John West's attempt at "swift-boating" sinks

Perhaps West would be so kind as to explain to us why none of these much-vaunted scientists of his have been able to come up with a scientific theory of ID that can be tested using the scientific method . . . ?

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that ID is just religious apologetics, would it?

Not only that, but 500 ID supporting scientists (well some of them claim that they never bought into ID like Berlinski, but how is the Discovery Institute hawking the bogus list?) and according to the two Discovery Institute fellow's testimony in Dover, there hasn't been a single paper supporting ID published in the scientific literature. These guys are obviously top flight scientists really up to date on the topic. They must be up to date on the controversy, even if they don't seem to know what it is, and aren't interested enough to do anything about it, but sign a list.:-)

How does one see the full "membership" in the Discovery Institute? Also, are they required to make public their donor list? I have heard a rumor that one of the candidates for Presiding Bishop of TN is associated, and I am trying to check it out. The list of "fellows" doesn't include this individual, and Google turns up very little.

West's complaints aside, don't you imagine that around the offices of the Discovery Institute, there's increasingly the feeling that the jig is up? I bet it's a pretty grim workplace these days.

"West's complaints aside, don't you imagine that around the offices of the Discovery Institute, there's increasingly the feeling that the jig is up? I bet it's a pretty grim workplace these days."

I hope you are right, that would be the attitude amongst a group of rational people, but I have the feeling you give them too much credit on the critical thinking score.

Possibly. They're 100 years behind on evolution, they might be a few years away from understanding how Dover treated them like Jean Claude van Damme treats the bad guy in the last 5 minutes of the movie.

See, now this is the perfect place for a "Holy war". I'll start, OK? Supid Fu****g Christians.

West's complaints aside, don't you imagine that around the offices of the Discovery Institute, there's increasingly the feeling that the jig is up? I bet it's a pretty grim workplace these days.

... according to the two Discovery Institute fellow's testimony in Dover, there hasn't been a single paper supporting ID published in the scientific literature

Oops, ha ha. That last name was about some weird spam the last time I signed on. Excuse me.

Steady BWE ,,, breath deeply and say OMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

clueless they are oh wambawamba, not unwitting they are 2 hrmmmm.

I sense this is the weakest point of the evil empire,
One advantage a PR firm has over the hoi poloi... the great unwashed, is its free ride into the very nerve centers of the MATRIX.
Like a free riding virus with skeleton keys and a built in ability to walk right through the media owners political firewall untouched directly to the clones that inhabit the terminals connected to the (mind) presses.
er....you know email a press realize that can just be reprinted...saves work (remember Michael Balter ..twit)

A deeply penetrating search for the dirty truth behind these scamsters ("swift boating the swift boaters") and a single well targeted thinking journalist into the core of their lies may well have an "explosive" force big enough to blow their butts off for the time being.

Comment #83666 Posted by Can you stop this penis enlargement thing? on March 4, 2006 11:23 AM (e)

The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by
any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest
testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian);
11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There
are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported
by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts
of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)).
Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers
supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum,
the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed.
(21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25
(blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed
articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular
structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to
failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific
research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).

_____________

17 The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an
article written by Behe and Snoke entitled "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein
features that require multiple amino acid residues." (P-721). A review of the article indicates
that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted
that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary
mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically
realistic population size were used. (22:41-45 (Behe); P-756).

Jesus, thanks steve s. Darn thing's about 19 inches now. Hope it goes back to normal.

Your wife hopes not.

She's only 5'2". She's scared.

Back on track, folks, please.
Thanks

I am still hoping someone can answer my question (Comment 83661) Thanks!

KL:
Discovery Institute staff and fellows are listed on their web site, but as you say, simple members are not. I am not sure whether the list is confidential or, since they are a non-profit, it is public. Why don't you call them?

[yawn] The DI is composed fully 100% of people who knowingly and willingly lie to advance what they intellectually know is (currently, and one must think from their failure to pursue ANY real research, obviously) an entirely unscientific, religiously/politically motivated position.
The seek political power, and feed on ignorance, indifference and fear. They are bad people, and they have bad aims which they enjoy promoting with bad methods.

West's complaints aside, don't you imagine that around the offices of the Discovery Institute, there's increasingly the feeling that the jig is up? I bet it's a pretty grim workplace these days.

To Andrea: Thanks! I'll give it a go.

John West doth protest too much. And there is probably a simple reason why. In his mind, he's got to be thinking to himself: When was the last time a religiously motivated criticism of a scientific theory turn out to hold any water? Could John Q. Public even name one?

Good job, to Ken Chang for exposing DI's list.

Anti-evolutionists point to the Discovery Institute, a leading think tank on debunking Darwin's theory. The institute promotes a list of scientists across the country, including several from Oklahoma colleges and universities, who have signed a pledge skeptical of Darwin's claims. When contacted by Oklahoma Gazette, many of the Oklahoma scientists said they do not necessarily disagree with the statement but don't recall giving permission to have their name on a list.

