Photograph by Francois Malan.
Photography contest, Honorable Mention.
Incense smoke swirling in quiet air. Negative image.
Mr. Malan writes that his photograph "illustrates how apparent design can be induced in apparently chaotic natural phenomena," though the smoke is not truly chaotic until it "goes over into true turbulence." He concludes, "Physics, all there's to it."
72 Comments
e-dogg · 23 November 2009
Stunning! Any chance of getting a hi-res version for wallpaper?
Lynn Wilhelm · 23 November 2009
Absolutely gorgeous! If it's scientific enough, I'm disappointed it wasn't a contest finalist.
Many of these illustrate dramatically how matter interacts, and they are beautiful counterexamples to the ID/creationist claims that matter cannot produce order and emergent properties because of “spontaneous molecular chaos”.
Duncan Buell · 23 November 2009
If you look closely at this, you can see that this allegedly random arrangement of smoke particles actually contains the image (albeit a stern one, not smiling) of William Dembski.
Richard · 23 November 2009
Beautiful!
Salvador Dali would be envious!!!!
ravilyn.sanders · 23 November 2009
Does it need any special kind of camera to shoot these kind of images? What kind of exposure times?
Baka · 23 November 2009
I would also appreciate a link to a higher-res version for wallpaper purposes. Really beautiful shot!
harold · 23 November 2009
Of course, no-one real cares about "detecting design", except for real basic and applied scientists in fields like archaeology and forensics, or for non-human design, those that study any of the innumerable animal species that design hives, nests, etc.
"ID" exists because religious authoritarians exist.
They want to impose their views on everyone by fiat, and it's important to recall that they often tend to view other religious sects as "competition".
They want to claim that the Bible is "literally" true, because otherwise, how could it be painted as a simple-minded rule book that just happens to tell everyone to do what they happen to command? (There are plenty of authoritarians with different sets of cultural biases who used something else as a simple book of rules, of course, but those aren't the ones who drive ID.)
They think in terms of victory and domination, so they'll use any tactics and accept any advantage. In fact they seem to have a preference for sneaky tactics.
Their idea of "science" is "whatever high school students are ordered to memorize in 'science' class".
They learned that open "creation science" was being defeated in court, so they cast about for a more coded version, and came up with "ID".
Actually, to be fully accurate, that lost in court, too, and they are no doubt looking for something new.
At any rate, it has, unfortunately, little to do with how apparent design can be induced in apparently chaotic natural phenomena.
Random Lurker · 23 November 2009
wow. gorgeous.
fnxtr · 23 November 2009
harold said:
(snip)
Actually, to be fully accurate, that lost in court, too, and they are no doubt looking for something new.
At any rate, it has, unfortunately, little to do with how apparent design can be induced in apparently chaotic natural phenomena.
It's "academic freedom"* now, harold, do try to keep up.
:-)
*that is, freedom to teach any dumbass useless non-science they feel like teaching.
Richard · 23 November 2009
fnxtr -
There is only one "True" dumbass useless non-science they want to teach.
All other dumbass useless non-science will be banned - along with true science.
ravilyn.sanders said: Does it need any special kind of camera to shoot these kind of images? What kind of exposure times?
Hi!
Actually you don't need a special kind of camera, but it helps to have a macro lens and an external flash. I illuminated the smoke from the side (using a remote flash) to freeze the action. All that extra light was very necessary since I used a small aperture to get a deeper depth of field.
However, you could probably get decent results with a normal compact and some patience.
publiusr · 23 November 2009
Looks like a tornado vortex signature from the inside.
Mike Elzinga · 23 November 2009
I printed the picture and made a few measurements of the spiral.
It is fairly close to a logarithmic spiral within the first 4 pi radians of revolution.
But it is obviously being distorted by the turbulence from its drift.
Gingerbaker · 23 November 2009
"...Actually you don't need a special kind of camera, but it helps to have a macro lens..."
Why the macro lens? Is this small scale stuff?
Beautiful shot and processing, BTW :)
Gingerbaker · 23 November 2009
"...Of course, no-one real cares about "detecting design", except for real basic and applied scientists..."
If I understand chaos theory at all, in a way this photograph illustrates the closest nexus of science and spirituality I am willing to concede.
Some scientists who do look for design are the mathematically-inclined, looking for attractors in say, EKG traces. Looking for elements of order in chaos, perhaps turbulence, which is what we see in the beautiful photograph.
But what is fascinating about the mathematics of chaos (again, if I understand it correctly at least in part) is that the equations needed to produce chaotic systems are very simple, and found ubiquitously in nature, from the architecture of tree roots to the patterns of alluvial flooding in the Amazon.
This is as close to "the hand of God*" as one may hope to see, perhaps the most compelling version of a 'fine-tuning' argument the DI could ever make. Should they ever make it.
* By "God" I mean, of course, Zeus, who is, after all, the frackin' King of all the Gods.
Robert Byers · 24 November 2009
Wait a minute cried the YEC Canuck. This is your argument for order out of chaos. Lets think about this. I say it makes the case for order from chaos. The order of the smoke is not from whim and fanct but from physics. The whole smoke thing is moving within the present universe with order/laws acting upon it. It is the order of physics that is organizing the smoke and not random chance. The previous posters here thinking is in chaos. It takes creationists to bring order to thinking.
Frank J · 24 November 2009
Of course, no-one real cares about “detecting design”, except for real basic and applied scientists in fields like archaeology and forensics, or for non-human design, those that study any of the innumerable animal species that design hives, nests, etc.
— harold
And it's often noted that those methods of "detecting design" use independent evidence of design that the "biological design seekers" don't have. So when cornered, the latter pull the usual bait-and-switch and trot out the usual long-refuted "improbability" of "Darwinism" arguments, which, even if true, would say absolutely nothing of design.
More importantly to me - and frustrating that I'm one of the few who ever bring it up - is that those who use real methods of "detecting design" don't stop there but continue to investigate what the "designer" did, when, and how. Meanwhile the "biological design seekers" keep retreating into "don't ask, don't tell."
I wonder if out resident "YEC" can do that - move past the "I found it!" stage and elaborate on what the designer did when and how. And I wonder if he can do that without any reference to "weakneesses" of "Darwinism"? If he needs to contrast it with an explanation he considers weaker than his own, there are plenty of other creationist/ID positions to choose from.
Frank J · 24 November 2009
Actually, to be fully accurate, that lost in court, too, and they are no doubt looking for something new.
— harold
They need look no further. I have something for them, and it's perfectly legal. Without any reference to creators or designers, or designer-free phony "critical analysis" that any reasonable observer would interpret as a promotion of creation/design, they can simply state what happened, when, and how, in biological history, and support it on its own strengths. Of course that would mean that students would "critically analyze" their alternate "theories," and discover that, after 150 years of seeking and fabricating "evidences," they have nothing to show but a hopeless divergence of mutually contradictory conclusions, all easily falsified without any reference to evolution.
Gingerbaker · 24 November 2009
YEC Canuck:
"...It takes creationists to bring order to thinking...."
Well, you missed it, then. It takes mathematics, not creationism, to recognize that in the chaos seen in large-scale nature, there are limits to the disorder - it is NOT actually completely random, and it does have a certain repeatability that can be described by simple equations. It remains and stays, however, unpredictable. So, it is not being acted upon and brought into order, its order is inherent. So, it doesn't fit in well at all with your Genesis idea of perfect order being induced out of pure chaos by a Creator.
And YEC's would blunder even further, by trying to ascribe this order or design to Christ, when as I said, it is clearly due to the power of Zeus. That would be a major mistake on their part - Zeus is very very dangerous.
Glad you liked it! *
* I am a drummer. Just not the one with all the talent. :D
b allen · 24 November 2009
I have enjoyed much of the insight and comments (those from Harold and Gingerbaker especially) I really love the photograph. I will definitely try that sometime with my camera. Great photo!
Is there design within chaos? Parameters of laws of physics, cosmology, mathematics, and of course evolution seem to reveal a possibility of amazing intent even in chaos. Disorder brings about order in many examples...from crystallization to snow flakes."Inherent" as one thoughtfully stated, if I inferred correctly.
If one finds design in the natural laws, I am not sure I see the problem as some have hinted at the value of research of the data and discovery regardless of design possibilities.
Perhaps the problem begins when ID is forced into where it need not be. The disturbing dichotomy seems more to be ID philosophy and discussion versus ID Agenda and Politics. This is where the respect and thoughtful conversation tend to part company.
