Anything from angels to organizing principles, I clearly see the scientific value of ID here. And the logical conclusion from Dembski's admissions about front-loading is that natural explanations would be able to explain the origin of such features as the bacterial flagellum. Thus, lacking any further evidence, science would be unable to reach a conclusion of 'intelligent design' as the evidence would be hidden beyond our observations. In other words, Intelligent Design has moved itself further into the realm of scientific vacuity. Not bad for a days work though. Boy do I wish Dembski had testified at the Dover trial. I find it fascinating that Dembski on the one hand seems to be arguing that complex specified information requires a supernatural origin while on the other hand arguing that CSI can in fact be explained by natural law alone. Whether or not a supernatural designer was responsible for the front loading is a question science cannot answer. Which is exactly why Intelligent Design makes for poor science and good apologetics. As such, I start to understand more and more why Dembski has returned to apologetics. Given the recent scientific progress, it may not come as a surprise to see ID proponents retreat to front-loading. It's however quite educational to see what Dembski has written on this topic in the past and how various ID critics have pointed out the problems involved with such arguments: In earlier writings, Dembski wrote:Let's cut to the chase: Is the designer responsible for biological complexity God? Even as a very traditional Christian and an ardent proponent of ID, I would say NOT NECESSARILY. To ask who or what is the designer of a particular object is to ask for the immediate intelligent agent responsible for its design. The point is that God is able to work through derived or surrogate intelligences, which can be anything from angels to organizing principles embedded in nature. For instance, just because I hold to both Christian theism and ID doesn't mean that God directly designed and implemented the bacterial flagellum by specifically toggling its components. It could well have happened by a process of natural genetic engineering of the sort envisioned by James Shapiro. The design would be no less real, but God's role in the design would be distant, not proximal. Philosophers have long distinguished between primary and secondary causes. The problem is that under the pall of methodological naturalism, secondary causes have been identified with purely materialistic processes. But it's perfectly legitimate for secondary causes to include teleological processes. I develop all this at length in THE DESIGN REVOLUTION.
— Dembski
Thus returning to the distinction between apparant and actual CSI, an issue raised by Wesley Elsberry and which Dembski has yet to fully address. Howard van Till exposes the flaws in Dembski's stanceWhen humans, for instance, act as [embodied] intelligent agents, there is no reason to think that any natural law is broken. Likewise, should an unembodied designer act to bring about a bacterial flagellum, there is no reason prima facie to suppose that this designer did not act consistently with natural laws. It is, for instance, a logical possibility that the design in the bacterial flagellum was front-loaded into the universe at the Big Bang and subsequently expressed itself in the course of natural history as a miniature outboard motor on the back of E. coli.
Source: Link And Jack Krebs points out that:Elsewhere in No Free Lunch, however, Dembski makes it abundantly clear that he is no friend of this "front-loading" hypothesis. Dembski's Intelligent Designer is one who interacts with the universe in the course of time. The design action posited to actualize the bacterial flagellum, as we shall see, is an action that occurs long after the Big Bang. Furthermore, since Dembski argues vigorously that the assembling of E. coli's flagellum could not have come about naturally, the question is, How could the Intelligent Designer bring about a naturally impossible outcome by interacting with a bacterium in the course of time without either a suspension or overriding of natural laws?Dembski could argue here that the natural assembling of the first flagellum is not absolutely impossible, only highly improbable. While that might be technically true, the whole of Dembski's argumentation...Natural laws (which entail the probabilities for various outcomes) would have led to the outcome, no flagellum. Instead, a flagellum appeared as the outcome of the Intelligent Designer's action. Is that is not a miracle, what is? How can this be anything other than a supernatural intervention?
Source: Link See also Dembski: The displacement problem and the law of conservation of CSI And although Dembski allows for the possibility of front-loading he also seems to reject it based on various reasons.Dembski also dismisses "front-loading," - the idea that somehow all the information necessary for life was pre-existent at the Big Bang and then mechanically worked itself out at the proper time. He considers this a "logical possibility", but later dismisses it as deistic.
— Krebs
Source: Link And of course an ironic comment:But simply to allow that a designer has imparted information into the natural world is not enough. There are many thinkers who are sympathetic to design but who prefer that all the design in the world be front-loaded. The advantage of putting all the design in the world at, say, the initial moment of the Big Bang is that it minimizes the conflict between design and science as currently practiced. A designer who front-loads the design of the world imparts all the world's information before natural causes become operational and express that information in the course of natural history. In effect, there's no need to think of the world as an informationally open system. Rather, we can still think of it mechanistically--like the outworking of a complicated differential equation, albeit with the initial and boundary conditions designed. The impulse to front-load design is deistic, and I expect any theories about front-loaded design to be just as successful as deism was historically, which always served as an unsatisfactory halfway house between theism (with its informationally open universe) and naturalism (which insists the universe remain informationally closed).
While at the time Dembski wrote this, there was not much evidence that there were informational precursors, science has since then shown in exquisite detail how evolution ties together the Cambrian explosion. In other words, recent research on the Cambrian may help explain why Dembski may be abandoning his earlier stance on front loading but such a move also serves to further undermine the scientific relevance of ID. Valentine, who is quoted by Dembski, now admits that natural selection very well may explain the Cambrian explosion.Take the Cambrian explosion in biology, for instance. David Jablonsky, James Valentine, and even Stephen Jay Gould (when he's not fending off the charge of aiding creationists) admit that the basic metazoan body-plans arose in a remarkably short span of geological time (5 to 10 million years) and for the most part without any evident precursors (there are some annelid tracks as well as evidence of sponges leading up to the Cambrian, but that's about it with regard to metazoans; single-celled organisms abound in the Precambrian). Assuming that the animals fossilized in the Cambrian exhibit design, where did that design come from? To be committed to front-loaded design means that all these body-plans that first appeared in the Cambrian were in fact already built in at the Big Bang (or whenever that information was front-loaded), that the information for these body-plans was expressed in the subsequent history of the universe, and that if we could but uncover enough about the history of life, we would see how the information expressed in the Cambrian fossils merely exploits information that was already in the world prior to the Cambrian period. Now that may be, but there is no evidence for it. All we know is that information needed to build the animals of the Cambrian period was suddenly expressed at that time and with no evident informational precursors.
Of course Dembski's solution to God imparting information into His Creation? Using an infinite wavelength (can anyone tell us what's so obviously wrong with this?)The title of this book, modeled on that of the greatest biological work ever written, is in homage to the greatest biologist who has ever lived. Darwin himself puzzled over but could not cover the ground that is reviewed here, simply because the relevant fossils, genes, and their molecules, end even the body plans of many of the phyla, were quite unknown in his day. Nevertheless, the evidence from these many additional souces of data simply confirm that Darwin was correct in his conclusions that all living things have descended from a commmon anscestor and can be placed within a tree of life, and that the principle process guiding their descent has been natural selection. The data on which this book is based have accumulated over the nearly century and a half since Darwin published On the Origin of Species, some gradually, but much in a rush in the last several decades. I have been working on this book for well over a decade, and much of that time has been spent in trying to keep up with the flood of incredibly interesting findings reported from outcrops and laboratories. I am stopping now not because there is a lull in the pace of new discoveries (which if anything is still picking up), but because there never will be a natural stopping place anyway, and because the outlines of early metazoan history have gradually emerged from mysteries to testable hypotheses. (Valentine On the origin of phyla 2004, preface)
— Valentine
Or as RBH observesHow much energy is required to impart information? We have sensors that can detect quantum events and amplify them to the macroscopic level. What's more, the energy in quantum events is proportional to frequency or inversely proportional to wavelength. And since there is no upper limit to the wavelength of, for instance, electromagnetic radiation, there is no lower limit to the energy required to impart information. In the limit, a designer could therefore impart information into the universe without inputting any energy at all.
His colleague Behe is far more forthcoming as to the nature of the "ID hypothesis"That is, Dembski invokes a zero-energy (and therefore zero channel capacity) infinite wavelength (and therefore unfocusable) communication channel. One also wonders what sort of modulation of a zero-energy infinite-wavelength signal would encode the 'information'.
Source: Link It should be clear by now that the ID argument that God could have front-loaded His Creation saves ID from the embarassment of flawed predictions but also renders it scientifically useless.On November 11, 2002, Larry Arnhart reported on a lecture by Behe at Hillsdale: At Hillsdale, after his public lecture, I challenged Behe in a small-group discussion to give us a positive statement of exactly how the "Intelligent Designer" creates bacterial flagella. As usual, he was evasive. But I didn't let him get away. And finally, he answered: "In a puff of smoke!" A physicist in our group asked, "Do you mean that the Intelligent Designer suspends the laws of physics through working a miracle?" And Behe answered: "Yes.". Original source. The date on this quote has since been confirmed by Larry Arnhart. It occurred in discussion after Behe's talk at Hillsdale College, which was having a series of talks on the "Intelligent Design Debate" [1]
196 Comments
PuckSR · 22 December 2005
Wow....from my previous experience with Dembski and his followers...I was under the impression that they had "disproven" Deism. I cannot believe that he is now supporting front-loading.
What is wrong with this picture? The evolution of a scientific principle should not directly parallel the evolution of theological principles. Maybe next Dembski will suggest that the design itself is "God". (Pantheism)
djlactin · 22 December 2005
Dembski is not just 'moving the goalposts', he's dragging them down into a hole after himself, and burying them in manure.