New York Times reporter Kenneth Chang made a big deal out of the fact that many signers of the DI letter are non-biologists and/or at least partly motivated by religion. Well, what about the motivations and scientific qualifications of the following groups that have signed pro-Darwinism letters --

(1) 10,000+ Christian clergy members

(2) Kansas State University faculty members
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/kansas_kansas_s.html

(3) The "700 Club" and "Project Steve" of the National Center for Science Education

(4) Nobel laureates

In particular, the following excerpt from the letter signed by the Christian clergy members shows blatant religious motivation for urging that Darwinism not be challenged --

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris." -- from http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm

This is not merely a statement asserting that Darwinism is not incompatible with religion.

How about your motivation? Why are you so motivated to suck?

Hmmm... andy h. would have a good point, except for that little detail that "pro-Darwinists" have never conditioned the validity of evolutionary science on the number of clergy or non-biologists who have signed some petition. Fortunately for us, the evidence itself speaks loudly enough for evolution.

On the other hand, the IDiots have done exactly the opposite. The very health of the ID movement hinges on rounding up those pseudo-scientific critics of evolution. That they can only get less than a thousand signatories to date is not very impressive. I believe at its zenith, Philip Johnson's other brain-child -- the HIV-denial movement -- had comparable numbers in a similar petition.

Once again context matters. Petitions can only counter petitions. In this case, our petitions put a lie to the claim that there is some "growing" controversy to evolutionary science. All other benefits we may derive from our petitions are largely incidental.

Chang does give the impression, at least to me, that the vast majority of these signers are evangelicals, the vast majority of whom don't know what they're talking about anyway. The fact that West was only able to come up with 2 (of 500) who were NOT obviously motivated by religious faith hits home pretty hard. And one of those two is an obvious crank.

Also pretty telling is that the DI can't counter with any science at all. The best they can do is produce a meager list, itself misrepresented (as compared with the statement that was signed). I sincerely hope journalists will take note. How much better these articles will become once journalists learn to say "Don't give me a list of evangelicals in unrelated fields. Give me a list of scientists publishing ID research in peer reviewed journals." The responses to such a demand would be fascinating all by themselves.

The responses to such a demand would be fascinating all by themselves.

The 10,000+ clergy aren't saying that religion is the reason that the truth of evolution should accepted. They know full well why it is being rejected (by the usual suspects), and are just stating that the reasoning behind the denial is bad religion, as well as being bad science. Sorry that the distinction escapes you.

this is the perfect place for a "Holy war". I'll start, OK? Supid Fu****g Christians.

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

I second the motion that Jack Krebs, Eugenie, and all the swingers should sign it. I actually think that is an excellent idea.

Oh, how I love the way the Media Complaints Division is throwing "suppress" around like McCarthy is lurking around the corner. I think these are the desperate death throes of the DI. I'll admit that ID will stick around in people's hearts (and empty minds), but I really think that the Disco Institute will keep foaming at the mouth as its CNS deteriorates further and further.

You can only peddle blather and bluster as science for so long, irrespective of the stupidity of your base supporters.

I second the motion that Jack Krebs, Eugenie, and all the swingers should sign it. I actually think that is an excellent idea.

Andrea Bottaro posted Entry 2089 on March 4, 2006 08:30 AM -- opening comment in thread What is impressive here, of course, is that a whole 25% of purported "scientists" on the list actually openly admitted that their religious beliefs strongly influenced, in fact radically changed, their conclusions about scientific matters (to the point in some cases of rejecting not only evolution, but also modern geology and cosmology!).

West cannot and does not argue against Chang's findings: that the overwhelming majority of the signatories - with the only known exceptions being 2 (two out of five hundred!) individuals --- are evangelical and conservative Christians, that the vast majority are professionally unqualified to judge evolutionary biology on scientific merits, and that by their own admission, in a significant fractions of cases their objections followed directly and were influenced by their religious beliefs

The petition tries to fool unaware readers into believing that skepticism about "claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" amounts to a legitimate scientific objection to evolutionary theory. This is false: evolutionary theory makes no such claim for the sufficiency of "random mutation and natural selection", and in fact incorporates and actively studies additional evolutionary mechanisms.

Chang said that he interviewed only 20 of the people on the list, and with such a small sample size, that 25% figure would have a large margin of error. Also, the NY Times article said, "of the signers who are evangelical Christians, most defend their doubts on scientific grounds," suggesting that in most cases these signers' doubts about Darwinism are not solely or even principally based on religious beliefs.

There is absolutely no basis for concluding that "the overwhelming majority of the signatories ... are evangelical and conservative Christians." As for not being professionally qualified, most or many of the KSU professors and Nobel laureates who signed pro-Darwinism statements were also not in evolution-related fields. And those 2 signatories who were not evangelical or conservative Christians were not necessarily the only ones who could readily be found.