Gingerbaker said:
Why the macro lens? Is this small scale stuff?
Beautiful shot and processing, BTW :)
It's not really small scale, but a macro lens can focus nice and close, which makes this sort of thing a bit easier.
Kris Jones · 25 November 2009
Random Lurker said:
wow. gorgeous.
I agree…It is gorgeous!
I'm interested to know however, how someone can infer that there is no design in nature by looking at incense smoke. Have we come to that? Of course design in inherent in the order of the universe, otherwise there would be no physics, chemistry, gravity, or anything else we take for granted and trust in order to exist, and even think logically.. It is escaping the obvious to say that randomness “caused” order. Randomness cannot “cause” something. I know the arguments and the so called “evidence” that is put forth (similar to this silly incense illustration), but I’m not convinced. I do have a couple of questions about the issue.
Gorgeous…what does that mean? How can we say it is gorgeous and preferable unless there is some standard of preference from which to compare it? Existence of “beauty” infers a definite standard. It appears that in their overly anxious attempts to denounce the design theorists, proponents of chaos and metaphysical naturalism constantly shoot themselves in the foot by arguing on the basis of objective standards of “beauty” and “truth”.
Truth…How could we trust in knowledge without some type of design that gives our thoughts meaning? If chaos is true our thoughts have no value and cannot determine actual truth. I see overly anxious evolutionists try and argue from so called “evidence” that human intelligence just evolved with no intelligent guidance and I just laugh because their ability to structure an argument proves that their conclusion (naturalistic evolution) is ridiculous. Funny stuff.
Book of Rules…Funny…Ever actually cracked open a bible? Most of the bible is narrative. Much more of it is letters written from one person to help his friend avoid huge mistakes in life. The overarching theme is “love God and love your neighbor”. I guess that is too demanding for “sophisticated” scientists and sociologists. Man, must be scary to some people to be accountable for their actions. I guess that is one thing that is wrong with the world. Let’s just blame everyone else for our problems instead of being accountable for our actions. Haha.
Enjoy your Incense smoke turned silly science lesson!
ben · 25 November 2009
Kris Jones said:
Random Lurker said:
wow. gorgeous.
I agree…It is gorgeous!
I'm interested to know however, how someone can infer that there is no design in nature by looking at incense smoke. Have we come to that? Of course design in inherent in the order of the universe, otherwise there would be no physics, chemistry, gravity, or anything else we take for granted and trust in order to exist, and even think logically.. It is escaping the obvious to say that randomness “caused” order. Randomness cannot “cause” something. I know the arguments and the so called “evidence” that is put forth (similar to this silly incense illustration), but I’m not convinced. I do have a couple of questions about the issue.
Gorgeous…what does that mean? How can we say it is gorgeous and preferable unless there is some standard of preference from which to compare it? Existence of “beauty” infers a definite standard. It appears that in their overly anxious attempts to denounce the design theorists, proponents of chaos and metaphysical naturalism constantly shoot themselves in the foot by arguing on the basis of objective standards of “beauty” and “truth”.
Truth…How could we trust in knowledge without some type of design that gives our thoughts meaning? If chaos is true our thoughts have no value and cannot determine actual truth. I see overly anxious evolutionists try and argue from so called “evidence” that human intelligence just evolved with no intelligent guidance and I just laugh because their ability to structure an argument proves that their conclusion (naturalistic evolution) is ridiculous. Funny stuff.
Book of Rules…Funny…Ever actually cracked open a bible? Most of the bible is narrative. Much more of it is letters written from one person to help his friend avoid huge mistakes in life. The overarching theme is “love God and love your neighbor”. I guess that is too demanding for “sophisticated” scientists and sociologists. Man, must be scary to some people to be accountable for their actions. I guess that is one thing that is wrong with the world. Let’s just blame everyone else for our problems instead of being accountable for our actions. Haha.
Enjoy your Incense smoke turned silly science lesson!
A tasty word salad! Does it come with croutons?
Dan · 25 November 2009
ben said:
Kris Jones said:
Random Lurker said:
wow. gorgeous.
I agree…It is gorgeous!
I'm interested to know however, how someone can infer that there is no design in nature by looking at incense smoke. Have we come to that? Of course design in inherent in the order of the universe, otherwise there would be no physics, chemistry, gravity, or anything else we take for granted and trust in order to exist, and even think logically.. It is escaping the obvious to say that randomness “caused” order. Randomness cannot “cause” something. I know the arguments and the so called “evidence” that is put forth (similar to this silly incense illustration), but I’m not convinced. I do have a couple of questions about the issue.
Gorgeous…what does that mean? How can we say it is gorgeous and preferable unless there is some standard of preference from which to compare it? Existence of “beauty” infers a definite standard. It appears that in their overly anxious attempts to denounce the design theorists, proponents of chaos and metaphysical naturalism constantly shoot themselves in the foot by arguing on the basis of objective standards of “beauty” and “truth”.
Truth…How could we trust in knowledge without some type of design that gives our thoughts meaning? If chaos is true our thoughts have no value and cannot determine actual truth. I see overly anxious evolutionists try and argue from so called “evidence” that human intelligence just evolved with no intelligent guidance and I just laugh because their ability to structure an argument proves that their conclusion (naturalistic evolution) is ridiculous. Funny stuff.
Book of Rules…Funny…Ever actually cracked open a bible? Most of the bible is narrative. Much more of it is letters written from one person to help his friend avoid huge mistakes in life. The overarching theme is “love God and love your neighbor”. I guess that is too demanding for “sophisticated” scientists and sociologists. Man, must be scary to some people to be accountable for their actions. I guess that is one thing that is wrong with the world. Let’s just blame everyone else for our problems instead of being accountable for our actions. Haha.
Enjoy your Incense smoke turned silly science lesson!
A tasty word salad! Does it come with croutons?
Let's hope it comes with croutons, because it sure doesn't come with logic! (Or with paragraph breaks ...)
stevaroni · 25 November 2009
I’m interested to know however, how someone can infer that there is no design in nature by looking at incense smoke.
They can't.
It's just a pretty picture of smoke.
The closest anybody got to inferring "no design" was to ponder about the physics involved, so let's stop putting words into peoples' mouths.
Of course design in inherent in the order of the universe, otherwise there would be no physics, chemistry, gravity, or anything else we take for granted and trust in order to exist, and even think logically.
Yeah? Then it should be simple enough to put down the stoned-in-the-dorm-room freshman philosophy babble and produce some tangible evidence of design.
But, somehow you guys never actually manage to do that, now do you Kris?
Now, I wonder why that might be....
Mike Elzinga · 25 November 2009
Looks like he is defecating on a couple of threads.
Robert Byers · 26 November 2009
Gingerbaker said:
YEC Canuck:
"...It takes creationists to bring order to thinking...."
Well, you missed it, then. It takes mathematics, not creationism, to recognize that in the chaos seen in large-scale nature, there are limits to the disorder - it is NOT actually completely random, and it does have a certain repeatability that can be described by simple equations. It remains and stays, however, unpredictable. So, it is not being acted upon and brought into order, its order is inherent. So, it doesn't fit in well at all with your Genesis idea of perfect order being induced out of pure chaos by a Creator.
And YEC's would blunder even further, by trying to ascribe this order or design to Christ, when as I said, it is clearly due to the power of Zeus. That would be a major mistake on their part - Zeus is very very dangerous.
I stand by my correction of this thread.
The order here is SO a part of the order of the universe. Its not chaos or random like you guys think it is.
This is careless analysis and things like this might find their way onto creationist websites. Educating.
Robert Byers · 26 November 2009
Kris Jones said:
Random Lurker said:
wow. gorgeous.
I agree…It is gorgeous!
I'm interested to know however, how someone can infer that there is no design in nature by looking at incense smoke. Have we come to that? Of course design in inherent in the order of the universe, otherwise there would be no physics, chemistry, gravity, or anything else we take for granted and trust in order to exist, and even think logically.. It is escaping the obvious to say that randomness “caused” order. Randomness cannot “cause” something. I know the arguments and the so called “evidence” that is put forth (similar to this silly incense illustration), but I’m not convinced. I do have a couple of questions about the issue.
Gorgeous…what does that mean? How can we say it is gorgeous and preferable unless there is some standard of preference from which to compare it? Existence of “beauty” infers a definite standard. It appears that in their overly anxious attempts to denounce the design theorists, proponents of chaos and metaphysical naturalism constantly shoot themselves in the foot by arguing on the basis of objective standards of “beauty” and “truth”.