Norman Doering · 22 December 2005
Wait, hasn't he backed the goal posts right into the area now claimed by the "anthropic principle"?
PaulC · 22 December 2005
The only question I have about Dembski is whether he has always been dishonest or whether he only started backpedaling when it became clear to him that his mathematical arguments were not going to give him the result he wanted.
If you believe that front-loading is sufficient to result in the ultimate development of sentient humans following natural laws (I believe it is sufficient but not necessary) then you're left with the possibility that the right information was front-loaded due to chance.
At this point, even a very small probability won't give you a reasonable conclusion of implausibility unless you also make assumptions about the number of statistical trials involved. Now, the best cosmology may tell us that the universe is a certain size and that the big bang happened exactly once and will be followed by continued expansion. In this case, you might conclude that the probability of a certain event happening anywhere is vanishingly small. Still, this conclusion is made based on what we can observe. Add one very simple (unfalsifiable) hypothesis, such as the existence of other universes with their own big bangs and random initial conditions, or universes that bifurcate as in the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum events, and now the statistical arguments have no power at all: if only one out of a zillion to the zillion universes produce sentient life, these are still the only ones that intelligent life will exist to observe. Thus, there is no great surprise that we live in one.
It's dangerous to bring up the above point, since it distracts from the sound evidence showing that evolution works nothing like a "tornado in a junkyard producing a 747" and in fact proceeds through a series of reasonably probable beneficial mutations. My guess is that a wide class of complex dynamic systems allowed to run long enough would exhibit something like evolution and produce sentient life with probability close to 1. Our universe just happens to be one from this class. So-called "fine-tuning" may be needed to support human-like beings, but other systems could support other forms of sentience. But even if I'm wrong, and what you need to get intelligent life is for reality to be much larger in scale than what we are able to observe, this seems more parsimonious than the idea that it is fundamentally different in kind from what we observe, containing beings of great mysterious power who capriciously violate uniformity.
My conclusion is that Dembski understands the vacuity of his life's work (or of the past decade anyway) and its inability to disprove much of anything despite his most strenuous use of probabilistic formalism.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 December 2005
Hey, if Dembski is gonna go with the "frontloading" thingie, then I wanna ask HIM to show me a frontloaded gene for cobra toxin in a garter snake.
Or a frontloaded gene for chlorophyll in any animal.
Blast made an awful mess of it. Let's see if Isaac can do any better. . .
PaulC · 22 December 2005
k.e. · 22 December 2005
NEWS FLASH Dembski's new book "THE CONFUSED DESIGNER" -life described as a confusion of ideas... designer seen running around without clothes...does not know he is _alive_. Broken eggs trying to be remade into the Holy Trinity, not sure if he will ever wake up ...boo hoo hoo.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 December 2005
RupertG · 23 December 2005
Carol Clouser · 23 December 2005
Setting aside the issue of Dembski's and/or Behe's vascillations and evasions, which in the larger scheme of things is really unimportant, the bottom line is that the designer could have performed the design with no suspension of the laws of nature in one of two ways: Either pushed the design back in time to, say, before the big bang (so called "front loading") or intervened later in a manner that did not require the suspension of the natural order of things. This latter scenario could occur in one of two ways - the designer's making choices where quantum mechanics provides for multiple outcomes with various probabilities or by acting as an agent of nature much as would a person who puts together a car without suspending the laws of nature.
In any event, nothing in this conflicts with science, and is admittedly scientifically useless. But two points need to be emphasized. One, these ideas are NOT based on religion. One could argue that if no religion had ever appeared on earth, and if the notion of God or gods were entirely unheard of, the ID arguments leading to a designer could still be made persuasively. True, the product of these ideas is coicident with a key religious idea, the existence of the designer, but so what? The process of arriving at the designer is different, so ID is NOT religion. Two, the fact that these ideas are not useful to science does not at all imply that they are not useful to humanity in other ways. They may even be powerfully helpful. The mere notion that there may be a purpose, a plan, a goal to our misreable existance may provide much comfort to some. Even that minimal contribution to humanity is valueable.
So here is a platform upon which all folks of good will can agree. So why not cease this mutual ridiculing and nit-picking and instead get together and clear the air.
sir_toejam · 23 December 2005
Registered User · 23 December 2005
Carol
One could argue that if no religion had ever appeared on earth, and if the notion of God or gods were entirely unheard of, the ID arguments leading to a designer could still be made persuasively.
One could argue that the answer is an orange because a vest has no sleeves. It's just as persuasive as your argument, Carol.
You keep mentioning "design" as if a lot of thought went into making 16S rRNA.
Why do deities need to think to create anything, including universes? I didn't know deities were limited that way. Where do you get your information?
I was reading that thread over at Al Altschuler's blog and this woman Deborah Spaeth was talking about "enterocraftic theory" which is an alternate theory to "ID" theory but without all the baggage associated with "purposes" and "plans."
I don't remember if your name came up or not, Carol. You might want to check it out.
Mel · 23 December 2005
Spreading ID all over existence (the Big Bang, quantum mechanical probabilities, and the creation of composite existents) doesn't change a thing. Whether one thinks that god(s) messed around in the Big Bang or is keeping my computer going at this very instant, it's still religion and it's worse that useless to science; it's dangerous to science.
As for religion itself, I think it's
basically preposterous and dangerous junk.
Faith is not a virtue; it's a vice! So,
this person of good will isn't going to
buy into any platform to push religion
into the public schools.
limpidense · 23 December 2005
What? I don't care to look for myself. but is that pompous blowhard Carol at the bottle again! Why does anyone bother to respond to her, since she is not equipped with the facility to understand, well, anything?
Registered User · 23 December 2005
is that pompous blowhard Carol at the bottle again
You should party with her sometime. When she gets a little buzzed, she starts imitating her favorite sound: the cash register. A real hoot.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 December 2005
David Heddle · 23 December 2005
If you buy that God used evolution as a secondary cause, i.e., theistic evolution, it may indeed mean you have abandoned hope to find any proof of ID in the diversity of life question. (I don't that that is Dembski's position--or if it is even close.) However, it does not, I suspect, mean that biological ID is dead. It may be more fruitful for IDers to concentrate on the origins of life question. In seems to me that IF the following turn out to be true:
1) Complex, intelligent life is carbon based and requires liquid water---because of the exceptional advantages of carbon chemistry with water as a solvent
2) Earthlike planets are exceedingly rare
3) The origin of life is rare, even for favorable conditions such as we have on earth
Then, again IF these all are true, there is a fascinating "improbability" problem, worthy of scientific research, very similar to the fine-tuning issue in physics.
It also seems to me that point one is on reasonably solid ground. Point 2 also has some evidentiary support---but is nowhere near a closed question, and Point 3 is completely up in the air.
I think it is great that Harvard is funding origins research.
Steve LaBonne · 23 December 2005
Dembski is not and never has been a serious person- isn't it time for serious people to start paying a lot less attention to him?
KL · 23 December 2005
"Setting aside the issue of Dembski's and/or Behe's vascillations and evasions, which in the larger scheme of things is really unimportant,"
These are NOT unimportant. In the realm of scientific discourse, honesty is EVERYTHING. IF these guys are the "representatives of this idea, they are obligated to be transparent. In the realm of religion, it is also important. Either way, these folks should be dismissed until they OWN up to their deception, and even then, should not be taken seriously until they earn the trust back.
Shirley Knott · 23 December 2005
Mr. Heddle, do you understand the difference between improbable and impossible?
Do you understand that the probability of any specific bridge hand is vanishingly low?
Do you understand that, post occurence, the probability of any occurence is 1?
Arguments from improbability are indistinguishable from arguments from incredulity, and thus may be ruled out on purely logical grounds.
hugs,
Shirley Knott
David Heddle · 23 December 2005
No Shirley, you are wrong. When, in certain circumstances, scientists encounter something that is strangely improbable, they do not dismiss it as nothing more than an equally unlikely draw. It should be so painfully obvious that I don't know how a rational person could make the claim you are making. Virtually all of cosmology and a lot of high energy physics is presently motivated by a scientific search to explain the anthropic coincidences. According to your logic, they should all move on to something else since, after all, the post-probability that we are here is 1, ergo the problem, according to Shirley Knott, has been forever declared uninteresting and solved. You should inform them that they are wasting their time. Start with Lenny Susskind.
All I stated in my post, is that it is possible biology could find itself in the same situation. But maybe not--maybe the origins research will demonstrate how, given the conditions of the early earth, life was not at all improbable. We will just have to wait and see how the science plays out.
Ogee · 23 December 2005
Heddle is right: the argument from incredulity is probably just as applicable to biology as it is to cosmology.
yellow fatty bean · 23 December 2005
Carol Clouser · 23 December 2005
Shirely Knott,
Taking your bridge hand analogy to its logical conclusion, if you were playing with someone who repeatedly keeps getting a highly improbably but very winning hand (I don't know bridge, so whatever that hand is), would you not seriously consider that he/she was cheating and that you ought to take your playing elsewhere? In other words, would you not suspect DESIGN?
If an individual would win the lottery again and again and again, say 100 times in a row, would the authorities not launch a truly serious investigation? Better yet, would that not constitute a prima facia case for criminal charges? Would any sane person doubt DESIGN in this case?