But random mutation and natural selection are considered to be the most important factors that drive evolution. Some other kinds of genetic variation besides random mutation are sometimes added, e.g., genetic drift (really just a slow random mutation), gene flow, and polyploidy (multiple copies of chromosomes), but the most important kind of genetic variation in regard to Darwinism is random mutation. Also, for some unknown reason, Darwinists often mention only natural selection and leave out random mutation or genetic variation when discussing the forces that are supposed to drive evolution.

Considering the great importance that is attached to scientists' --- particularly biologists' --- opinions about evolution, it is astonishing that formal random polls of scientists' opinions about evolution are not conducted more frequently.

Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, Andrea Bottaro, Robert Pennock, Barbara Forrest, Wes Elsberry, etc. etc. should publicly sign the DI's "Dissent from Darwinism" statement above. It's such a vacuous & mealy-mouthed statement (much like ID theory itself), especially when compared to the forceful & straightforward text of the Project Steve statement, the leading evolution spokespeople should just show them up by publicly signing the stupid DI statement.

— EmmaPeel

You/we'll never convince my brother-in-law, whose big bang was Jesus, or convert any of the faithful. This is one field that has no fence sitters. Either you're right(A) or right(B).

I second the motion that Jack Krebs, Eugenie, and all the swingers should sign it. I actually think that is an excellent idea.

You/we'll never convince my brother-in-law, whose big bang was Jesus, or convert any of the faithful. This is one field that has no fence sitters. Either you're right(A) or right(B).

— mr.ed

Only half-seriously, though, because the "dissenters" list is managed by the Disco Inst, and you know they're not going to allow their PR project to be sabotaged; I doubt whether Genie would be allowed to sign it.

— Russell

To the claim that "the jury is still out," I think a proper response would be: "But the parties have already settled. The judge has decided summary judgment was acceptable after all. The parties have gone home. Tell the jury to come in out of the cold and get with it."

Comment #83801 Posted by Andrea Bottaro on March 5, 2006 10:24 AM

Chang said that he interviewed only 20 of the people on the list, and with such a small sample size, that 25% figure would have a large margin of error. Also, the NY Times article said, "of the signers who are evangelical Christians, most defend their doubts on scientific grounds," suggesting that in most cases these signers' doubts about Darwinism are not solely or even principally based on religious beliefs.

And Chang dutifully reported that - what are you objecting to?

For instance, most of the "experts" that ID advocates presented at the Kansas kangaroo hearings are also signatories of the list,

Apart from the interviews and the analysis of people's own statements performed by Chang, that all the DI can come up with as non-conservative Christian signatories are the usual 2, Berlinski and Salthe,

As for the Nobel Prize winners, once again the argument for evolution is not an argument from authority, so as far as I am concerned you can ignore their opinions. Remember, it is the creationists who started making lists of "scientists" to support their positions, as if that would be meaningful, not vice-versa.

Gene flow and genetic drift are not "some other kinds of genetic variation besides random mutation", and neither is polyploidy, which is a form of random mutation like any other.

Natural selection is certainly the best recognized and studied, and most likely the strongest force shaping evolutionary trajectories, but it is hardly the only one.

Considering the great importance that is attached to scientists' --- particularly biologists' --- opinions about evolution, it is astonishing that formal random polls of scientists' opinions about evolution are not conducted more frequently.

This is not "astonishing" at all. Science does not work by polling - only political activists like ID advocates care about that.

the US Supreme Court said that one of the factors that should be considered in determining the scientific merits of an idea is "whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community," and the only objective way of measuring that acceptance is by a formal random opinion poll.

I refuse to believe that with over 500 signers, there are not lots of other signers who are not evangelical or conservative Christians.

— Larandy Harharman

the US Supreme Court said that one of the factors that should be considered in determining the scientific merits of an idea is "whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community," and the only objective way of measuring that acceptance is by a formal random opinion poll.

Also, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 579 (1993), the US Supreme Court said that one of the factors that should be considered in determining the scientific merits of an idea is "whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community," and the only objective way of measuring that acceptance is by a formal random opinion poll.

I thought one decided on the "widespread" acceptance of a scientific idea by reviewing the pertinent literature rather than polling a lot of scientists who haven't. Silly me....

When the SCOTUS refers to factors to consider in making determinations, it is talking about determinations by courts. Courts, of course, do not commission polls -- they examine the evidence presented to them by the parties. So Larandyharharfarceman's citation has no bearing on whether one should be surprised that there aren't more random polls of scientists.

I thought one decided on the "widespread" acceptance of a scientific idea by reviewing the pertinent literature rather than polling a lot of scientists who haven't.

Besides, you are overlooking one major point. Who is going to pay for all these formal opinion polls? They aren't done for free. What questions will be asked?