Truth…How could we trust in knowledge without some type of design that gives our thoughts meaning? If chaos is true our thoughts have no value and cannot determine actual truth. I see overly anxious evolutionists try and argue from so called “evidence” that human intelligence just evolved with no intelligent guidance and I just laugh because their ability to structure an argument proves that their conclusion (naturalistic evolution) is ridiculous. Funny stuff.
Book of Rules…Funny…Ever actually cracked open a bible? Most of the bible is narrative. Much more of it is letters written from one person to help his friend avoid huge mistakes in life. The overarching theme is “love God and love your neighbor”. I guess that is too demanding for “sophisticated” scientists and sociologists. Man, must be scary to some people to be accountable for their actions. I guess that is one thing that is wrong with the world. Let’s just blame everyone else for our problems instead of being accountable for our actions. Haha.
Enjoy your Incense smoke turned silly science lesson!
YEC here.
Thats a good point about beauty being found in the smoke must mean principals of common laws of beauty.
Still though this smoke is not what it is because of chaos or randomness. it is the result of laws of nature on simply a particula substance.
The evolution thumpers here imagine the order of the smoke has a mind of its own but clearly its confined by laws of fluids and I think gravity.
The order of nature includes this disorder. Its notr a rebuke to order's dominance.
Torbach · 26 November 2009
i remember thinking the same thing from random knot formation from jostling, that out of random chaos, comes what could be easily interpreted as design.
and given enough time and enough string... crazy knot chains can form.
Though I’m not stoned in the dorm room, I do have a huge turkey hangover from thanksgiving. Good stuff!
I must say, I like you people! You actually have senses of humor. No eye for the obvious, but definitely senses of humor. Haha! (I took the advice on the paragraph breaks. Thanks for having my back)
Oh the silliness. The evidence is in the "apparent design". But I guess that would be a little too obvious for the sophisticated Darwinists. Haha!
I think I have heard it as "the proof is in the pudding". It looks like design, acts like design, even smells like design (note the reference to incense smoke)...well, it must be design.
I like how someone posted a picture that obviously shows design, then quotes someone saying that it “illustrates how apparent design can be induced in apparently chaotic natural phenomena,” Let’s be honest folks, someone is grabbing for a lifeline. How can chaos happen in a world with mathematical laws? Please, let’s not ignore basic forces of cause and effect. I expect more from our “intellectual elite” scientist than to not acknowledge their brothers and sisters in the mathematics field. That’s just rude and insensitive (note the “apparent” sarcasm). It might hurt their feelings.
Hey stevearoni (lovin the name by the way), take a look at Mike Elzinga’s first comment.
This is a fun website. I might start spending some time commenting every week just for the good company!
I don’t mean to defecate on the website, just engage in some “fun loving” conversation. I would understand if alternative opinions are not welcome here though. If we welcome alternative opinions then it might force some people to think through their ideologies. In some fields (note the sarcasm), I know that is frowned upon.
Dave Luckett · 27 November 2009
OK, Krs, so let it rip.
We know, and can prove, that intricacy and regularity are emergent properties (perhaps a better word might be "appearances") from simple laws plus extremely complex contingent interactions of matter and energy. That's what the smoke is illustrating. The pattern is intricate, with elements of regularity - look at that spiral, for example. But nobody is saying that it was designed.
Therefore, your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to demonstrate that design must be inferred for a specific, very complex pattern called "life", when it can be demonstrated that complex patterns do occur without design. To succeed in this mission, you will need to produce some evidence other than "it's very complex" (yes, Krs, we already know that) and "just look at it!" (Many here spend their working lives doing just that).
But if you have such evidence, bring it on.
Kris · 27 November 2009
Haha! I figured the conversation would go in this direction. This design argument starts with the properties that allow patterns to exist. Follow the logical conclusion and you end up with everything you see and experience. You call it “extremely complex contingent interactions of matter and energy”. Of course it is complicated. The process could not happen though, without the presupposition of the laws and properties of matter which can only exist as the result of something outside of nature
This other comment, “complex patterns do occur without design” goes out the windows because we cannot test patters outside of a experiment that we “design” to gather information that is the result of “designed” laws and properties. We cannot design an experiment to proves that design does not exist. It is almost as ironic as trying to “reconstruct the environment in which the universe first came into existence” in a universe that already exists (notice the humor).
I saw in the comment that you mentioned “simple laws”. Those simple laws allow for the universe to run as it runs and exist as it exists. Without them this conversation would not even be possible. As simple as they seem, they are foundational building blocks of our universe and they are not the product of naturalistic evolution, obviously. They came from something else. We use the term, “designer”.
We cannot escape, or suspend for the purposes of science or philosophy, the environment which was designed and supports our existence. To attempt such a feet is to overlook reality.
I see a consistent pattern of the people on this website. They all have great senses of humor, great sarcastic wit, and extensive vocabularies. But I don’t see any acknowledgement of the obvious. I hope we can be friends and continue our conversation though!
Also, I appreciate the attempt to give me an assignment, but before we move forward we have to address, not dance around, the original issue I brought up. Deal with it sufficiently and maybe we can move forward.
Mike Elzinga · 27 November 2009
Kris said:
Also, I appreciate the attempt to give me an assignment, but before we move forward we have to address, not dance around, the original issue I brought up. Deal with it sufficiently and maybe we can move forward.
Well, there it is, right on cue; the usual narcissism of every creationist who comes loaded for bear ("Hey everybody pay attention to me, sit at my feet and I will now instruct you in the ways of God and why science is wrong").
What are odds against this one also wanting an entire forum devoted to him?
Guys; don't feed the troll. It is already obvious where this is headed.
Kris · 27 November 2009
Why Mike, I thought we were friends!? Haha!
I’m not interested in monopolizing the entire forum, just conversing with the few that did comment and did show interest. It’s fun and it sharpens everyone’s ideas. It also encourages everyone to think through their presuppositions. Isn’t that one of the purposes of a forum?
I didn’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings or be insensitive.
I love science. I just have some different opinions than most of the people on this site about what real science is. I think real science should consider all the possibilities, not just those that reflect the current “powers that be”. It’s not about me, or you. I do enjoy the search for truth and the discussion that gets us closer to it. I hope we can keep discussing the issue.
But what do you think about the issue Mike? It doesn’t have to be a response to my particular criticism of naturalism. We’ll let Dave handle that one if he is up to it (sense the friendly banter). Can you explain how this picture is an example of “beautiful counterexamples to the ID/creationist claims” that you posted earlier? That question is not meant to be sarcastic. I’m really curious. Help me out here.
Do you think that the universe is just a random occurrence? Or do you believe that there is an ultimate cause that cannot be detected? (Obviously, you don’t hold the other option of ID).
Science disqualifies supernatural causes because of two reasons:
1) As was stated before, repeatedly, supernatural causes, by their very definition, are beyond natural laws, and thus, are beyond the realm and responsibilities of science
2) Appeals to the supernatural, by their very nature, do not explain anything.
Thirdly, I say you're a liar when you claim you love science is because you express pride in being scientifically illiterate, and you express disdain in how science is done. That you have to explain yourself by appealing to a global conspiracy does nothing to help you.
Rilke's Granddaughter · 27 November 2009
Science doesn't. But science involves testing and analysis. Supernatural stuff is, by definition, untestable - otherwise it wouldn't be supernatural.
Here's the other kicker: in five hundred years of science, a supernatural explanation has NEVER been found to the correct one. Scientists are very pragmatic. We use what works.
Kris said:
Why No, my dear friend!
I try my best not to lie. Nor do I take phrases out of context (note the sarcasm).
I just don't think science should disallow an option "a prior". If it does, then it is not really science.
I do think today's dominate view of science is hindered by false presuppositions.
Rilke's Granddaughter · 27 November 2009
Kris seems to think that the existence of regularity (laws of physics) demands a "designer."
Why?
Mike Elzinga · 27 November 2009
Kris said:
Haha!
I’m not interested in monopolizing the entire forum, just conversing with the few that did comment and did show interest. It’s fun and it sharpens everyone’s ideas. It also encourages everyone to think through their presuppositions. Isn’t that one of the purposes of a forum?
Usually these trolls don’t admit to taunting an mind games as quickly as this one just did.
Rilke's granddaughter · 27 November 2009
An intelligent person would have known that it's a priori. Perhaps you try getting an education before trying to have a discussion about this.