Ed Darrell · 23 December 2005
You know, Dembski hasn't really changed anything. There is the one ringing consistency through all his rants: "To figure out what is going on, you must buy one of my books," he says.
Do you think the seminary is paying him on a commission basis?
Bob O'H · 23 December 2005
noturus · 23 December 2005
Heddle said:
"In seems to me that IF the following turn out to be true:
1) Complex, intelligent life is carbon based and requires liquid water---because of the exceptional advantages of carbon chemistry with water as a solvent
2) Earthlike planets are exceedingly rare
3) The origin of life is rare, even for favorable conditions such as we have on earth
Then, again IF these all are true, there is a fascinating "improbability" problem, worthy of scientific research, very similar to the fine-tuning issue in physics."
We can't tell yet about #s 1 and 3 but all the evidence we do have on #2 is that Earthlike planets are quite probably common. And soon we will be able to tell if #3 is true by checking for the spectrum of free oxygen in the atmosphere of those planets once found. So what you should be asking yourself is: IF #2 is false, and IF #3 is false, will it change your mind one iota? If not you have what is known as an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Ed Darrell · 23 December 2005
David Heddle · 23 December 2005
Ogee · 23 December 2005
steve s · 23 December 2005
Wislu Plethora · 23 December 2005
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 23 December 2005
yellow fatty bean · 23 December 2005
Well, the fraction of space in the universe occupied by earth-like planets is << 1
Does that help?
Tice with a J · 23 December 2005
PaulC · 23 December 2005
steve s · 23 December 2005
PaulC, I have a 9 day vacation starting tomorrow, and have been trying to figure out what to read. So far I'm going to reread the classic Bevington error analysis book, reread the excellent "An Introduction to Information Theory: Symbols, Signals and Noise" by Pierce, and for the first time read the well-regarded book about the NSA "The Puzzle Palace : Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization", but your post has now got me thinking about p-values and Kolmogorov complexity. Got any suggestions on good books in that area?
PaulC · 23 December 2005
Steviepinhead · 23 December 2005
steve s · 23 December 2005
Arden Chatfield · 23 December 2005
Um, yes, as annoying as I find Heddle, k.e. really needs to cut it out, not least because the moderators of this site want it to be fully accessible to public school science students. Using words like that (aside from being rather pointless on a science site) will get PT blocked by obscenity filters.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 23 December 2005
PvM · 23 December 2005
Ok guys, cut it out, my patience is quite limited. k.e. clean up your 'act' or move out.
Arden Chatfield · 23 December 2005
Besides, if you just want to slap Heddle around, back him into a corner with his rather, uh, flexible standards of logic. I did it to him recently and he ran away and stayed away for at least a week. It's more satisfying, it makes a better impression on others, and it doesn't get PT banned from obscenity filters.
David Heddle · 23 December 2005
Ogee · 23 December 2005
Ogee · 23 December 2005
j-Dog · 23 December 2005
Hey, HEDDLE started it with his usual smarmy comments!! Tell HIM to cut it out! Can you please disenvowel him again? Come on... It's Christmas! Nothing says Christmas like a little disenvoweling of Panda's Biggest Glutius Maximus oriface!
Stephen Elliott · 23 December 2005
Andrew McClure · 23 December 2005
PaulC · 23 December 2005
Ogee · 23 December 2005
Moreover, Heddle is being disingenuous when he claims to have simply mentioned it as an interesting gee-whiz-what-if science problem. He pretty clearly suggested it as a viable "improbable, therefore Goddiddit" argument for "biological ID", akin to his similarly fallacious cosmo-ID silliness.
David Heddle · 23 December 2005
k.e. · 23 December 2005
OKOKOKO Arden PvM
Philosophical nonsense I don't think counts as revealed truth.
From the Butterfly collector
himself
"
In response to an American critic who characterized it as the product of a "love affair with the romantic novel," Nabokov writes that "the substitution of 'English language' for 'romantic novel' would make this elegant formula more correct"
"
Is there a word for "language idolatry"
steve s · 23 December 2005
Computability theory sounds interesting. I'm not looking for popular treatments, just maybe something a little milder than an evil yellow Springer book. Maybe there's a good textbook you can point me to?
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 23 December 2005
Ogee · 23 December 2005
David Heddle · 23 December 2005
Bob O'H · 23 December 2005
PaulC -
I'm a bit sceptical of your idea about compressibility, because I can make sequences of the same length that are more compressible by adding randomness. To whit:
I can generate this sequence:
HHTTTTTTTHHHHHHTTTTHHHHTTTTTTTHHHTTHHHHHHTTTTTTTT
by drawing the length of each run from a Poisson distribution (with mean 6 in this case). You can compress it to 2764473268 (plus a rule "alternate HT").
Alternatively, I can draw a sequence like this:
HHHTTTTTTHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHTTHHHHHHTTTTTTT
by allowing the mean to be drawn from a gamma distribution, rather than be constant. This is more compressible (it becomes 36898267), but is, to me, even more random.
I don't know if my argument generalises: I'm a statistician not a computer scientist, so it takes me longer to count up to 10.
Bob
Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠΓ · 23 December 2005
No, we don't have to see the gas giants in transit (though it has happened); the Doppler method only requires that the star have enough velocity about the barycenter to create detectable red/blue shifts. The velocity is inversely proportional to the orbital period (favoring tight orbits) and proportional to the planet's mass. We see the fraction of that velocity along our line of sight, so a planet in an orbital plane face-on to us would not be detectable that way.
Solar systems with big planets in tight orbits aren't conducive to Earth-like rocks in the liquid water zone, but that's what we're able to see at the moment. Other things can only be inferred, like gaps in dust rings (shown by the IR emissions) which points toward a planet clearing a lane.
Registered User · 23 December 2005
Heddleweddle
we have a very interesting puzzle on our hands
I agree David. The statues on Easter Island are interesting too. In 2005, how many professional anthropologists believe that mysterious alien beings created them "somehow" "from scratch"?
Seriously. Your best guess.
There are not very many earthlike planets in the universe, in fact the number "1" cannot be ruled out
Yeah right. What does it mean "earthlike"? Which part of the earth?
Abiogenesis under conditions of the early earth is resisting explanation
What were those conditions, exactly?
Creationists and their lack of imagination are so tiresome.
When David Heddle thinks "life" he thinks "Ned Flanders."
Abiogenesis is likely happening on the earth right now, somewhere.
Perhaps David Heddle would like to tell us you go about detecting that.
You see, before abiogenesis happened the FIRST time, there weren't a billion other organisms on earth competing with the proto-life forms for food, or looking for proto-life forms to eat.
It's a bit different now. Isn't it David?
So how do we go about proving that abiogenesis isn't happening somewhere on earth right now, David? I mean, as we speak? And if is happening and the proto-life forms are being eaten, how would we know.
I think it's just as likely abiogenesis is occuring right under our noses, so to speak, as not. But detecting it is another matter.
What science needs is a clever person to start formulating the possibilities of what the proto-life forms look like and then searching for evidence supporting each of those possibilities in what are perceived to be "likely" places.
Note that I said "scientists." As always, you won't find ID promoters like yourself joining in -- you'd have to actually wash doo-doo off your hands for the first time in, what, twenty years?
sir_toejam · 23 December 2005
Steviepinhead · 23 December 2005
Thanks, Stephen Elliott, and, uh, Merry Whatever, David.
Certainly one can "talk" about time before the Big Bang, and it may yet turn out to be true that under some meta-theory (for which there is as yet no firm evidence) our "universe" may be embedded in some greater and stranger reality.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the current consensus evidence-based Standard Big Bang Model still hold that both time and space came into existence simultaneously? That they are sibling dimensions, connected from birth?
Realizing that most of what follows won't mean much to David...
...but, before we allow Carol to fly off on another of her religion-driven evidence-free flights-of-fancy that a pre-Bang-time designer set the whole thing in motion, doesn't she need to start with where the evidence and scientific consensus is currently at, then tell us how, and under what circumstances of evidence and theory, she proposes to take us along to her imaginary realm where her Designer might have acted, all without, um, disturbing any of the current evidence and best-fit-theory of same?
Otherwise, isn't she just blathering beyond even her usual foaming-at-the-mouth standard, and ought she not--as a self-proclaimed physicist--be called upon to produce the particular engineering with which she proposes to bridge hyperspace, p-branedom, or whatever?
I mean, at least as well as we expect our better sci-fi writers to do?
Simply waving her hands and summoning forth Carol Swift's HyperBrane Kerbobbleator doesn't do much to advance what one would hope would be a reality-based discussion. But maybe I'm just being a grinch...
As for David...nah, it's a time of goodwill to all men, whether possessed of vowels or not, so I'm not going there.
Ogee · 23 December 2005
David Heddle · 23 December 2005
Bob O'H · 23 December 2005
sir_toejam · 23 December 2005
PaulC · 23 December 2005
David Heddle · 23 December 2005
Bob O'H
By earthlike I mean they are rocky planets that can, among other things, support liquid water. There are other aspects of earth that may be crucial for complex, intelligent life--such as a thin transparent atmosphere and perhaps even a magnetic field.
sir_toejam,
I have no idea why it is relevant. I am not a spokesman for the DI. I am delighted with the Harvard initiative. Why is it relevant to my post who is being funded, as long as they are doing good science? So by all means explain what seems to be obvious to you.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 23 December 2005
David Heddle · 23 December 2005
Aureola,
If you think language such as "much less than" has no place in scientific discussions, you would flip out at your everyday garden vareity physics seminar. People say things like "a is much less than b" all the time, without being hammered for being imprecise.