Original DI part: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Addition: "In agreement with Charles Darwin, we feel that evolutionary biology is comprised of more than just natural selection. We believe that a proper understanding of the history and diversity of living things requires knowledge of other mechanisms of evolutionary change, as well as natural selection, including, but not restricted to, genetic drift, endosymbiosis, and evolutionary development. Careful examination of the evidence that documents the evolutionary history of life and the varied mechanisms by which that history unfolded should be encouraged, in the same way that such careful examination has been practiced over the past fourteen decades, resulting in a voluminous scientific literature documenting the patient and assiduous work of legions of biologists, zoologists, botanists, ethologists, physiologists, geneticists, paleontologists, biochemists, taphonomists, and others willing to test their ideas against the empirical evidence. We further assert our skepticism that the re-labeled antievolutionary arguments common to "scientific creationism", "intelligent design", "evidence against evolution", and "teaching the controversy" have any greater validity now than when first careful examination of those claims showed them to be specious, misleading, or entirely uncheckable against empirical evidence. We agree that primary and secondary science education should teach the best scientific knowledge available, and should eschew arguments that are part of the long-established antievolutionary canon."

Comment #83885 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on March 5, 2006 06:06 PM

Also, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 579 (1993), the US Supreme Court said that one of the factors that should be considered in determining the scientific merits of an idea is "whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community," and the only objective way of measuring that acceptance is by a formal random opinion poll.

The Supreme Court in that decision did not provide any means as to how to determine "widespread acceptance" - they certainly didn't imply that an opinion poll was the only acceptable method. There are several ways to measure acceptance.

Besides, you are overlooking one major point. Who is going to pay for all these formal opinion polls? They aren't done for free.

What questions will be asked ?

How often will they be taken?

What if a particular field of study hasn't yet been subjected to a poll?

Comment #83889 posted by KL on March 5, 2006 06:22 PM I thought one decided on the "widespread" acceptance of a scientific idea by reviewing the pertinent literature rather than polling a lot of scientists who haven't. Silly me....

Comment #83890 posted by Popper's Ghost on March 5, 2006 06:25 PM When the SCOTUS refers to factors to consider in making determinations, it is talking about determinations by courts. Courts, of course, do not commission polls --- they examine the evidence presented to them by the parties.

Comment #83894 posted by Flint on March 5, 2006 06:45 PM I've constructed and performed such polls. If there's any one statement that can be made about a public opinion poll, it is this: Tell me who funded it, and I can tell you what it "found." Polls are expensive; polls are taken to produce "objective" support for one view or another. Polls that do not produce the purchased support are not published, and the polling organization is not rehired in the future.

Wesley,

Re "We further assert our skepticism that the re-labeled antievolutionary arguments common to "scientific creationism", "intelligent design", "evidence against evolution", and "teaching the controversy" have any greater validity now than when [...]"

Maybe the last part of that should read
"[...] have as great a validity now as when"
Or perhaps "[...] have greater validity now than when" ?

Henry

Many Darwinists seem to have this big phobia about opinion polls of scientists.

— Andy H

Opinion polls are not objective. Even my wife, who is an anthropologist and has to write the questions as part of her research, says this. By the way, she is using interviews with 20 people as a representative sample of a population of 4000 for her doctoral research. A 2.5% sample size is not very small when it comes to polls.

BTW, we're not saying that polls are useless or that they shouldn't be used for that determination, if available. But we find it ludicrous that an opinion poll would be considered the only objective way to determine if something is well accepted in the scientific community. There are plenty of objective ways to determine acceptance.

I've got a thought, larry...

go construct a poll and get some results (you must interview at least 100 random folks), and then post them back here.

in other words...

just do something useful rather than trolling about PT.

or do you prefer endlessly posting your mindless drivel instead?

Regarding poll sizes.

We have close to seven million (7,000,000) people in this city and political polls regularly interview 300 - 1000 people. By comparision, 20 out of 500 is a huge sample.

Many Darwinists seem to have this big phobia about opinion polls of scientists.

Hmmm... andy h. would have a good point, except for that little detail that "pro-Darwinists" have never conditioned the validity of evolutionary science on the number of clergy or non-biologists who have signed some petition. Fortunately for us, the evidence itself speaks loudly enough for evolution.

I started drafting a less "vacuous & mealy-mouthed" statement, but Wesley's (Comment #83906) is better. I would add, however, a part about the nearly 4 billion year history of life and common ancestry of species. I'd bet that most of those who signed the DI's statement are not YECs or classic OECs, and except for the few who have a prior commitment to "don't ask, don't tell" (e.g. the DI fellows and their closest allies), they'd have no problem admitting that science is correct about the general history of life, however incomplete they think the Darwinian theory may be.

Comment #83757 posted by orrg1 on March 4, 2006 10:30 PM The 10,000+ clergy aren't saying that religion is the reason that the truth of evolution should accepted. They know full well why it is being rejected (by the usual suspects), and are just stating that the reasoning behind the denial is bad religion, as well as being bad science. Sorry that the distinction escapes you.