Kris said:
Why No, my dear friend!
I try my best not to lie. Nor do I take phrases out of context (note the sarcasm).
I just don't think science should disallow an option "a prior". If it does, then it is not really science.
I do think today's dominate view of science is hindered by false presuppositions.
Rilke's granddaughter · 27 November 2009
But I admit that I long for the day when we have an actual opponent to deal with, rather than boring mindless trolls. Someone who can make and sustain an actual argument. Kris doesn't show signs of being such a person.
Please take Mr. Elzinga's advice and do not feed the troll. If the troll can provide evidence for its claims, like science disallowing options "a prior[i]" or having false presuppositions, then we can talk. If not, please refrain from responding to mere taunts.
I disagree with Mr. Stanton and Rilke's Granddaughter. True, science cannot invoke supernatural causes as explanations, but that does not mean that science cannot study the supernatural. We do so, for example, whenever we study ghosts, mediums, and weeping virgins.
More pertinently, studies of intercessory prayer, whatever their difficulties, are in fact scientific studies designed to assess certain claims of the supernatural. One of the only halfway decent studies of intercessory prayer, by many accounts, was Herbert Benson's Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP trial), and the best it could do was find a kind of reverse-placebo effect among patients who knew they were being prayed for. The MANTRA II study from Duke University likewise gave negative results.
I consider both the STEP and the MANTRA studies to be legitimate scientific studies of an effect that some think to be supernatural. Had they turned up a positive result, you could say that we have to look harder for a naturalistic cause, and you would be right, but there is no guarantee that there is a naturalistic cause, and the first step is to see whether there is any effect at all.
Kris · 27 November 2009
I love that my response has caused such discussion. I also love that people are reading my posts so closely that they even catch my spelling mistakes.
Matt Young said:
I disagree with Mr. Stanton and Rilke's Granddaughter. True, science cannot invoke supernatural causes as explanations, but that does not mean that science cannot study the supernatural. We do so, for example, whenever we study ghosts, mediums, and weeping virgins.
Well, when we do discover and understand the laws by which supernatural phenomena operate, wouldn't it be that they then can no longer be categorized as "supernatural" now that we can see the actor's strings, so to speak?
Dave Luckett · 27 November 2009
Mike's right. It's a troll, and its only purpose is narcissism. The complete non-response, with taunting and gloating, to the suggestion that it produce actual evidence, is the proof.
Don't waste your time.
Mike Elzinga · 27 November 2009
Stanton said:
Well, when we do discover and understand the laws by which supernatural phenomena operate, wouldn't it be that they then can no longer be categorized as "supernatural" now that we can see the actor's strings, so to speak?
I think the issue comes down to what is actually meant by “the supernatural.” If, by definition, it means “outside of nature”, then by definition it is inaccessible to probing by natural means.
Those experiments on the efficacy of prayer I think were meant to establish whether or not prayers made a difference; and they didn’t.
But suppose they had; then what? Something “unknown” must be operating, i.e., having an effect in the natural world. Can that mean there is a connection between a supernatural world and the natural world?
Maybe it just means something natural is operating (e.g., a placebo effect or something like it) but we haven’t yet learned what it is.
When we think of discoveries at the frontiers of our abilities to detect phenomena, – things like the discovery of the neutrino or dark energy – we are not presuming supernatural effects, because we have an entire superstructure of tested theory for which such a presumption would be in direct contradiction to what we already know and have demonstrated.
The problem with assuming that a supernatural effect is taking place is that there is no possible way to confirm it. What possible phenomena or mechanism allows us to connect events in the natural world with events in a supernatural realm? Is the bridge to the supernatural realm natural or supernatural?
If natural, then isn’t what we initially took to be supernatural simply a further extension of the natural?
If it is supernatural, just how could we possibly know it is such? Name a test that would tell us unambiguously we have made contact with a supernatural realm, let alone any specific sectarian deity in that realm.
Then there are all the historical claims of those who say they have demonstrated “extra-natural” or supernatural effects. The effects they claim they have demonstrated always lie deep within the experimental noise no matter how sensitive the technology brought to bear at each repetition of the “experiment.” If purported effects never ever emerge from the noise, it is most likely pseudo-science.
I guess it is not clear to me just what is meant when someone claims they are checking for supernatural effects. At some point there must be confirmation by others who are skeptical. If skepticism precludes ability to confirm, just what the hell is being demonstrated?
Mike Elzinga said:
I guess it is not clear to me just what is meant when someone claims they are checking for supernatural effects. At some point there must be confirmation by others who are skeptical. If skepticism precludes ability to confirm, just what the hell is being demonstrated?
That it's turtles and faerie dust all the way down?
I agree almost completely with Mr. Elzinga. But suppose, for example, that the intercessory-prayer studies had come up with a result that was so striking as to be almost irrefutable.
Let us say that we pit a team of Reform Jews against a team of ultra-Orthodox Jews, and in triple-blind tests these teams pray for different cohorts of patients. The Reform cohort has outcomes that consistently outperform those of the control group by a highly statistically significant margin. The ultra-Orthodox cohort, by contrast, has mediocre outcomes, about equal to the control group. The experiment is replicated in cities all over the world.
I'll grant it is a diagnosis of exclusion, but unless someone can come up with a naturalistic mechanism, we must conclude two things. First, intercessory prayer can be efficacious but is not necessarily so. Second, Reform Jewish prayer is more efficacious than ultra-Orthodox Jewish prayer.
Mike Elzinga · 27 November 2009
Matt Young said:
I agree almost completely with Mr. Elzinga. But suppose, for example, that the intercessory-prayer studies had come up with a result that was so striking as to be almost irrefutable.
Let us say that we pit a team of Reform Jews against a team of ultra-Orthodox Jews, and in triple-blind tests these teams pray for different cohorts of patients. The Reform cohort has outcomes that consistently outperform those of the control group by a highly statistically significant margin. The ultra-Orthodox cohort, by contrast, has mediocre outcomes, about equal to the control group. The experiment is replicated in cities all over the world.
I'll grant it is a diagnosis of exclusion, but unless someone can come up with a naturalistic mechanism, we must conclude two things. First, intercessory prayer can be efficacious but is not necessarily so. Second, Reform Jewish prayer is more efficacious than ultra-Orthodox Jewish prayer.
So, do we have ultra-Orthodox Jews unable to perform as well as Reformed Jews because of different beliefs or because of “favored ness”, or do we see something about the differences in the subcultures of these two groups worldwide?
The problem still remains, without a way to confirm the effect is supernatural, there are still a myriad of possible natural explanations that could come up even if we haven’t yet thought of them.
And if the result is somehow “confirmed”, what methods would do that? Either “God” is now natural or one still has to demonstrate that the “methods of confirmation” connect the natural to the supernatural. It becomes an infinite regress by definition of the supernatural.
That doesn’t sound like science to me. In all of our experience with science, science converges.
I don't know precisely what you mean by converges, but if we actually came up against something supernatural, we might expect some odd results.
By confirmed, I meant that the experiment was replicated, not that the mechanism was confirmed. I think we could in principle observe something that we could not account for except with recourse to supernatural, not that I think that will ever happen.
My thought experiment with the Reform Jews is presumably done correctly: the cohorts of patients are selected randomly, and neither the patients nor their physicians know who is being prayed for and who not. (I think my use of the phrase triple-blind was incorrect; the praying teams know whom they are praying for.) In city after city, year after year, patients who are prayed for by Reform Jews fare better than other patients. The subcultures of the two groups have nothing obvious to do with it, because they do not interact directly with the patients and the patients are not chosen exclusively from those groups.
I claim that under these conditions, we would have little choice but to conclude that there is supernatural intervention. It's a little bit like digging down to the center of the earth (figuratively speaking) and finding a stone with the inscription, Made by God (in Hebrew, of course).
Whether the intervenor in our thought experiment is God, however, is another question: we asked whether science could study the supernatural. I think the answer is yes, though if you wanted to quibble, you could say that science was studying the effect of a supernatural intervention and probably could not study the supernatural entity itself.
Mike Elzinga · 27 November 2009
Matt Young said:
Whether the intervenor in our thought experiment is God, however, is another question: we asked whether science could study the supernatural. I think the answer is yes, though if you wanted to quibble, you could say that science was studying the effect of a supernatural intervention and probably could not study the supernatural entity itself.