Steviepinhead · 23 December 2005
And if Aureola can call David on his rhetorical flourishes--perfectly fair, when we're in real-science discussion mode--then I'm certainly going to call Carol on hers.
And, in that real-science mode, David, I'm unable to discern any rigorous content whatsoever in the phrase "a transcendent God who is outside of time."
Despite which, Davey, I still wish you an entirely non-ironic Merry Christmas! May your joy over the holidays be exceeding non-rare, in space and in time.
(Santa, bring that crusty old dude a few vowels!)
PvM · 23 December 2005
So Heddle is back with his argument from ignorance. Nice...
David Heddle · 23 December 2005
Sigh.
Merry Christmas to all.
CYA in January.
Ogee · 23 December 2005
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 23 December 2005
Mr. Heddle:
I'm sure of it. I'm sure that people constantly make an imprecise use of words.
I'm also pretty sure that that happens because when talking about things that nobody seriously challenges the need for rigorous language is not as strong.
But you barge in here, trying to derive highly disputable logical consequences from vague remarks lacking any rigour, and expect not to be called on them?
How... naive.
Stephen Elliott · 23 December 2005
Alienward · 23 December 2005
Ogee · 23 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 23 December 2005
Mr./Dr, Heddle.
If complex/inteligent life, has to be carbon based.
Does that require God to be Carbon based?
If not, then why?
Registered User · 23 December 2005
Heddle
Go find it, document it, and wait in Sweden to receive your Nobel Prize.
Hahahhaa. Sorry Dave. I earn enough now that I could go out and buy one of those medallions for myself if I wanted to. And I'm not really interested in notoriety of any sort.
Unlike, uh, you.
PvM · 23 December 2005
IS Heddle letting his ignorance conclude that life has to be carbon based?
If the argument is that God front loaded the universe then one would find sufficient planets to sustain life for life to arise at least somewhere, lest the whole experiment would be a great disaster.
In other words,if one were to argue front loading one also cannot argue that life in the universe is implausible.
Then of course we are back to interventions but that reduces ID to the same flawed arguments as found in biology.Either way, as I see it, Heddle seems to have a problem.
PvM · 23 December 2005
IS Heddle letting his ignorance conclude that life has to be carbon based?
If the argument is that God front loaded the universe then one would find sufficient planets to sustain life for life to arise at least somewhere, lest the whole experiment would be a great disaster.
In other words,if one were to argue front loading one also cannot argue that life in the universe is implausible.
Then of course we are back to interventions but that reduces ID to the same flawed arguments as found in biology.Either way, as I see it, Heddle seems to have a problem.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 December 2005
Hey Heddle; do you, or do you not, think that your religious opinioins should be considered as "scientific evidence"?
And why, again, should anyone think that your religious opinions are any more authoritative than, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car mechanic's or the kid who delivers my pizzas?
Maybe your pal Carol can help you answer. (You might want to ask her what she thinks about the authority of the New Testament first, though).
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 December 2005
Another question for you, Heddle. Since you agree that ID is not science, I'm assuming that you don't have any problem with Judge Jones' decision. Right?
Ubernatural · 23 December 2005
Lenny's Pizza Guy · 23 December 2005
Yeah, just thinking about 100 million planets--where they don't have pizza yet!--is almost enough to make me want to move up into pizza management or marketing...
Well, as soon as you science types come up with the workaround for that whole speed-O'-light deal.
Steve S · 23 December 2005
Registered User · 24 December 2005
Steve S. -- right on and funny as hell.
Robert Landbeck · 24 December 2005
A real monkey wrench is about to hit all sides in the ID vs Evolution debate. There is a wholly new interpretation of the teachings of Christ, the first for two thousand years and contained within the first ever religious claim and proof that meets all the criteria of the most rigorous, testable scientific method, published and circulating on the web. It is titled The Final Freedoms. So while proponents of ID may have got the God question right, all their religious teachings are wholly in error, and the proponents of evolution who have rightly used that conception to beat down the credibility of religious tradition, but who have also used it to deny the potential for God, are in for a very rude shock.
It is described as a single Law or Torah and moral proof, one in which the reality of God confirms and responds to an act of perfect faith, with a direct intervention into the natural world, providing a correction to human nature [natural law], a change in consciousness and human ethical perception, providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition.
The goal posts of history may have been moved?
However improbable, this is no joke, no hoax and not spam!
Check this link: www.energon.uklinux.net
Carol Clouser · 24 December 2005
Steviepinhead,
I am sorely tempted not to respond to your foul-mouthed arrogant posts and thereby leave you in your ignorance of basic cosmological physics. But for the benefit of others here some points need to refreshed.
First let me point out that in talking about "front loading" to "before the big bang" I was not really intending to get into the nature of time at all, just that the universe was programmed by design right from the get-go, for whatever - we don't yet know exactly for what, although we like to think of our "advanced" lives as at least one of the main purposes. But that may yet turn out to be mere wishful thinking.
Talk about physical models, such as the standard model, with time appearing together with space and other dimensions, refers to "quantifiable and measureable time", that is time with concomitant physical consequences that can be quantified and measured. That does not mean that the words "before the big bang" cannot be uttered. It just means that you cannot distinguish between, say, one hour and two hours before the big bang. To go further than that is to get into the realm of silliness. If there is no before, than the event did not occur. By the way, a similar point holds for relativistic time after the big bang.
Also, if a designer is postulated and its existence is incorporated into the universe, it may be necessaary to adjust our cosmological models accordingly and this MAY require that time, that is quantifiable and measureable time, be introduced to the pre-big bang time frame. As scientist we cannot allow our models to take on a life of their own. They are always subject to adjustment and revision.
sir_toejam · 24 December 2005
sir_toejam · 24 December 2005
Steviepinhead · 24 December 2005
Excuse me? "Foulmouthed?" Gee, Carol, but I am quite aware that home schoolers, public school students, libraries, and the like link to this site. Somehow I missed your blockquote documenting that I had used anything approaching foul language.
Let's see: you claim to have physics degrees, but manage to confuse the most basic physical notions of time and space.
You claim to have a fresh new approach to Biblical interpretation, but it turns out you're merely shilling your employer's books.
You came here claiming to support evolution, yet more and more you seem to be trotting out the same old tired, religiously-motivated arguments for ID.
And now you have come up with your own personal definition of "foulmouthed" that, big surprise, doesn't seem to square with any facts that you can point to...
Are you trying your best to transform yourself into just another troglodytic troll?
Or do you have some other fancy rationalization for your ongoing disconnect from truth and reality?
sir_toejam · 24 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 December 2005
Carol Clouser · 24 December 2005
Well, let's see here, Steviepinhead,
"Christian fundamentalist nutjobs..."
Carol's Shilliness..."
"blitherings and bleatings of...."
All from just one post! (#64433)
These may not be "profane" but they certainly are "foul".
One other point. ALL my posts here since I first came here a few months ago are consistent and I stand by every one of them. You have just not been paying attention. And that is your loss.
sir_toejam · 24 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 December 2005
Carol, if you're gonna keep preaching at us (whether we like it or not), could you at least explain to us all why you think the New Testament is full of crap? Then, at least we could be entertained with a good old-fashioned religious war between you and Heddle.
sir_toejam · 24 December 2005
Here, we'll make it easy for you:
Who is Landa, Carol?
I really don't know.
carol clouser · 25 December 2005
Nice try mischievous gentlemen, but alas it will not work.
And, Rev. Lenny, if any "preaching" has been going on here, it is yours, persistent, ad nauseaum, repetitive, vacuous preaching. Don't you ever do anything else? Get a life!
carol clouser · 25 December 2005
PaulC,
You ask (#64426) if ID is not science nor religion, do I have a name for a third alternative? And if the designer is God, does that not make it religion?
It seems to me that ID ought to be catagorized as a philosophy in progress as it attempts to secure a strong foundation for itself in mathematics. Since it arrives at the designer concept without basing its analysis on religious assumptions, it ought not be viewed as religion.
gregonomic · 25 December 2005
snaxalotl · 25 December 2005
"I can make sequences of the same length that are more compressible by adding randomness"
it can be shown that most numbers are not compressible (since you can't represent 2^N states with less than N bits), and it can be demonstrated that number X can be compressed to M bits with an example algorithm, but there is no process for discovering the best compression for X (brute search doesn't work because of the halting problem), and so it generally can't be demonstrated that X can't somehow be compressed to even less than M bits.
sir_toejam · 25 December 2005
sir_toejam · 25 December 2005
BTW, Carol, the reason Lenny sounds like a broken record to you is that you keep seeming to entirely miss his point. It's most remarkable, your ability to completely miss the whole point of the simple definition of what science is and how the scientific method actually works.
Lenny says "this is science"
you say, uh huh, i already know this...
then commonly proceed to completely contradict your apparent knowledge in your very next post thereafter.
amazing stuff, denial. Your a textbook case.