Comment #83807 posted by Frank J on March 5, 2006 11:10 AM How about a "Dissent from 'Darwinism'" statement without the "vacuous & mealy-mouthed" wording. IOW a dissent from the "Darwinism" caricature promoted by pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists, with an honest statement of healthy disagreements on the mechanism, but with a clear admission that the theory is correct regarding common descent and the antiquity of life.

Comment #83954 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on March 6, 2006 12:41 AM Opinion polls are not objective. Even my wife, who is an anthropologist and has to write the questions as part of her research, says this. By the way, she is using interviews with 20 people as a representative sample of a population of 4000 for her doctoral research. A 2.5% sample size is not very small when it comes to polls.

But the DI statement does not dispute the ideas of "common descent" and "the antiquity of life."

— Andy H.

The DI statement looks quite straightforward to me.

— Andy H.

or do you prefer endlessly posting your mindless drivel instead?

— STJ

When was the last time a religiously motivated criticism of a scientific theory turn out to hold any water? Could John Q. Public even name one?

By the way Larry, I've pointed out your laziness, deceit, igorance, and inability to construct a logical thought here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/entomologists_u.html#comment-83961.

I can post it here, if you like - I know you have reading problems.

What has not escaped me is the fact that the clergy's letter virtually treats as a sacrilege any suggestion that Darwinism is not the absolute truth. The letter says that even just to treat Darwinism as "one theory among others" is "a rejection of the will of our Creator" and an "attempt to limit God, an act of hubris." See Comment #83741 .

But the DI statement does not dispute the ideas of "common descent" and "the antiquity of life." The statement only disputes the idea that evolution was driven solely by random mutation (and --- by extension --- less important natural causes of genetic variation) and natural selection. The DI statement looks quite straightforward to me. I disagree with the notions that the statement is ambiguous, misleading, or that the signers did not know exactly what they were signing.

It appears that most public opinion polls have a sample size of around 1000, as this number appears to be a good compromise between cost and accuracy. A table of sampling errors shows that for a 50-50 split in opinion, the margin of error at a 95 percent confidence level is 3 percent for a sample size of 1000 and 11 percent for a sample size of 100. For a 90-10 split in opinion, the margins of error are 2 percent and 6 percent for sample sizes of 1000 and 100, respectively. See "What is sampling error?" subtopic under "Total Survey Error" in http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/pom/polling101....

Piece O' cake (to name one---not sure if it is the last). That would be when the bible believers insisted that our universe had a beginning, and people like Eddington, Hoyle, and Einstein held that it didn't. You do recall the outcome of that debate?

— Dave

Major polling organizations --- e.g., Gallup, Harris, and Ipsos --- are very concerned about maintaining an image of objectivity. They would not knowingly ask a poll question that is ambiguous, misleading, or loaded. And if bias is a problem, balance could be provided by having polls commissioned by organizations on both sides of the issue.

Many Darwinists seem to have this big phobia about opinion polls of scientists.

lol. I was almost sure Heddle was going to cite Darwin and his religious motivations, but somehow, that may have been hoping for too much. ;-)

" "That would be when the bible believers insisted that our universe had a beginning, and people like Eddington, Hoyle, and Einstein held that it didn't. You do recall the outcome of that debate?"

Dave, your ignorance is showing. There was no theory of an eternal universe, nor was there 'religiously motivated' criticism of the theory."

Rilke's is correct of course, but also the shoe goes on the other foot.

There has been a philosopical/theological idea of 'a first cause'. Newer cosmology theories uses other mechanism, starting from the random quantum fluctuation cosmology, I believe, through Hawking et al 'no boundary' proposals, multiverse/endless inflation scenarios, string brane cosmologies, Carroll et al symmetrical time scenario and doubtless many others. The later ideas embeds big bang in infinite time universes/multiverses without any 'first cause'.

It turns out that when physicists come up with physical explanations for cosmology, a 'first cause', or (signs of) gods, isn't usable as part of a theory of cosmology. That was the outcome.

That should have been "(putative signs of) gods", even a hypothetical 'first cause' doesn't necessarily mean "gods did it", of course.

What has not escaped me is the fact that the clergy's letter virtually treats as a sacrilege any suggestion that Darwinism is not the absolute truth.

— Landarry H. Farfarfromsmart

It appears that most public opinion polls have a sample size of around 1000, as this number appears to be a good compromise between cost and accuracy.

AD, you're assuming that Landarry's fallacies are countably infinite rather than uncountably infinite.

There was an strong atheistic criticism of a religously held belief which created the 'steady-state', but that was no more than a hypothesis looking for data.

— Rilke's Granddaughter

"you're assuming that Landarry's fallacies are countably infinite rather than uncountably infinite"

Yes, how was it again, was the possibilities of language (and wrong commentaries on the web) countably or uncountably infinite?