Maybe it is just a quibble. I personally would find such results fascinating, but – and this is perhaps my own lack of imagination – I could not imagine a way to confirm a connection with a supernatural realm because of the way I understand the definition of “supernatural.”
The fascination would come from the fact that a collective group of human brains could produce a physical effect on the physical world as manifested in the bodies of other humans whose illness could be cured by this means.
Given the sensitivities with which we can measure other physical phenomena, I would begin to wonder if such “collective coherence of thought” could be produced by natural means (i.e., maybe Brian Josephson is not a wacky as he seems). Then it might come down to sectarian beliefs being a sort of “recipe” for bringing about that collective state.
So far, such paranormal activity still lies in the noise and doesn’t appear to have any mechanism for collective enhancement of human thought.
Mike Elzinga · 27 November 2009
Matt Young said:
It's a little bit like digging down to the center of the earth (figuratively speaking) and finding a stone with the inscription, Made by God (in Hebrew, of course).
If it were a claim made by Joseph Smith – who said he returned it to Moroni – I would not be convinced.
But I think your point is that, as long as we don’t see these kinds of things, then a supernatural being is not currently acting in a way that can be detected by humans.
And we don’t have incontrovertible evidence that such a being did so in the past, despite the claims made in holy books.
So, at the moment, we have no scientific evidence for the existence of such a being.
I guess that is a scientific test. As I believe Victor Stenger has put it, lack of evidence is evidence of lack when the evidence should be there.
Mike Elzinga · 28 November 2009
Matt Young said:
I don't know precisely what you mean by converges, but if we actually came up against something supernatural, we might expect some odd results.
Ah, I forgot to address this point.
When I was referring to the process of confirming that there was a connection between the supernatural and the natural, I was simply trying to point out that the confirming process would have to bridge the same gap. But we would still be stuck with confirming the confirming experiment, etc. etc. to infinity.
Within the natural world, confirming experiments are all carried out within the natural world; so the issue of how we know we bridged between natural and supernatural doesn’t come up. Eventually enough confirming experiments converge on agreement.
But there is also, it seems to me, a bit of an asymmetry between affirming a supernatural phenomenon has been detected and affirming that no such phenomenon has been detected.
In the former case, we could just as well question our current understanding of the natural world and attempt to modify our understanding of how it actually works. Maybe the energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum, and charge conservation laws, for example, don’t always hold or there are other natural mechanisms or particles required to complete our understanding.
Admittedly in this former case, certain sectarians being able to throw shot puts with their prayers, while other sectarians could not, would offer quite a challenge to science if these sectarian brains were not turned to mush in the process. But we do not observe this to be the case.
Thus, we have only to affirm that we do not see scientific evidence of supernatural intervention. If that is what you meant by scientifically testing the supernatural, then I think we are in agreement.
Eric Finn · 28 November 2009
Matt Young said:
By confirmed, I meant that the experiment was replicated, not that the mechanism was confirmed. I think we could in principle observe something that we could not account for except with recourse to supernatural, not that I think that will ever happen.
[...]
Whether the intervenor in our thought experiment is God, however, is another question: we asked whether science could study the supernatural. I think the answer is yes, though if you wanted to quibble, you could say that science was studying the effect of a supernatural intervention and probably could not study the supernatural entity itself.
In science, we try to build hypotheses that make testable predictions. I do not see any reason to limit the range of ideas used in formulating the hypotheses. The validity of a hypothesis is judged based on its power to predict observations. During the testing, we do have a more limiting requirement: we are allowed to use only natural measuring equipment in verifying the predictions. Revelations are excluded in the testing phase, but not during the building of hypotheses. It seems to me that this is the core of the methodological naturalism.
I think your argument is valid – almost by definition of the scientific method, as I understand it.
Mike Elzinga said:
When we think of discoveries at the frontiers of our abilities to detect phenomena, – things like the discovery of the neutrino or dark energy – we are not presuming supernatural effects, because we have an entire superstructure of tested theory for which such a presumption would be in direct contradiction to what we already know and have demonstrated.
I would like to present you a line of thoughts. They deal specifically physics, but may be applicable in other fields as well. You may find that my line of thinking does not really contradict what you said. In fact, I only wish to present a slightly different point of view.
In physics, concepts are what they do. Magnetism is a set of observations. There is no “higher idea of magnetism”. Maxwell equations are a tool to predict observations, not a description of an idea.
Assume someone manages to present a hypothesis with testable predictions using supernatural entities. Assume further that this hypothesis turns out to be successful. In a relatively short time we would have lots of observations and would be able to predict a lots more. Maybe at this point the initially supernatural entity would be replaced by description of what it does? The wave function in quantum mechanics can’t be observed directly, but there do not seem to be that many physicists complaining about that. There are physicists that try to find inner meanings in quantum mechanics, though.
When you first heard about dark energy, would you have acted somehow differently, if it had been called “The fingerprint of God”?
Mike Elzinga · 28 November 2009
Eric Finn said:
In physics, concepts are what they do. Magnetism is a set of observations. There is no “higher idea of magnetism”. Maxwell equations are a tool to predict observations, not a description of an idea.
I think you are describing what are often referred to as “operational definitions” in science.
However, it is not quite that simple. Most of what we know in physics these days does not consist of separate fields of self-contained operational definitions; physics now consists of a highly interrelated set of concepts and theories that share many of the same concepts such as the conservation laws.
Further, the underlying theories have made successful predictions that lend weight to their usefulness and their “reality”.
Assume someone manages to present a hypothesis with testable predictions using supernatural entities. Assume further that this hypothesis turns out to be successful. In a relatively short time we would have lots of observations and would be able to predict a lots more. Maybe at this point the initially supernatural entity would be replaced by description of what it does?
You are describing something we do not see in this universe in which we exist. But if we did see such repeatability, I suspect it would be an entirely different universe in which the people who had exclusive access to such power would be ruling the universe and there would be no fragmentation into thousands of warring sectarian tribes (much like science today).
When you first heard about dark energy, would you have acted somehow differently, if it had been called “The fingerprint of God”?
Well, Leon Lederman’s “God particle” was a tongue-in-cheek label.
But nobody in the physics community that I know of contemplated throwing up their hands and saying “God did it” when it was discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. There were already concepts in supersymmetric theories, string theories and other multidimensional models going beyond the Standard Model that could account for this (the Higgs field, for example).
The issue here is that the physics community is continuing to work on problems related to the Standard Model, and this work has implications for cosmology as well. So there are already a number of possibilities that are not inconsistent with what we already know that still need to be checked.
If I were to pick a single characteristic of the ID/creationist community that makes them so persistent in their insistence that “God did it”, it would be their continuing misinformation and misconceptions about what science (physics in particular) already knows. Those misconceptions directly relate to matter and its interactions; they apparently don’t know what matter actually does. To them, matter by itself is pure “spontaneous molecular chaos”, which by definition, cannot do anything. Therefore some deity has to step in.
Eric Finn · 28 November 2009
Mike Elzinga said:
Eric Finn said:
In physics, concepts are what they do. Magnetism is a set of observations. There is no “higher idea of magnetism”. Maxwell equations are a tool to predict observations, not a description of an idea.
I think you are describing what are often referred to as “operational definitions” in science.
However, it is not quite that simple. Most of what we know in physics these days does not consist of separate fields of self-contained operational definitions; physics now consists of a highly interrelated set of concepts and theories that share many of the same concepts such as the conservation laws.
Further, the underlying theories have made successful predictions that lend weight to their usefulness and their “reality”.
I agree with what you said. I tried to make a point using short punch lines - and failed.
Assume someone manages to present a hypothesis with testable predictions using supernatural entities. Assume further that this hypothesis turns out to be successful. In a relatively short time we would have lots of observations and would be able to predict a lots more. Maybe at this point the initially supernatural entity would be replaced by description of what it does?
You are describing something we do not see in this universe in which we exist. But if we did see such repeatability, I suspect it would be an entirely different universe in which the people who had exclusive access to such power would be ruling the universe and there would be no fragmentation into thousands of warring sectarian tribes (much like science today).
My gedankenexperimet did not impress you. I feel that you misinterpreted me. Maybe you thought that I was trying to convoy a religious message. I was not trying to do that.
Still, I agree with what you said, even if it might be an "operational definition".