I feel like Quatto in that dumb Arnold movie:
"Open your miiiiiinnnnddd, Carol, oooppppennn your mmmminnnndddd"
snaxalotl · 25 December 2005
suppose the (ludicrous) creationist fantasy were true that you can't get to B without some physically possible but statistically impossibly mutation, and B exists. one possibility is that god waved his wand and made that mutation directly through his mysterious supernatural powers. but what does the other possibility - goddy frontloading - look like? presumably all particles are set up just so in the beginning, and ten billion years later this mutation occurs taking us from A to B, i.e. it would look just like it happened by chance apart from it being so damn lucky (imagine engineering a snooker break to happen backwards by carefully arranging for all the balls to meet with the right velocities so they come to a halt except for the cue ball which shoots out the top of the pack - atoms would APPEAR to be buzzing randomly until out of nowhere the mutation occurred). Surely this looks exacly the same as the first sort of miracle - at the appropriate time a mutation occurs which is so unlikely that it proves the existence of god. so why are people making a fuss about front loading? it seems to be an exactly equivalent amount of goddy intervention with no discernable difference.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 December 2005
Carol Clouser · 26 December 2005
Lenny,
I would expect you to appreciate more than most the crucial importance of methodology, with all your preaching, ranting and raving about science being "a method".
A concept derived via appeals to authority, such as the claimed revealed words of the Bible, is justifiably described as "religious". A concept derived via the scientific method becomes part of the body of knowledge described as "science". And a concept arrived at philosophically is supposed to be described as "philosophical".
Now I know that the philosophically derived conclusion of the existence of a desginer is anethema to the very core of your being, your denials not withstanding, and by describing it as religious, a term that in your mind denotes disdain and ridicule, you get to feel like you have leveled some serious argument against it, but that is your problem, of your own making. You are not interested in being consistent within your own thinking, you just care about the end result - attack ID's designer idea by calling it "religious". Your mind is closed as a trap door on this subject and that is that.
KL · 26 December 2005
You are not interested in being consistent within your own thinking, you just care about the end result - attack ID's designer idea by calling it "religious"
I know Rev Dr Flank can defend himself, but if ID had stayed in the realm of religion/philosophy (and to be sure, I have no expertise in either so find the line between them I cannot) and not tried to pass itself off as science the debate would have never come to PT's attention. That is where ID proponents lost credibility. (that, and trying to hide their religious motivations by lying)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
k.e. · 26 December 2005
Lenny I presume they would both agree that God is a "He" and He is infallible.
The fact that he *IS* infallible can be the only possible explanation why they both think each other is wrong and why are both wrong..... oh wait they both believe in slavery and the both believe killing in the name of god is OK so maybe god is a "She" after all.
That would also explain why they like the idea of an Intelligent Designer God....... totally sexless,androgynous and hermaphroditic at the same time,a god who would give his right arm to be ambidextrous, a convenient god who can take out the garbage, lie,fix the court system,take oxywhatsit,run PR companies to spread lies Propaganda etc etc.
Carol Clouser · 26 December 2005
KL,
"I know Rev Dr Flank can defend himself, but..."
I disagree with you about that. Lenny is totally incapable of defending himself. He would not know where to begin to mount an effective defense as these posts of his amply demonstrate yet again.
Andrew McClure · 26 December 2005
KL · 26 December 2005
"I know Rev Dr Flank can defend himself, but..."
"I disagree with you about that. Lenny is totally incapable of defending himself. He would not know where to begin to mount an effective defense as these posts of his amply demonstrate yet again."
Do you disagree with the rest of my post?
sir_toejam · 26 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 26 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
Why oh why why why don't fundies ever answer my simple questions . .?
KL · 26 December 2005
I thought my question was even simpler, but I didn't get an answer. I haven't been at this as long as you have though, so I guess I won't take it personally.
Stephen Elliott · 26 December 2005
sir_toejam · 26 December 2005
Stephen -
you weren't a creationist by the time I started participating on the forum. ;)
I applaud your honesty and your posts. I do hope that any lurkers out there that think the issue as intractable as I do take heart from them.
However, it does seem that for every one like yourself willing to actually learn about the facts behind the issue, there are a hundred more who prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and yell, "LALALALLALALALALA". like lalalalarry.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 December 2005
jim · 26 December 2005
Lenny,
I started following the talk.origins news group on & off again since ~1988. I discovered talkorigins.org several years ago and only found PT a few months ago. I'd have to say I only started "fighting" since September or so.
I've personally converted two "non-believers" to evolution :), however, this occurred in 1989.
One was my wife. The other was her best friend. It took a lot of discussion, a lot of personal interaction, and even some Bible study.
Although many of these people "read" the Bible, they depend very heavily on their preacher's "authorized" interpretation. Just showing them some Biblical contradictions (both self contradictory and contradictions to the "official" interpretation) really helped to start the break down of some of the impenetrable wall of ignorance.
It took many months after that of answering their questions and posing (loaded) questions. Interestingly in both cases they completely renounced their faith (not my goal!), to the point where they're both very anti-Christian now. I found the whole thing very odd because I am a Christian. However, I *can* understand their revulsion for their former faith after they discovered how they were being lied to and used.
In summary it can be done. It took me a lot of work. I don't think I would want to undertake the process again until/unless it's someone I know and like a lot.
sir_toejam · 26 December 2005
Carol Clouser · 26 December 2005
KL,
Sorry for not answering sooner. I was preoccupied with a Hanukah ceremony/party.
I assume you refer to #64904. Yes, I basically agree with the balance of your post there. But I don't consider that important. The personalities in this debate and their conduct, on either side, is not of interest to me. And I would urge others not to lose sight of what is truly important in all this. And that is: Does the argument have any validity? Is it strong, weak or indifferent? Why? What is the truth as best we can ascertain it?
Now, KL, do YOU agree with this?
jim · 26 December 2005
STJ,
Nope. I don't know anyone here :( .
Carol Clouser · 26 December 2005
Lenny, Oh, Lenny,
Perhaps you never in 25 years saw a fundamentalist "give it up" because of your ineffecive tactics. Which may also be why your questions don't elicit any responses. You just don't discuss/engage at all; you merely toss empty words around, at best, and ignore, insult, and ridicule your interlocutors, at worst.
Why should anyone who disagrees with you do anything other than ignore you?
KL · 27 December 2005
"I assume you refer to #64904. Yes, I basically agree with the balance of your post there. But I don't consider that important. The personalities in this debate and their conduct, on either side, is not of interest to me. And I would urge others not to lose sight of what is truly important in all this. And that is: Does the argument have any validity? Is it strong, weak or indifferent? Why? What is the truth as best we can ascertain it?
Now, KL, do YOU agree with this?"
Scientific validity? Educational validity in the realm of science? If you are talking about ID, the answer is No on both counts. I am not in a position to judge it by any other criteria. However, if it were being debated as something other than science, it would not have come to my attention at all. As far as I know, it is a non-issue in the Episcopal Church, and has been declared pretty poor idea theologically. Why, I have not the training to say. My daughter, who is preparing to be ordained, might have an opinion, but then again, she might not.
sir_toejam · 27 December 2005
sir_toejam · 27 December 2005
Registered User · 27 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 27 December 2005
k.e. · 27 December 2005
So carol you decide on the value of words before you decide on the value of an object do you ?
In my book that is a very debased form of truth.
Your values are just an option for you, something you can take or leave depending on how you 'feel'.
Totally removed from objective reality.
RU that observation while describing the root of the problem; I suspect would produce a wry smile on the face of a reasoning person able to maintain a clear mind, an unlikely prospect in this case, or this
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg
Stephen Elliott · 27 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 December 2005
KL · 27 December 2005
A response to Carol:
The description on the main page of Panda's Thumb reads:
"The Panda's Thumb is the virtual pub of the University of Ediacara. The patrons gather to discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation."
My point in my previous post is that, if ID was purely a philosophical debate (even if it was awaiting "mathematical" description, though I believe so far the mathematical basis has been shown to be wanting by people who do that sort of thing all the time) it would have not been an issue discussed on this website. However, it has been presented as science, and not only has been found lacking a scientific content, it has been shown through various forums to have its roots in religious belief. Even if you personally can separate ID from religion and call it philosophy instead, it is clear that the original idea sprang from religious discomfort with the ramifications of evolutionary theory. Had the proponents followed their own plan in the Wedge document, there would have been no Dover trial. It would be, to use a capital campaign analogy, still in the "silent phase", trying to do legitimate science before going public. The fact that these guys would say, "aw, never mind-let's move on", shows that the motivation was not scientific. (Of course, the wedge document certainly made that clear.) So, what was the motivation? The vast majority of discussions about intelligent design are from the context of religion, plain and simple. (No, whoops, not plain and simple-add in the political effort, of which ID is a part, to impose a set of morals on our society) Your willingness to find non-religious explanations for design does not change what it is for everyone else. "A rose by any other name..."
k.e. · 27 December 2005
Well Landa the righteous reader of poetry as fact(really....really god honest true)must be about as "tuned into" the "Music of the Spheres" as one is through that great mind numbing substance....opium ....gives you a nice feeling and "clear view"..everything seems right ....you can't feel the ground..... but the "vision" is nothing more than pipe dream
Coleridge gives the game away.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Apologia pro Vita Sua
The poet in his lone yet genial hour
Gives to his eyes a magnifying power :
Or rather he emancipates his eyes
From the black shapeless accidents of size--
In unctuous cones of kindling coal,
Or smoke upwreathing from the pipe's trim bole,
His gifted ken can see
Phantoms of sublimity.
k.e. · 27 December 2005
Stephen Elliott you said:
"
Aaaaagh! I hate that picture. It sends a primordial scream right down my spine.