If the later, the next interesting question is if IDiots fallacies comprises a dense set. I guess so, a continous function should project a dense (IDiots) set (all IDiots) to another dense set. :-)

How about that, finally a workable theory of ID.

AD, you're assuming that Landarry's fallacies are countably infinite rather than uncountably infinite.

Rilke's is correct of course, but also the shoe goes on the other foot.

Re "Yes, I would also think ID is dense. We can prove it, too."

But are you talking about the set of IDers, or the members of that set?

Yes.

Larry/Andy/Billy-Bob/Sue/whatever you want to call yourself: given your demonstrated --- and often admitted --- lack of knowledge of the subjects of which you speak; given your constant refusal to answer questions regarding your motives and dishonest use of multiple names; given your blatant repetition of arguments that have been refuted several times before; given your explicitly-stated disregard for all facts and logic that contradict your assertions; given the mockery you now consistently attract; and given your now-obvious reputation as a lonely pathetic dishonest cranky loser; I have to ask the following questions:

Why do you continue posting here, when you are clearly unwilling to deal honestly with us?

What makes you think you can convince anyone of anything here?

What makes you think your assertions have any credibility?

The issue of course is not that religious beliefs (or lack thereof) must be considered in themselves ground to dismiss anyone's specific scientific opinions,

Comment #83995 posted by Andrea Bottaro on March 6, 2006 08:22 AM

What has not escaped me is the fact that the clergy's letter virtually treats as a sacrilege any suggestion that Darwinism is not the absolute truth. The letter says that even just to treat Darwinism as "one theory among others" is "a rejection of the will of our Creator" and an "attempt to limit God, an act of hubris." See Comment #83741

Now you are purposefully misleading, or perhaps your reading comprehension is extremely poor..........They do say that rejecting critical thought, which they see as a God-given human faculty, is a "a rejection of the will of our Creator" and that any theology that requires to give up on critical thought is an "attempt to limit God, an act of hubris".

The DI is trying to sell the statement as implying there is skepticism about the mechanisms that drive evolution, and therefore students should be taught that evolutionary theory is "controversial" among scientists.

However, that's not what the statement says, because the theory of evolution already includes mechanisms other than random mutation and natural selection.

So they went with a mealy-mouthed, ambiguous statement instead, and misrepresent it to the public.

A table of sampling errors shows that for a 50-50 split in opinion, the margin of error at a 95 percent confidence level is 3 percent for a sample size of 1000 and 11 percent for a sample size of 100.

Come on, let's be serious now: those are samples sizes for accurately polling a population of 200 million. For small populations, sample sizes diminish. But this is irrelevant, because neither Chang nor I ever claimed the survey was scientifically designed,

Let me be the first to resist the urge to simply say,

"Shut up, Larry!"

Wow, this self-denial really grows on you!

That would be when the bible believers insisted that our universe had a beginning, and people like Eddington, Hoyle, and Einstein held that it didn't. You do recall the outcome of that debate?

Re "Let me be the first to resist the urge to simply say,"

Apparently, resistance was futile? ;)

Henry

There is skepticism about the mechanisms that drive evolution, so why not tell students the truth ?

I sure do. Science adopted Big Bang theory, and fundies have been bitching about it ever since. (shrug)

Hey Heddle, why, again, do all the creationists think Big Bang theory is wrong ...... ?

It's taken me a while, but I now understand why nobody on Panda's Thumb will ever define "creationist." (While simultaneously whining incessantly that nobody will define "Darwinist.")

— Heddle

It's taken me a while, but I now understand why nobody on Panda's Thumb will ever define "creationist." (While simultaneously whining incessantly that nobody will define "Darwinist.")

Major polling organizations --- e.g., Gallup, Harris, and Ipsos --- are very concerned about maintaining an image of objectivity. They would not knowingly ask a poll question that is ambiguous, misleading, or loaded.

Here's my understanding of "creationist": someone who rejects the conclusive evidence of common descent, and/or someone who believes that supernatural intervention is necessary to explain the current state of the natural world, particularly that part of the natural world we call biology.

check out the latest Discovery Institute-commissioned poll

The religious right is hellbent on destroying science in the United States. Their intent is to allow the chinese communists to surpass the U.S. in science. Why are they so against science and the US. Why do they want the U.S. to be subservient to other nations. Is it the they are happy in their ignorance and want to share it with all of us. Why do they want the U.S. to be a second class science nation. Is stupidity a blessing in disguise. Are they insisting that we don't deserve to be the best nation on earth.

Here's my understanding of "creationist": someone who rejects the conclusive evidence of common descent, and/or someone who believes that supernatural intervention is necessary to explain the current state of the natural world, particularly that part of the natural world we call biology.

Well put. And by this definition Heddle is assuredly a creationist.