If I were to pick a single characteristic of the ID/creationist community that makes them so persistent in their insistence that “God did it”, it would be their continuing misinformation and misconceptions about what science (physics in particular) already knows. Those misconceptions directly relate to matter and its interactions; they apparently don’t know what matter actually does. To them, matter by itself is pure “spontaneous molecular chaos”, which by definition, cannot do anything. Therefore some deity has to step in.
This appears to be the focal point in debates in the U.S. Random chemical reactions can't do much good. True, they can't, but random chemical reactions do not exist. Chemical reactions are far from random. They do follow patterns, some of which are well known and repeatable. You have pointed out this many times. Chemistry (or biochemistry) is not a match of pool.
To me, the most pronounced characteristics of ID is the lack of any verifiable predictions. Thus, it is not science. On the other hand, it does not matter, if one comes up with an idea while reading the Bible, or while sitting in bath tub.
Gingerbaker · 30 November 2009
A more useful definition of the supernatural:
"An intelligent interactive entity which does not exist, but which appeals to the imagination of humans."
Instead of hand-wringing and teeth-knashing over the theoretical possibility of the supernatural in order to keep one's scientific appearances up, why not state the obvious:
We will consider the possibility of a supernatural force when you can bloody show me one.
Show me the money! Just once.
Frank J · 30 November 2009
We will consider the possibility of a supernatural force when you can bloody show me one.
Show me the money! Just once.
— Gingerbaker
Heck, I'd be content if they elaborated on what the "maybe supernatural" entity did, when and how. And made some effort to test their claims independently of any "weaknesses" of "Darwinism" or "naturalism." Or if they can't do that - and if the last 150 years are any indication, they can't - at least debate each other on their mutually contradictory alternatives. That's something that history shows that they can do and have done. And how they have been retreating from it.
Gingerbaker · 30 November 2009
I wonder if it is time for the scientific/reality-based community to stop the accommodationist tactic of treating the absurd as worthy of consideration.
What would be the problem with taking the approach that talk about the 'supernatural' or of something 'outside of science' or 'beyond our perception' or the 'unknowable' or the 'transcendent' is simply talking claptrap about stuff that does not exist, but is merely the product of fervent imaginations.
Stop even allowing the rhetorical accommodation of such ideas, and take the honest position that such things do not exist until they can actually be demonstrated, or just STFU!
Yes, it would be shrill and arrogant and all the other things that the religious and spiritual already say about scientists and atheists, but it would take the important step of putting the burden of proof squarely where it belongs. It could finally change the conversation, and put us on a progressive, not defensive, track.
It could also be a lot of fun. Imagine the spectacle of believers gathering to invoke the appearance of their deities, only to be chagrined once again when all efforts by humanity can not conjure even a paltry poltergeist.
Frank J · 30 November 2009
I wonder if it is time for the scientific/reality-based community to stop the accommodationist tactic of treating the absurd as worthy of consideration.
— Gingerbaker
That's a Catch-22 with any science-pseuoscience debate. Engaging them gives them unearned credibility, and ignoring them begets absurd charges that we're "afraid" to debate. I think a reasonable compromise is to avoid refuting the same recycled nonsense that has all been refuted here, but rather to force them to support their particular "theory" on its own merits (NOT on the "weaknesses" of "Darwinism"). If they need to criticize a contradictory "theory," tell them to practice what they preach about "equal time" and "critically analyze" an anti-evolution positon that they do not find convincing.
That's when most of them either run away or ignore the request and keep trolling for "Darwinists." IOW they "expel" themselves.
Mike Elzinga · 30 November 2009
Gingerbaker said:
Stop even allowing the rhetorical accommodation of such ideas, and take the honest position that such things do not exist until they can actually be demonstrated, or just STFU!
Frank J has a point about getting them to critique the inconsistencies within their own big tent.
As you have probably observed here on PT when these trolls show up, they never ever defend any of their claims; rather, they try to get “Darwinists” hopping all over the place while the trolls themselves do the Gish Gallop.
One other possible approach is to not take the bait but demand that they clarified their own “science”. Not many trolls will do this, but when they do, we at least get to profile their misconceptions and misinformation. We already see the mischaracterizations they use to taunt us into engaging them.
I personally don’t like pandering to the narcissism of these more vicious trolls. They are control freaks with a sadistic mean streak that comes from their religion.
Jozef K · 1 December 2009
"I'm interested to know however, how someone can infer that there is no design in nature by looking at incense smoke. Have we come to that?"
Yes, we have. We have learned that all natural processes are fundamentally the same, so, for example, if one wants to, one can draw a(valid, at least in a broad sense) analogy between Biological Evolution, swirling incense smoke, patterns formed by an oil slick atop a puddle of water, or whatever else you like. Nature practically shouts her 'oneness' at us, and once one hears her, all of these(apparently) varied phenomena make perfect sense. One gaines a higher understanding. One no longer agonizes(like your comical Dark-age Christian theologians did)over the existence of 'evil', or sits up at night wondering why 'bad' things happen to 'good' people. One simply sees that all of these things which appear so different to us are in fact part of a much larger process, one which is altogether incomprehensible to the ordinary brain, but which yields to close study using the scientific method. These 'how do YOU know?' questions(asked of a scientist, that is) are basically rhetorical, and the fact that they're being asked by people who would have us believe the universe was created by a gaseous Hebrew vertebrate(a JEALOUS one, by his own admission)strikes me as pretty ironic. So tell me, Kris...are people like you DELIBERATELY trying to prevent others from understanding nature, in order to further some agenda, or are you just THAT dense? The best argument against 'intelligent design' is it's own advocates.
Judy Crayton · 3 December 2009
“love God and love your neighbor”. I guess that is too demanding for “sophisticated”
ben said:
Come on ben, "...love your neighbor." I believe in intelligent design but you're sarcasm and unloving attitude turned me off. I respect these people. They're fun, they're thinking and enjoying creation. So what if they haven't become familiar with the Bible, or reject what they are familiar with?
Can't you enjoy the beauty of the picture and give credit where it is due. Eccl. somewhere :) "...give each man what is due him." or something like that.
Is your goal to try to make people look foolish or to love them and enjoy an intelligent debate?
Kris Jones said:
Random Lurker said:
wow. gorgeous.
I agree…It is gorgeous!
I'm interested to know however, how someone can infer that there is no design in nature by looking at incense smoke. Have we come to that? Of course design in inherent in the order of the universe, otherwise there would be no physics, chemistry, gravity, or anything else we take for granted and trust in order to exist, and even think logically.. It is escaping the obvious to say that randomness “caused” order. Randomness cannot “cause” something. I know the arguments and the so called “evidence” that is put forth (similar to this silly incense illustration), but I’m not convinced. I do have a couple of questions about the issue.
Gorgeous…what does that mean? How can we say it is gorgeous and preferable unless there is some standard of preference from which to compare it? Existence of “beauty” infers a definite standard. It appears that in their overly anxious attempts to denounce the design theorists, proponents of chaos and metaphysical naturalism constantly shoot themselves in the foot by arguing on the basis of objective standards of “beauty” and “truth”.
Truth…How could we trust in knowledge without some type of design that gives our thoughts meaning? If chaos is true our thoughts have no value and cannot determine actual truth. I see overly anxious evolutionists try and argue from so called “evidence” that human intelligence just evolved with no intelligent guidance and I just laugh because their ability to structure an argument proves that their conclusion (naturalistic evolution) is ridiculous. Funny stuff.
Book of Rules…Funny…Ever actually cracked open a bible? Most of the bible is narrative. Much more of it is letters written from one person to help his friend avoid huge mistakes in life. The overarching theme is “love God and love your neighbor”. I guess that is too demanding for “sophisticated” scientists and sociologists. Man, must be scary to some people to be accountable for their actions. I guess that is one thing that is wrong with the world. Let’s just blame everyone else for our problems instead of being accountable for our actions. Haha.
Enjoy your Incense smoke turned silly science lesson!
A tasty word salad! Does it come with croutons?
Judy Crayton · 4 December 2009
If I were to pick a single characteristic of the ID/creationist community that makes them so persistent in their insistence that “God did it”, it would be their continuing misinformation and misconceptions about what science (physics in particular) already knows. Those misconceptions directly relate to matter and its interactions; they apparently don’t know what matter actually does. To them, matter by itself is pure “spontaneous molecular chaos”, which by definition, cannot do anything. Therefore some deity has to step in.
Mike Elzinga said:
Hi Mike. I am no scientist but love reading books on astrophysics and quantum theory. Books for dummies :)
I don't agree that this is the attitude of most ID adherents. Science itself makes it appear obvious to me that our universe is the result of a cause from outside our universe. Something can never come into existance from nothing.