No doubt the artist's intent. But, ugh!
"
Hehehe Stephen count that as a 'real experience'
That is the beauty of the Art.... To shake the ego and reveal the unknown. Artists are the itinerant explorers of dream and Mythos. Some can chart what is hidden to the ego and roam the badlands outside the circle of dogma and connect directly to the psyche. But all is not hidden to mere mortals (such as me) the investigation of symbols and meaning in art provide a short cut or a skeleton key to what goes on inside the collective being and the individual.
Have a look at this
Salvador Dali
Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee Around a Pomegranate, A Second Before Waking Up
Joe Campbell does an interesting analysis on this and many other symbols from Mythos in his Video series strangely titled er .. The Joseph Campbell's Mythos, Vol. 1: The Shaping of Our Mythic Tradition Series.
VS. Ramachadron the nueropsychologist uses art to help map the mind.
"Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0688172172/ref=sib_fs_top/104-5039699-7876725?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00R&checkSum=eh%2B6jl1ufDSIaoC0qub4zcXjamn7sBTnp3IKrLKqAjM%3D#reader-page
Quote from Amazon re above
Perhaps most disquieting are beginnings of proof that much brain activity, including what we like to think of as uniquely human behavior, happens unbidden. There may be no escape from the un-Western conclusion that self is only a limited illusion. "De-throning man," as the author points out, is at the heart of most revolutionary scientific thought
If you are ready for *that* then you are ready for this
Joseph Campbell - Mythos, Vol. 2: The Shaping of the Eastern Tradition
AC · 27 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 December 2005
carol clouser · 28 December 2005
KL,
You seem to miss my point. Everything you say about the motivations of various ID proponents may be true to the smallest detail and it matters not in the least with regard to the possible validity (that is, correctness) of the argument they make. And that "bigger picture" is what I focus on and expect serious minded folks to likewise focus upon. The rest is all "fluff" and armchair entertainment of rather poor quality.
And absent the discovery by the Dover judge that the board members pushing ID were lying to cover their true religious motivation, the decision may very well have gone the other way. The finding that ID is not science does not, in and of itself, make it unlawful to be discussed in science class. Somewhere, sometime and somehow this will get to another court in another district, where the board members' motivations will either be different or not so transparent, and the ruling will go the other way. ID is an idea. Ideas are not killed by force, courts, governments or by killing the messengers. Ideas can only be killed by better ideas. Heard any better ideas on this blog lately?
Lenny,
Go right ahead, suit yourself. See if I care. But I will tell you this. I have seen much more success in persuading fundamentalists to reconsider their views in the last two years (via the impact of one particular book) than you seem to have had in a lifetime (by your own admission). And the reason is clear, as I described in my previous post. Enough said.
carol clouser · 28 December 2005
Stephen Elliott,
I completely agree with you about the role of religious leaders and what happens when they are found wanting.
A point I wish to add, if I may. A key difference between Judaism and mainline Christianity with regard to religious education is that, unlike most Christian denominations (not all, by any means), in Judaism every adult and child is encouraged to read, study, question, debate, consider and analyze on their own. Leaders are there to help not to replace, to guide not to authoritatively conclude. In contrast, there are millions of Christians whose familiarity with the Bible is limited to the few areas about which they have repeatedly heard sermons, and their understanding/interpretation of those areas is further limited to their preachers' understanding/interpretation. I never cease to be astounded at how little so many Christians know about major religious doctrines, including that of their own faith.
KL · 28 December 2005
"And absent the discovery by the Dover judge that the board members pushing ID were lying to cover their true religious motivation, the decision may very well have gone the other way. The finding that ID is not science does not, in and of itself, make it unlawful to be discussed in science class. Somewhere, sometime and somehow this will get to another court in another district, where the board members' motivations will either be different or not so transparent, and the ruling will go the other way. ID is an idea. Ideas are not killed by force, courts, governments or by killing the messengers. Ideas can only be killed by better ideas. Heard any better ideas on this blog lately?"
I disagree that this was the only reason the decision went against the school board, but I guess I cannot understand why a non-scientific idea would be discussed in a science class. Why would a school board mandate reference to a book that is not approved for the cuuriculum? If my school mandated that I mention an alternative to atomic theory and suggested students read a book on magic provided by an anonymous donor, it would be pretty silly. I would have to wonder why on earth anyone would do such a thing. In the end, the motivation of the school board was key in showing that ID was exactly what the plaintiffs suspected-religiously motivated. As I mentioned before, if this idea was introduced in philosophy or humanities I am not sure there would have been any protest. (there might, but the school board would have had a leg to stand on, especially if the class already discussed a variety of philosophical or religious traditions, and it could be shown that ID was part of a well developed curriculum on this type of study) To partially quote many posters to this website: why is evolution singled out as problematic? Why not atomic theory, gravity, thermodynamics, kinetics, equilibrium, etc. ? Why on earth would anyone want to introduce a shaky "alternative" to kids, when there is insufficient time and resources for the basics? It defies reason until you understand what is behind it.
I would love to ask the Dover school board: Why didn't you add this idea to the Humanities curriculum? It might have been accepted by all and would have been an interesting addition. (although Pandas had some real mistakes, given that it was trying to be "scientific"; I suspect I would hold out for a better text, which was sure to come along soon if there was growing interest). The Discovery Institute would have been using their resources wisely to approach ID in this way, rather than as science. If they had followed their Wedge document as written, and they had found the science wanting, then they could have stopped, regrouped, and tried a philosophical approach. Because they did not, I am suspicious their motivations.
Oh well, sorry for the ramblings. My two cents worth, as an educator...
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 28 December 2005
KL · 28 December 2005
"I have no problem whatsoever with people having religious opinions. The problem comes when someone wants religion taught as science at taxpayers expense. That stinks."
Even when it is taught without taxpayer funding it stinks, because it is misleading and deceitful and can shatter one's trust in their teachers, their parents, their pastors and priests. (I've seen it happen, especially when a student is homeschooled and then attends university; they discover that they had been lied to while they were growing up. BTW, please don't take this as my condemning homeschooling. It's a great idea for a lot of reasons.)
carol clouser · 28 December 2005
Stephen and KL,
I am for "discussion" of ID in Biology classes because it is the big elephant in the room, because students know about it anyway and are probably fed much misinformation about it by ascientific types, and because we are hiding our heads in the sand ostrich-like if we pretend that it will simply go away if we ignore it. What has the status-quo in education, that is the side that won in Dover, wrought for us? Study after study shows that at least half of americans today believe that life in all its diversity appeared suddenly a few thousand years ago. You know where this achievement of the educational status-quo comes from? I have a theory. It comes from ignoring the big elephants in the room while outsiders bash science and ride those elephants with impunity.
Why scientists wish to ignore the data, hide their heads in the sand and celebrate the victory of the educational status-quo is beyond me.
Before others distort my position yet again, let me emphasize again - I am not for "teaching", that is enthusuastically advocating, ID or creationism. I am for analysis, comparison of methods and subsequent evaluation. Let the science teachers do their jobs. The students will then do just fine.
PvM · 28 December 2005
Alexey Merz · 28 December 2005
Flint · 28 December 2005
Carol:
Let's grant that creationism is common enough in the US, and that evolution is taught poorly enough and rarely enough while creationists fulminate it vocally enough, that 9th graders are well aware that it's a battleground. Your position seems to be that by teaching only the science and not the religious *objections* to science, public education is doing the students the disservice of pretending they see no battle.
So, what changes would you make? Would you like biology teachers to start their courses by saying "Look, students, we are well aware that many people for their own various reasons maintain that evolution doesn't happen. At one time or another, people have resisted for their own various reasons quite a few of the explanations the scientific method has provided. We promise, as intelligent and dedicated professionals, that as soon as the very first smidgeon of evidence comes to our attention of some other mechanism for the changes in life forms over time, we will consider that evidence as carefully as we consider any other evidence. Since there is currently no such evidence whatsoever, there is nothing to discuss in science class. All we can teach about science is the actual science."
Or let's try another tack. First, spend a few sessions discussing the scientific method, how it works, what it requires, how propositions are formulated and tested. Then, spend two or three minutes pointing out that objections to evolution have NO hypotheses, NO tests, NO evidence, NO data, NO budget, do NO research, derive NO theories, publish NO studies, and the closest they come to anything resembling science is to misuse a couple of scientific terms. And I assure you, this is a complete and accurate "comparison of methods and subsequent evaluation."
But notice, the teacher in both of these approaches can't even *mention* that he's talking about creationism, because as a government representative, he is just as prohibited from criticizing a religion as he is from preaching it. Since ID is religion, all religion, and nothing but religion, and the science teacher is forbidden to comment about religion, he would you "let the science teachers do their jobs"? I'm really curious.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 December 2005
Carol, do you, or do you not, think that your religious opinions should be accepted as scientific "evidence"?
And why should science give a flying fig about your religious opinions anyway?
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
carol clouser · 29 December 2005
Flint,
Some years ago when I was the science supervisor of a school district I had the opportunity to observe a young science teacher up for tenure. She was teaching a Biology class to sophomores and the topic was evolution. At one point a student in the back of the room shouts out something to the effect that "you don't really believe, Ms......, what you are telling us. You know it happened the way the Bible says it did" (not a precise quote but the gist of the remark). The teacher became flustered and mumbled something about "this (evolution) is just a theory and you are required to know it."