But as long as they recognize that their understanding of divine intervention can never fall under the purview of science, they're not "creationists" in my understanding of the word.

Hey Heddle, why, again, do all the creationists think Big Bang theory is wrong ...... ?

Andy/Larry/Billy-Bob/Sue/whatever: you haven't answered the questions that have been raised about your honesty, competence, knowledge, or credibility. Why not? We know you saw them.

Why should we consider you anything but an idiot living in his own world? What makes you more worthy of our attention than a raving street-loony?

All ID advocates ("IDists?" Is it appropriate to call this political movement "IDism?")

Glad you didn't include Zogby in the list: check out the latest Discovery Institute-commissioned poll for an example of ambiguous, misleading and loaded poll question. Quite a farce.

Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it. 69% Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. 21% Neither/Not Sure 10%

Russell,

Thanks--your definition was good blog fodder.

However, Russell also wrote: But as long as they recognize that their understanding of divine intervention can never fall under the purview of science, they're not "creationists" in my understanding of the word. This is the Ken Miller loophole---but I also walk through, because I also do not believe that divine intervention falls under the purview of science. So depending on which part of Russell's definition you prefer, I either am or am not a creationist. Not very precise.

Why not just use the gist of the first part of Russell's definition: Creationist: someone who believes, to some nonzero but unspecified degree, that supernatural intervention is necessary to explain the natural world. Any objections?

By which, again, I am not a creationist. Why not just use the gist of the first part of Russell's definition: Creationist: someone who believes, to some nonzero but unspecified degree, that supernatural intervention is necessary to explain the natural world. Any objections?

— Heddle

Russell and Rilke's Granddaughter :

Fine-tuning is clearly part of science--many scientists discuss it. Virtually none of them deny it. Many atheist scientists affirm that our universe is fine-tuned.

Perhaps you mean: "Fine tuning as evidence for design, i.e., divine intervention." That is cosmological ID. You might recall at least one of the bazillion times that I stated ID is not science. So the divine-intervention explanation for fine-tuning is not, by my own oft-repeated words, in the purview of science. Therefore I walk through Russell's Ken Miller loophole.

RGD,

In case it is not clear, I am not denying that I am a creationist. I am stating that by the first part of Russell's definition I am, by the second part I am not, and by Lenny's comment I am not, even though he calls me one. It's the PT inconsistency I am commenting upon.

Therefore I walk through Russell's Ken Miller loophole.

It's the PT inconsistency I am commenting upon.

It's the PT inconsistency I am commenting upon.

Heddle, I think your ultimate point here is pretty trivial. There are numerous people out there who describe themselves as creationists -- are you getting on their case for not defining creationism and all sticking to a single definition? Also, last I checked, there were wild inconsistencies in the beliefs of ID advocates and Christians as well; are you losing sleep over there not being a consistent package of beliefs for those folks as well? I think you're belaboring this mostly just to have something to complain about.

FWIW, I'm quite happy to believe you qualify as a creationist. The reason I like the short form of Russell's definition (although Russell might not view it as a valid statement of what he was getting at) is that it seems to me to hit the main points, plus it readily includes IDers as creationists, which makes a lot of sense to me. I've long thought that the similarities between IDers and creationists were ultimately much more salient than the differences between them.

"Fine-tuning is clearly part of science---many scientists discuss it."

Yes, in an abstract way. Ie they recognise that some parameters seem finetuned.

"Virtually none of them deny it. Many atheist scientists affirm that our universe is fine-tuned."

Which is why this is disingenuous. The finetuning is seen as a bad thing, and most expects it to go away silently as the understanding of physics increase.

""Fine tuning as evidence for design, i.e., divine intervention." That is cosmological ID."

There is also some recent speculations about finetuning in regards to endless inflation and string theory. In each of those cases several physical mechanisms have been proposed, since as for 'first-cause' arguments, design arguments isn't usable in science and there are plenty of realistic alternatives. Here 'realistic' really mean 'things as they really are'.

I sure do. Science adopted Big Bang theory, and fundies have been bitching about it ever since. (shrug)

Do you not grasp that that's the point? "Wad of id" asked if any religiously motivated criticism of science was ever shown to hold water. Well, the religiously motivated criticism of the steady state model was, as you pointed out, spectacularly successful at "holding water."

I agree: I think it is necessary to invoke divine intervention to explain the state of the natural world. Guilty as charged.

by Lenny's comment I am not, even though he calls me one.

Um, hey Heddle, I know you're not terribly bright, but the Big Bang theory was not religiously motivated.

There is also some recent speculations about finetuning in regards to endless inflation and string theory. In each of those cases several physical mechanisms have been proposed, since as for 'first-cause' arguments, design arguments isn't usable in science and there are plenty of realistic alternatives. Here 'realistic' really mean 'things as they really are'.

Do they teach much of string theory in high school in the USA?

Um, hey Heddle, I know you're not terribly bright, but the Big Bang theory was not religiously motivated.