My philosophy is formed by both science and the Bible. I was amazed the night Christ came into me. That the communication was so absolute. I say that only to mention that is a fact no one but myself experienced. Nevertheless, the absolute reality must be weighed in by me in considering truth. I think there should be no conflict between the Bible and science.
I see that the Universe is self sustaining (The Bible states God holds all things together. I don't know what that means other than continued responsibility of some kind on His part) but I never heard any believer indicate that 'God just did it' without thinking that the laws of physics are operative and we just haven't discovered the answer yet.
There is an exception. If there is a God, chances are He can intervene. If there is an intervention in the laws of physics by God it is obvious and is what we call a miracle.
All IDs that I know feel the responsibility to understand the laws of the universe and are excited when scientists put more together. I think what you described would be a pretty shallow person, not your ordinary believer and certainly not those fascinated by science. :)
I love reading through this article ... I looked up the definition of chaos & it only confused me more.
1. disorder: a state of complete disorder and confusion.
It seems like we need to redefine it as 'Something uncontrolled by human beings' or something like that. The laws of physics are always operating and directing. There could be no 'absolute' chaos.
Thanks . . .
72 Comments
e-dogg · 23 November 2009
Stunning! Any chance of getting a hi-res version for wallpaper?
Lynn Wilhelm · 23 November 2009
Absolutely gorgeous!
If it's scientific enough, I'm disappointed it wasn't a contest finalist.
Mike Elzinga · 23 November 2009
There are also many such nice pictures at Physics Central.
Many of these illustrate dramatically how matter interacts, and they are beautiful counterexamples to the ID/creationist claims that matter cannot produce order and emergent properties because of “spontaneous molecular chaos”.
Duncan Buell · 23 November 2009
If you look closely at this, you can see that this allegedly random arrangement of smoke particles actually contains the image (albeit a stern one, not smiling) of William Dembski.
Richard · 23 November 2009
Beautiful!
Salvador Dali would be envious!!!!
ravilyn.sanders · 23 November 2009
Does it need any special kind of camera to shoot these kind of images? What kind of exposure times?
Baka · 23 November 2009
I would also appreciate a link to a higher-res version for wallpaper purposes. Really beautiful shot!
harold · 23 November 2009
Of course, no-one real cares about "detecting design", except for real basic and applied scientists in fields like archaeology and forensics, or for non-human design, those that study any of the innumerable animal species that design hives, nests, etc.
"ID" exists because religious authoritarians exist.
They want to impose their views on everyone by fiat, and it's important to recall that they often tend to view other religious sects as "competition".
They want to claim that the Bible is "literally" true, because otherwise, how could it be painted as a simple-minded rule book that just happens to tell everyone to do what they happen to command? (There are plenty of authoritarians with different sets of cultural biases who used something else as a simple book of rules, of course, but those aren't the ones who drive ID.)
They think in terms of victory and domination, so they'll use any tactics and accept any advantage. In fact they seem to have a preference for sneaky tactics.
Their idea of "science" is "whatever high school students are ordered to memorize in 'science' class".
They learned that open "creation science" was being defeated in court, so they cast about for a more coded version, and came up with "ID".
Actually, to be fully accurate, that lost in court, too, and they are no doubt looking for something new.
At any rate, it has, unfortunately, little to do with how apparent design can be induced in apparently chaotic natural phenomena.
Random Lurker · 23 November 2009
wow. gorgeous.
fnxtr · 23 November 2009
Richard · 23 November 2009
fnxtr -
There is only one "True" dumbass useless non-science they want to teach.
All other dumbass useless non-science will be banned - along with true science.
FastEddie · 23 November 2009
But...but...what about Jeebus??!!
Francois · 23 November 2009
publiusr · 23 November 2009
Looks like a tornado vortex signature from the inside.
Mike Elzinga · 23 November 2009
I printed the picture and made a few measurements of the spiral.
It is fairly close to a logarithmic spiral within the first 4 pi radians of revolution.
But it is obviously being distorted by the turbulence from its drift.
Gingerbaker · 23 November 2009
Gingerbaker · 23 November 2009
Robert Byers · 24 November 2009
Wait a minute cried the YEC Canuck.
This is your argument for order out of chaos.
Lets think about this.
I say it makes the case for order from chaos.
The order of the smoke is not from whim and fanct but from physics.
The whole smoke thing is moving within the present universe with order/laws acting upon it.
It is the order of physics that is organizing the smoke and not random chance.
The previous posters here thinking is in chaos.
It takes creationists to bring order to thinking.
Frank J · 24 November 2009
Frank J · 24 November 2009
Gingerbaker · 24 November 2009
fnxtr · 24 November 2009
Gingerbaker · 24 November 2009
b allen · 24 November 2009
I have enjoyed much of the insight and comments (those from Harold and Gingerbaker especially) I really love the photograph. I will definitely try that sometime with my camera. Great photo!
Is there design within chaos? Parameters of laws of physics, cosmology, mathematics, and of course evolution seem to reveal a possibility of amazing intent even in chaos. Disorder brings about order in many examples...from crystallization to snow flakes."Inherent" as one thoughtfully stated, if I inferred correctly.
If one finds design in the natural laws, I am not sure I see the problem as some have hinted at the value of research of the data and discovery regardless of design possibilities.
Perhaps the problem begins when ID is forced into where it need not be. The disturbing dichotomy seems more to be ID philosophy and discussion versus ID Agenda and Politics. This is where the respect and thoughtful conversation tend to part company.
Again, great photo!!!
Francois · 25 November 2009
Kris Jones · 25 November 2009
ben · 25 November 2009
Dan · 25 November 2009
stevaroni · 25 November 2009
Mike Elzinga · 25 November 2009
Looks like he is defecating on a couple of threads.
Robert Byers · 26 November 2009
Robert Byers · 26 November 2009
Torbach · 26 November 2009
i remember thinking the same thing from random knot formation from jostling, that out of random chaos, comes what could be easily interpreted as design.
and given enough time and enough string... crazy knot chains can form.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/42/16432.abstract
anyway, the pic looks like a heart
Motorcycle Parts · 26 November 2009
Nice informative post thanks for sharing it.
Krs · 27 November 2009
Though I’m not stoned in the dorm room, I do have a huge turkey hangover from thanksgiving. Good stuff!
I must say, I like you people! You actually have senses of humor. No eye for the obvious, but definitely senses of humor. Haha! (I took the advice on the paragraph breaks. Thanks for having my back)
Oh the silliness. The evidence is in the "apparent design". But I guess that would be a little too obvious for the sophisticated Darwinists. Haha!
I think I have heard it as "the proof is in the pudding".
It looks like design, acts like design, even smells like design (note the reference to incense smoke)...well, it must be design.
I like how someone posted a picture that obviously shows design, then quotes someone saying that it “illustrates how apparent design can be induced in apparently chaotic natural phenomena,” Let’s be honest folks, someone is grabbing for a lifeline. How can chaos happen in a world with mathematical laws? Please, let’s not ignore basic forces of cause and effect. I expect more from our “intellectual elite” scientist than to not acknowledge their brothers and sisters in the mathematics field. That’s just rude and insensitive (note the “apparent” sarcasm). It might hurt their feelings.
Hey stevearoni (lovin the name by the way), take a look at Mike Elzinga’s first comment.
This is a fun website. I might start spending some time commenting every week just for the good company!
I don’t mean to defecate on the website, just engage in some “fun loving” conversation. I would understand if alternative opinions are not welcome here though. If we welcome alternative opinions then it might force some people to think through their ideologies. In some fields (note the sarcasm), I know that is frowned upon.
Dave Luckett · 27 November 2009
OK, Krs, so let it rip.
We know, and can prove, that intricacy and regularity are emergent properties (perhaps a better word might be "appearances") from simple laws plus extremely complex contingent interactions of matter and energy. That's what the smoke is illustrating. The pattern is intricate, with elements of regularity - look at that spiral, for example. But nobody is saying that it was designed.
Therefore, your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to demonstrate that design must be inferred for a specific, very complex pattern called "life", when it can be demonstrated that complex patterns do occur without design. To succeed in this mission, you will need to produce some evidence other than "it's very complex" (yes, Krs, we already know that) and "just look at it!" (Many here spend their working lives doing just that).
But if you have such evidence, bring it on.
