. 01, 2005 KU cancels intelligent design class By DAVID KLEPPER The Kansas City Star The University of Kansas withdrew its controversial religious studies course on intelligent design today. University officials pulled the course from next springÂ’s offerings at the request of Paul Mirecki, head of the universityÂ’s Religious Studies Department. Morecki, who proposed the course and was to teach it, came under fire when e-mails he had sent came under public review. In one e-mail, he said the course would irritate conservative Christians. Â“The fundies (fundamentalist Christians) want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category Â‘mythology,Â’Â” Mirecki wrote. Intelligent design is the belief that nature shows evidence of a creator. Proponents were a driving force behind the Kansas Board of EducationÂ’s recent decision to insert significant criticism of evolution into the stateÂ’s science curriculum standards. Over the objections of conservatives, KU officials said it was appropriate that intelligent design and creationism be analyzed in a religious studies class. The course, entitled Â“Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design and Creationism,Â” sparked criticism as soon as it was announced last week. The class was to be taught as an elective to upper level undergraduates and graduate students next spring. Already, 25 students had signed up for the course. Conservative lawmakers demanded hearings into how the course was created and how it would be taught, and reacted with outrage after MireckiÂ’s e-mails came to light. In e-mails posted to the KU Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics, Mirecki, who was the groupÂ’s faculty adviser, criticized fundamentalists and made sarcastic comments about conservative Jews and Catholics. KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway strongly condemned the e-mails, calling MireckiÂ’s words Â“repugnant and vile.Â” In a written statement released by the university, Mirecki cited the controversy as reason to cancel the class. He also apologized for the e-mails. Â“Students with a serious interest in this important subject matter would not be well served by the learning environment my e-mails and the public distribution of them have created. It would not be fair to the students,Â” Mirecki wrote. Â“It was not my intent when I wrote the e-mails, but I understand now that these words have offended many on this campus and beyond, and for that I take full responsibility. I made a mistake in not leading by example, in this student organization e-mail forum, the importance of discussing differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful manner.Â” Hemenway said the course still has a place, but thereÂ’s no word when it will be taught or by whom. Â“This unfortunate episode does not in any way diminish our belief that the course should be taught,Â” Hemenway said. Â“It is the role of the university to take on such topics and to provide the civil, academic environment in which they can be honestly examined and discussed.Â”

Sounds like they caved in.

k.e. · 1 December 2005

It should be studied as "Social Objectivism" dressed up as anti 'their definition of god' Identity Politics" in Political Studies.

Juxtaposed against various other Totalitarian Regimes past and present. You don't need much imagination to see where this is going.

The Propaganda techniques are perfect fit, the political machinations perfect fit and the people behind it are perfect fit to "Marlon Brando's Character in "Apocalypse Now".

How is it done ? Check out all the other Totalitarian regimes past and present - control of the group reality.

k.e. · 1 December 2005

Lenny the Irony is almost too delicious ...in fact rapturous. Its the BEST thing that could have happened.

It will never be taught as science unless magic can be part of science >>>> destruction of science = not an option.

They have killed it as a 'valid' religion themselves; plus no religion in it's right mind want's to have ANYTHING to do with it because it's a spirituality free zone.

What does that leave -politics -psychology -philosophy

Sal "Pancho Sanza" will knock that on the head too, what does that leave ? well only one thing Magic Realism "100 years of Solitude"

'Count' Quix-jump_to_a_new_theory will continue collecting skulls and wake up sooner or later or maybe never it doesn't MATTER.

The further delicious Irony is that Sal/Sancho/The Russian* KNOWS they are all crazy but he can never give up the glamor, never.

from the "Heart of Darkness" by Conrad.

Anton Mates · 2 December 2005

Henry, my local was meant in terms of fitness functions (landscapes), not necessarily physical location. Certainly, the selection pressure from atmospheric effects is generally small compared to other pressures, such as motility. But in an energy-scarce environment, increasing the total amount of available energy is beneficial to all life-forms in the environment, so symbiotic relationships may increase the positive pressure.
— W. Kevin Vicklund

I think Henry invoked locality as a potential means of providing differential reproductive success for the atmosphere-altering organisms, which is of course necessary if selection pressure is to exist. A trait whose existence is equally beneficial to all life-forms (or all members of a species), whether they have it or not, will not be favored by selection. I'm curious why, even if the atmosphere's transmission spectrum and the sun's emission spectrum were similar (and I haven't been able to find a good transmission spectrum to compare), this is a "happy fact." Why is it particularly a good thing for the Earth's atmosphere to pass as much sunlight as possible? And if it is, shouldn't we Hoover away the ozone layer so we can bathe in the full glory of Sol? As for ID predicting no intelligent life on Venus...C.S. Lewis would disagree.

Henry J · 2 December 2005

Re "I think Henry invoked locality as a potential means of providing differential reproductive success for the atmosphere-altering organisms, which is of course necessary if selection pressure is to exist."

Yep!

Henry