When I reviewed her performance with her (in private of course, after the lesson) I asked her why she became flustered at that question and if in retrospect she thought she could have handled it differently. She told me that the whole issue is loaded with pitfalls and anything she says could get her into trouble one way or the other.
What we need, Flint, are guidelines and curricula for teachers. We need to get away from this notion that ID/creationism must not be touched with a ten foot pole. Teachers must be held legally and professionally harmless axcept for blatant violations of the guidelines. ID need not be presented as religion but as a philosophical opinion. It is possible to discuss the issues sympathetically and with respect for other peoples' views (this blog not withstanding). And the law does allow for all this so long as the purpose is secular, to promote critical thinking and understanding of different views.
It might help if all schools adopted the Lederman approach of physics first for freshmen, followed by chemistry for sophomores, then biology for juniors. This way biology students will be two years older, more intelectually mature, and know much more about the scientific method. Or Earth Science for juniors and Biology for Seniors. (But not all states require three or four years of science, which they should!)
What teachers would do is describe the methodologies of the various approaches, the underlying assumptions, and the conclusions. The teacher should challenge the students to do some thinking on their own with his/her help. The teacher would be free to state his or her own view but not to bellitle, denigrate, ridicule or attack the motives of proponents of other views.
This way science would not be engaged in this battle with both hands tied behind its back.
This approach does admittedly still require some preparatory work, which has never been done (as far as I know) because of the atmosphere prevailing around this issue fostered by supreme court rulings and a trigger happy parent body ready to file an expensive lawsuit at the drop of a hat.
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
carol clouser · 29 December 2005
While I generally do not respond to ignorant posters who think their arguments are enhanced by invective and insults, I do want to respond to post #65520 for the sake of others here. Said poster is obviously oblivious of how technological innovations are produced in the USA. Not only do the innovators represent a small portion of the population, they are increasingly foreigners whose formative education occured elsewhere. The number of american high school students who go on to become professional scientists is vanishingly small. But alas high schools are for the masses and we need to treat them as such.
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
as to how teachers should address creationist questions in science class...
how would you address a question about your sex life in english class?
same difference.
it's off topic and should be addressed OUTSIDE of class. It's really not that hard.
as to resources for teachers to be better prepared to actually TEACH evolutionary theory, plenty of those abound as well, as i rightly pointed out just above your last post.
your seriously deluded if you think your "approach" would help. I've personally seen the results of doing just that, and the majority of kids end up being more confused than when the issue was not addressed at all.
it's simply a very poor idea.
like i said, Carol, if you really want to help kids learn science, point them to some decent SCIENCE resources and keep your philosophy to yourself.
If you want to help kids deal with philosophical issues, point them to some good sources for discussion in that vein.
When science questions are brought up in philosophy class, you should rightly tell the questioner to hold that thought until AFTER class, then point them to a science resource to answer their questions.
vice versa for philosophy questions in science class, or english questions in math class, or football questions in social studies....
get the picture??
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
Steviepinhead · 29 December 2005
Oh, Carol:
more intelectually mature
...and then, in senior year, we'll tackle spelling and typing and proofreading.
Is anybody else besides Sir Toe and I just a little shaken by the notion that Carol was the "science supervisor of a school district"?
Eeeee.
Steviepinhead · 29 December 2005
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
Carol appears to be about as good a "science advisor" as the TMLC was a "legal advisor" for the Dover school board.
or maybe she was better, once upon a time, and the years have not been so good to her thought processes.
who knows.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 December 2005
Flint · 29 December 2005
carol clouser · 29 December 2005
Flint,
I must tell you, you are just plain wrong about what is and is not permitted to be said or done pertaining to religion in public school classrooms, science or otherwise. Yes, the issue is treacherous for schools and teachers, so they just stay away from it. But technically anything can be discussed IN ANY SETTING so long as the purpose is secular.
Your argument pertaining to ID being creationism repackaged is irrelevant to my comments since I am in favor of analyzing creationism too, and my previous post made that clear. I have no doubt that science will come out ahead in this game, but the game ought to be played instead of avoided.
And please do not impugn my motives. I am not part of any dark underground conspiracy to undermine anything. Just someone thinking out loud here.
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
sir_toejam · 29 December 2005
Your philosophy of teaching everything in every class is kinda what we did in "homeroom" in elementary school.
It is simply a waste of time once you actually have compartmentalized course material.
I suppose you now think that it would be more efficient if we gave up specialized courses??
what ARE you smoking?
PvM · 29 December 2005
carol clouser · 29 December 2005
PvM,
Thanks for the thorough analysis you presented.
You seem to be saying that a program along the lines I outlined in #65542 could be designed and implimented to be perfectly lawful.
Flint, are you listening?
The bottom line is this: Handling these issues with all the "tests" imposed by the courts can be treacherous for schools and teachers. That's why schools and teachers avoid the topic like the plague. And that's why I proposed carefully designed guidelines and curricula for teachers and preparatory work needs to be done (see #65542). But it can be done. My point then is - it is in our interest and the interest of science education that it is done!
PvM, I would appreciate your comment on this.
tojam,
Will you please stop posting your irrelevent nonsense. You are becoming a annoying nuisance with nothing serious or meaningful to contribute.
Steviepinhead · 29 December 2005
Stuart Weinstein · 29 December 2005
Carol writes:
"In any event, nothing in this conflicts with science, and is admittedly scientifically useless. But two points need to be emphasized. One, these ideas are NOT based on religion."
Again given those who are pushing it, the above can't be taken seriously.
"One could argue that if no religion had ever appeared on earth, and if the notion of God or gods were entirely unheard of, the ID arguments leading to a designer could still be made persuasively."
And dismissed as scientifically irrelevant, and it does not mean the previous statement is true.
"True, the product of these ideas is coicident with a key religious idea, the existence of the designer, but so what?"
THe problem is in the above scenario, nobody would claim ID is a scientific theory. THe only reason, in the contemporary situation, that ID is being pushed as science is because a segment of the population wishes to push their religious beliefs into the class room.
You can argue that ID is simply coincident with a theological viewpoint all you like, but one cannot divorce themselves from the observation that the theory is virtually exclisively being pushed by folks grinding a theological axe.
Take Big Bang for example. In the West, it was developed by a Jesuit, and there were some intial criticisms of being a "religious theory". However, it made testable predictions, and is embraced by the scientific community, not merely on the Christian Broadcasting Network.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 December 2005
Alexey Merz · 29 December 2005
Flint · 29 December 2005
Carol:
Yes, I'm listening. And yes, I agree that creationism is perfectly fair game within the proper context - a discussion of various religious doctrines and viewpoints. Science class, however, is not the place for such a discussion. Now, you have two choices (and you damn well know it, so please quit pretending).
First, you (as the teacher) can make it clear that you are (hopefully temporarily) suspending any discussion of science, so that the class can be devoted to comparative religion. This is perfectly acceptable, and equally irrelevant to science. If you think science class is the appropriate forum for comparative religion lectures, I can only say we will never agree.
Or second, you can *pretend* that "intelligent design" has something to do with science, making the class appropriate. And THAT is flat false, dishonest, and illegal. ID is religion, all religion, and nothing but religion. As I wrote earlier (and you demostrated that you aren't listening, whether or not you CAN listen), ID has "NO hypotheses, NO tests, NO evidence, NO data, NO budget, do NO research, derive NO theories, publish NO studies, and the closest they come to anything resembling science is to misuse a couple of scientific terms." And no, it is NOT "in the interest of science" to discuss religious doctrine in science class. It is inappropriate and irrelevant.
In fact, I'd consider it dicey at best to even try to suspend science to discuss religion in science class. The very fact that it IS science class, however clearly the teacher makes it clear that the discussion has nothing to do with science whatsoever, works against this. "What did you learn in science class today, junior?" So please, don't play games with us.
limpidense · 29 December 2005
Alexey,
Carol C. is likely one of the neo-bigots, not that she would admit (actually, be capable of even seeing) the fact, that distort to uselessness whatever value the conservative viewpoint might otherwise possess.
She is not worth reading, much less responding to, since anyone, even a very innocent lurker, would find her "views" as well as her tone repulsive after only a few tastes, should any fragment of honesty lurk in their consciences.
And she represents the "best" of this sort of useless, empty type of "true" American.
Alexey Merz · 29 December 2005
carol clouser · 29 December 2005
Flint,
I was advocating something along the lines of your first option. But I would not dignify the diversion from strict science as a lesson in "comparative religion". I would describe it as a lesson in "let us face the big elephant in the room" for two or three days.
I assume you are aware of the latest buzzword in education in the USA, namely "interdisciplinary". The latest fad, one encouraged by various scholars in the field, brings history into English class, art into Physical Education, Mathermatics into Foreign Language (whatever it is) and so on. This is viewed as a way of integrating the areas of study and build well rounded individuals who can discern connections between seemingly disparate areas, thereby mutually re-inforcing each other. So my proposed program in not so out of line with what is going on today out there "in the field".
You say we will never agree. Perhaps. But I disagree with you respectfully (unusual here). On your side are all the folks who fashioned the status quo in education, which in my opinion has turned out to be a disaster for science. Perhaps you disagree with that too.