Didn't say it was

So what? Why should science (or anyone else) give a flying fig about your religious opinions, Davey? Who the hell are you?

Fine-tuning is clearly part of science---many scientists discuss it. Virtually none of them deny it. Many atheist scientists affirm that our universe is fine-tuned. Perhaps you mean: "Fine tuning as evidence for design, i.e., divine intervention." That is cosmological ID. You might recall at least one of the bazillion times that I stated ID is not science. So the divine-intervention explanation for fine-tuning is not, by my own oft-repeated words, in the purview of science. Therefore I walk through Russell's Ken Miller loophole.

"Or do you know of some experiments that have been proposed to explain the fine-tunings? Please share if you do."

I don't think fine-tuning is shown to be necessary, which is really the main question here.

But it's a fair enough question about these mechanisms. I don't know of any proposals apropos. But maybe I can make one myself first.

In endless inflation, parts of space blows up to form a new universe through inflation on a random basis. If string theory can explain inflation, and is independently tested, what remains is to see if the values of the parameters that maximises multiverse production through inflation corresponds closely to those we observe.

The assumption here is that it's very improbable that we should happen to live in a universe that deviates from that maximum. This is a verification only, but if the rest of the theory is able to be falsified plenty, as physics is and will be, a few unfalsifiable predictions that closes the theory are all right, as long as they don't come from ad hocs. At least, that's what the physicists usually does, so it should be fine here too.

Actually, thinking about it and your objection about falsification, it's a weak form of falsification.

If the values that maximise multiverse production is way off what we observe, while it doesn't falsify the theory absolutely, it does so relatively, since no one would be satisfied with the result as it's unreliable in this particular case. Even if it isn't an ad hoc, and closes the theory, it's too large part of the theory to be unfalsified, at least as long as we can't study the multiverse creation directly.

The theory would be junked, and the search for a new theory that fit all observations better would continue.

I see i made o good (or bad :-) job of arguing both sides. Whatever of those two scenarios happens (and right now I think the last one is the correct one) the theory will be physically fine without any creator messing about.

And as I said, as long as fine-tuning is a convenient tag and a speculative hypothesis without any claim to being necessary, it isn't obvious that the scenario will ever play out. But physics can explain it, obviously.

Comment #84515 posted by Andrea Bottaro on March 7, 2006 10:48 AM

Major polling organizations --- e.g., Gallup, Harris, and Ipsos --- are very concerned about maintaining an image of objectivity. They would not knowingly ask a poll question that is ambiguous, misleading, or loaded.

Glad you didn't include Zogby in the list: check out the latest Discovery Institute-commissioned poll for an example of ambiguous, misleading and loaded poll question. Quite a farce.

Lawrence "I'm not a Holocaust denier just a revisionist" Fafarman posting as Andy H. and has never once denied it

quibble over this

A sample of 20 out of 500 scientists who signed the ID list AND DO NOT REJECT evolution means that for all practical purposes 100% of the people on that list agree with evolution and BY DEFINITION reject the DI position.

It's a workday and (unlike Larry) I'm busy, so self-restraint will have to wait for a more auspicious moment:

Shut up, Larry. Thanks so much.

Do they teach much of string theory in high school in the USA?

Actually, I was helping my wife design a buoyancy lab for 6-8th graders just last night and she kept getting frustrated with me for not understanding string theory. It went something like this:
"You went to school so long ago your education is almost worthless. If you cant even use string theory to help explain the cup sinking when you add the water weight in sand then what can you do?"

Comment #85248 posted by BWE on March 9, 2006 11:30 AM Actually, I was helping my wife design a buoyancy lab for 6-8th graders just last night and she kept getting frustrated with me for not understanding string theory. It went something like this: "You went to school so long ago your education is almost worthless. If you cant even use string theory to help explain the cup sinking when you add the water weight in sand then what can you do?"

Andy H

You need an irony meter.

Oh and...

Shut up, Larry.

Larry is from Missouri he doesn't 'do irony' that would take imagination, he thinks intelligence is the act of creation, and does not realize that imagination is required for er...well whatever he can't imagine real or otherwise.

Andy,

You must have gone to school a long time ago too. That's exactly what I said to her. It turns out that nowadays, teachers are using landscape theory coupled with non-euclidean geometry to get far more accurate results. The old Archimedes principle worked pretty good but it was an approximation it turns out. When you get to Very Large Massive (VLM) bodies, the principle breaks down and a new kind of math had to be discovered to solve the problem. The scientists turned to string theory and found exactly what they were looking for. It has become so commonplace now that they begin using string theory in 5th grade geometry and by 7th grade, calculating buoyancy using string theory isn't too difficult. It's actually easier than displacement because you don't need a scale or a beaker to test it. It's like god that way: perfect and infallible.

string ....isn't that a musician ?

Anyway I see the problem here
Archimedes was an engineer ...not a physicist.