Flint · 29 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 December 2005
Carol, do you, or do you not, want your religious opinions to be accepted as scientific evidence.
carol clouser · 30 December 2005
Flint,
You have some good suggestions there for possible links between the science and the diversion. I would frame the diversion in terms of "opinion formation". How do people form opinions? What assumptions go into the process? What methods are used in going from assumptions to conclusions? Can we compare and contrast the various approaches people have taken? How is the scientific method different from each of the others?
I would broaden the subject to include not only ID and creationism but also such things as astrology, telekinesis, diet fads and such. But I would not get into Greek gods, as you propose, since that is not current, is not of interest and would necessitate too much of a diversion. A few days out of 180 is all I am willing to set aside for this important diversion.
Because the issue is, as you say, "hot button", teachers will need to be held harmless except for blatant and willful disregard of the guidelines (as in my post #65542). Those guidelines will be carefully drawn up by a team of science and social studies edicators. I think it best to make it voluntary on the part of the teacher, at least in the beginning.
And you know what, if this were implemented as I envision it, it would not at all be to the liking of ID folks, creationists and religionists of all stripes, especially after its effects are discerned over the course of time. I think it would tend to encourage students to be more questioning and skeptical. And that is good for science in the long run.
Then the program will be attacked by these folks and scientists will be fighting to maintain it.
What a fantasy! But somebody needs to think out of the box!
carol clouser · 30 December 2005
Flint,
You have some good suggestions there for possible links between the science and the diversion. I would frame the diversion in terms of "opinion formation". How do people form opinions? What assumptions go into the process? What methods are used in going from assumptions to conclusions? Can we compare and contrast the various approaches people have taken? How is the scientific method different from each of the others?
I would broaden the subject to include not only ID and creationism but also such things as astrology, telekinesis, diet fads and such. But I would not get into Greek gods, as you propose, since that is not current, is not of interest and would necessitate too much of a diversion. A few days out of 180 is all I am willing to set aside for this important diversion.
Because the issue is, as you say, "hot button", teachers will need to be held harmless except for blatant and willful disregard of the guidelines (as in my post #65542). Those guidelines will be carefully drawn up by a team of science and social studies edicators. I think it best to make it voluntary on the part of the teacher, at least in the beginning.
And you know what, if this were implemented as I envision it, it would not at all be to the liking of ID folks, creationists and religionists of all stripes, especially after its effects are discerned over the course of time. I think it would tend to encourage students to be more questioning and skeptical. And that is good for science in the long run.
Then the program will be attacked by these folks and scientists will be fighting to maintain it.
What a fantasy! But somebody needs to think out of the box!
carol clouser · 30 December 2005
Flint,
You have some good suggestions there for possible links between the science and the diversion. I would frame the diversion in terms of "opinion formation". How do people form opinions? What assumptions go into the process? What methods are used in going from assumptions to conclusions? Can we compare and contrast the various approaches people have taken? How is the scientific method different from each of the others?
I would broaden the subject to include not only ID and creationism but also such things as astrology, telekinesis, diet fads and such. But I would not get into Greek gods, as you propose, since that is not current, is not of interest and would necessitate too much of a diversion. A few days out of 180 is all I am willing to set aside for this important diversion.
Because the issue is, as you say, "hot button", teachers will need to be held harmless except for blatant and willful disregard of the guidelines (as in my post #65542). Those guidelines will be carefully drawn up by a team of science and social studies edicators. I think it best to make it voluntary on the part of the teacher, at least in the beginning.
And you know what, if this were implemented as I envision it, it would not at all be to the liking of ID folks, creationists and religionists of all stripes, especially after its effects are discerned over the course of time. I think it would tend to encourage students to be more questioning and skeptical. And that is good for science in the long run.
Then the program will be attacked by these folks and scientists will be fighting to maintain it.
What a fantasy! But somebody needs to think out of the box!
carol clouser · 30 December 2005
Sorry about the multiple entries.
Flint · 30 December 2005
Carol:
I would say you have touched on a few of the topics that might be covered in an undergraduate (but not introductory) course that might be called "philosophy and practice of science." I think that would be the very earliest that the students could be expected to understand and thoughtfully consider questions about the underlying socialization of opinion formation that goes into establishing biases and preferences, and how science recognizes and attempts to neutralize those inevitable but not insuperable obstacles. Certainly 9th grade biology isn't the place!
And I suppose somewhere in that (I'd say junior-in-college level) course might be considered some of the pseudo-science mumbo jumbo that superstitious minds concoct - things like ID, UFOs, astrology, paranormal abilities, faith in "stuff" (like homeopathic medicine, acupuncture, dowsing, opposition to vaccines, or whatever). Any of these might be a springboard to a useful discussion contrasting the scientific method with the "fiat because I WANT it to be so" method.
At least in private colleges, it should be possible to actually use for pedagogical purposes, examples of idiotic or mendacious beliefs that some people actually hold. I would think that where the instructors/professors are NOT acting as agents of the State, it would be most illustrative (even galvanizing) for students to see that some among them actually believe that crap; that what's being discussed isn't some sort of rare pathology occasionally reported from Darkest Slobovia, but rather real live virulent nonsense right there in the classroom.
In fact, as I understand it, college-level courses in comparative religion already regularly rely on that sort of experience as a teaching tool -- that SOME of the students in the class can be relied on to object that THEIR faith isn't myth and cant, but Real Truth. And that's where the class gets interesting; where (as I alluded to above) a Believer is challenged to explain how HIS god mating with a mortal to produce a demigod is Truth, whereas the ancient Greek gods doing something indistinguishable is mere myth and stories.
However, back to the reality of 9th grade, we're talking here about 14-year-olds, who lack anywhere NEAR the background, knowledge, or maturity to handle the sort of material you seem to want them to cover. In terms of relative sophistication, this is much like having a couple of classes discussing matrix operations on non-Abelian groups in 9th grade algebra classes. In other words, your recommmendation isn't a bad idea in the right time and place. But for kids 14 years old, what they learn in school is taken as rote fact, and is going to be taken that way for another several years at least. They lack the neurological organization necessary to USE the material you are suggesting be dumped on them at that age.
At 14, you don't ask for the history of a controversy so that you can weigh the various views and factors, you ask who's telling the truth. The DI knows this, I know this, and I'm quite sure YOU know this. My estimate is that you are approximately six years premature in presenting this material.
Carol Clouser · 30 December 2005
Flint,
Waiting to age 20 is a losing proposition. You would lose the millions who do not attend four year universities and the many more millions who will not elect to take such an elective course. Biology courses in high school are practically required of all teenagers passing through public (and private) schooling. It is truly a course for the masses, taken by 14, 15, 16 and 17 yeard olds. My experience in public education tells me they are a resilient bunch, capable of far more than adults usually give them credit for. And the material can be condensed to their level and yet convey the key ideas. This is where the action is.
Flint · 30 December 2005
Carol,
My point, which apparently requires endless repitition, is that religion is not biology. Biology class is not an appropriate forum to discuss religious doctrines. So once again: the problem here is that evolution is not being properly taught, NOT that the classes are failing to address creationism, but that they are not even happening in much of the country. Teachers are reluctant to cover the topic because of the hassles this entails. The "big elephant", at least as I understand it, is that this essential scientific discipline is getting intimidated right out of the curriculum. And the solution is to bring it back, not to associate it with religious beliefs. Any competent teacher should be able to deflect religious objections because they ARE religious, and emphasize that this is a *biology* class, where all focus is on the facts and the science.
Bringing creationism into science class, on ANY pretext, effectively undermines what the class is all about.
Alan Fox · 30 December 2005
repitition?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 December 2005
Carol seems quite oblivious to the simple fact that her approach is, now, illegal.
Flint · 30 December 2005
Alan:
Oops, sorry about that. I wonder what there is about a system that doesn't let you edit posts but only preview before posting, that no amount of proofreading can catch errors which are immediately howlingly obvious as soon as there's nothing you can do about them anymore. My mistake.
Lenny:
Carol's goal is to find some excuse, ANY excuse, to get religion into science class. It's a relative of the P.T. Barnum maxim that any publicity is good publicity. Even getting ID into science classes as the perfect example of what science is NOT and how to get it totally wrong, gets it into the classroom. Once the foot is in the door, we'll take it from there...
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 31 December 2005
Sir_Toejam · 31 December 2005
Antonious the Anonymous · 31 January 2006
Being an Atheist I will therefore provide the oportunity of finding an Answer in inanimate objects. Matter being all related, it would effectively mean that any Grand Design would not manifest itself in just "intelligent life" as we call ourselves, even though there is plenty more intelligent life in plants, insects, mamals, fish and so on. Instead it would manifest in everything, all matter.
To achieve even in a godless universe, a complete plan of the randomization of particles, the movements of planets, the itrocacies (sorry if I spelt that wrong, I am only 17. Really, I am. I just have a bit of common sense) of evolution at every level. There are just too many chances that all this didn't happen, or did in a completely different way.
The variety of life on this planet is vast enough, just think about all the possible life that virtually has to be there in the rest of the Universe. It's just conceited of us humans to think otherwise. If we take the idea that all this happened randomly, as just a series of coincidences, Life evolving becomes quite possible, along with the whole Universe. Formulating through Chance.
Thank you for allowing me to view my idiotic thoughts and hope you all enjoy continuing this debate. It certainly has kept me harmlessly entertained for a half hour.