Kris · 27 November 2009
Haha! I figured the conversation would go in this direction. This design argument starts with the properties that allow patterns to exist. Follow the logical conclusion and you end up with everything you see and experience. You call it “extremely complex contingent interactions of matter and energy”. Of course it is complicated. The process could not happen though, without the presupposition of the laws and properties of matter which can only exist as the result of something outside of nature
This other comment, “complex patterns do occur without design” goes out the windows because we cannot test patters outside of a experiment that we “design” to gather information that is the result of “designed” laws and properties. We cannot design an experiment to proves that design does not exist. It is almost as ironic as trying to “reconstruct the environment in which the universe first came into existence” in a universe that already exists (notice the humor).
I saw in the comment that you mentioned “simple laws”. Those simple laws allow for the universe to run as it runs and exist as it exists. Without them this conversation would not even be possible. As simple as they seem, they are foundational building blocks of our universe and they are not the product of naturalistic evolution, obviously. They came from something else. We use the term, “designer”.
We cannot escape, or suspend for the purposes of science or philosophy, the environment which was designed and supports our existence. To attempt such a feet is to overlook reality.
I see a consistent pattern of the people on this website. They all have great senses of humor, great sarcastic wit, and extensive vocabularies. But I don’t see any acknowledgement of the obvious. I hope we can be friends and continue our conversation though!
Also, I appreciate the attempt to give me an assignment, but before we move forward we have to address, not dance around, the original issue I brought up. Deal with it sufficiently and maybe we can move forward.
Mike Elzinga · 27 November 2009
Kris · 27 November 2009
Why Mike, I thought we were friends!? Haha!
I’m not interested in monopolizing the entire forum, just conversing with the few that did comment and did show interest. It’s fun and it sharpens everyone’s ideas. It also encourages everyone to think through their presuppositions. Isn’t that one of the purposes of a forum?
I didn’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings or be insensitive.
I love science. I just have some different opinions than most of the people on this site about what real science is. I think real science should consider all the possibilities, not just those that reflect the current “powers that be”. It’s not about me, or you.
I do enjoy the search for truth and the discussion that gets us closer to it. I hope we can keep discussing the issue.
But what do you think about the issue Mike? It doesn’t have to be a response to my particular criticism of naturalism. We’ll let Dave handle that one if he is up to it (sense the friendly banter). Can you explain how this picture is an example of “beautiful counterexamples to the ID/creationist claims” that you posted earlier? That question is not meant to be sarcastic. I’m really curious. Help me out here.
Do you think that the universe is just a random occurrence? Or do you believe that there is an ultimate cause that cannot be detected? (Obviously, you don’t hold the other option of ID).
Stanton · 27 November 2009
Kris · 27 November 2009
Why No, my dear friend!
I try my best not to lie. Nor do I take phrases out of context (note the sarcasm).
I just don't think science should disallow an option "a prior". If it does, then it is not really science.
I do think today's dominate view of science is hindered by false presuppositions.
Stanton · 27 November 2009
Science disqualifies supernatural causes because of two reasons:
1) As was stated before, repeatedly, supernatural causes, by their very definition, are beyond natural laws, and thus, are beyond the realm and responsibilities of science
2) Appeals to the supernatural, by their very nature, do not explain anything.
Thirdly, I say you're a liar when you claim you love science is because you express pride in being scientifically illiterate, and you express disdain in how science is done. That you have to explain yourself by appealing to a global conspiracy does nothing to help you.
Rilke's Granddaughter · 27 November 2009
Rilke's Granddaughter · 27 November 2009
Kris seems to think that the existence of regularity (laws of physics) demands a "designer."
Why?
Mike Elzinga · 27 November 2009
Rilke's granddaughter · 27 November 2009
Rilke's granddaughter · 27 November 2009
But I admit that I long for the day when we have an actual opponent to deal with, rather than boring mindless trolls. Someone who can make and sustain an actual argument. Kris doesn't show signs of being such a person.
Matt Young · 27 November 2009
Please take Mr. Elzinga's advice and do not feed the troll. If the troll can provide evidence for its claims, like science disallowing options "a prior[i]" or having false presuppositions, then we can talk. If not, please refrain from responding to mere taunts.
Matt Young · 27 November 2009
I disagree with Mr. Stanton and Rilke's Granddaughter. True, science cannot invoke supernatural causes as explanations, but that does not mean that science cannot study the supernatural. We do so, for example, whenever we study ghosts, mediums, and weeping virgins.
More pertinently, studies of intercessory prayer, whatever their difficulties, are in fact scientific studies designed to assess certain claims of the supernatural. One of the only halfway decent studies of intercessory prayer, by many accounts, was Herbert Benson's Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP trial), and the best it could do was find a kind of reverse-placebo effect among patients who knew they were being prayed for. The MANTRA II study from Duke University likewise gave negative results.
I consider both the STEP and the MANTRA studies to be legitimate scientific studies of an effect that some think to be supernatural. Had they turned up a positive result, you could say that we have to look harder for a naturalistic cause, and you would be right, but there is no guarantee that there is a naturalistic cause, and the first step is to see whether there is any effect at all.
Kris · 27 November 2009
I love that my response has caused such discussion. I also love that people are reading my posts so closely that they even catch my spelling mistakes.
Have a great weekend all!
Stanton · 27 November 2009
Dave Luckett · 27 November 2009
Mike's right. It's a troll, and its only purpose is narcissism. The complete non-response, with taunting and gloating, to the suggestion that it produce actual evidence, is the proof.
Don't waste your time.
Mike Elzinga · 27 November 2009
Stanton · 27 November 2009
Matt Young · 27 November 2009
I agree almost completely with Mr. Elzinga. But suppose, for example, that the intercessory-prayer studies had come up with a result that was so striking as to be almost irrefutable.
Let us say that we pit a team of Reform Jews against a team of ultra-Orthodox Jews, and in triple-blind tests these teams pray for different cohorts of patients. The Reform cohort has outcomes that consistently outperform those of the control group by a highly statistically significant margin. The ultra-Orthodox cohort, by contrast, has mediocre outcomes, about equal to the control group. The experiment is replicated in cities all over the world.
I'll grant it is a diagnosis of exclusion, but unless someone can come up with a naturalistic mechanism, we must conclude two things. First, intercessory prayer can be efficacious but is not necessarily so. Second, Reform Jewish prayer is more efficacious than ultra-Orthodox Jewish prayer.
Mike Elzinga · 27 November 2009
Matt Young · 27 November 2009
Reform, not Reformed.
I don't know precisely what you mean by converges, but if we actually came up against something supernatural, we might expect some odd results.
By confirmed, I meant that the experiment was replicated, not that the mechanism was confirmed. I think we could in principle observe something that we could not account for except with recourse to supernatural, not that I think that will ever happen.
My thought experiment with the Reform Jews is presumably done correctly: the cohorts of patients are selected randomly, and neither the patients nor their physicians know who is being prayed for and who not. (I think my use of the phrase triple-blind was incorrect; the praying teams know whom they are praying for.) In city after city, year after year, patients who are prayed for by Reform Jews fare better than other patients. The subcultures of the two groups have nothing obvious to do with it, because they do not interact directly with the patients and the patients are not chosen exclusively from those groups.
I claim that under these conditions, we would have little choice but to conclude that there is supernatural intervention. It's a little bit like digging down to the center of the earth (figuratively speaking) and finding a stone with the inscription, Made by God (in Hebrew, of course).
Whether the intervenor in our thought experiment is God, however, is another question: we asked whether science could study the supernatural. I think the answer is yes, though if you wanted to quibble, you could say that science was studying the effect of a supernatural intervention and probably could not study the supernatural entity itself.
Mike Elzinga · 27 November 2009
Mike Elzinga · 27 November 2009
Mike Elzinga · 28 November 2009
Eric Finn · 28 November 2009
Mike Elzinga · 28 November 2009
Eric Finn · 28 November 2009
Gingerbaker · 30 November 2009
A more useful definition of the supernatural:
"An intelligent interactive entity which does not exist, but which appeals to the imagination of humans."
Instead of hand-wringing and teeth-knashing over the theoretical possibility of the supernatural in order to keep one's scientific appearances up, why not state the obvious:
We will consider the possibility of a supernatural force when you can bloody show me one.
Show me the money! Just once.
Frank J · 30 November 2009
Gingerbaker · 30 November 2009
I wonder if it is time for the scientific/reality-based community to stop the accommodationist tactic of treating the absurd as worthy of consideration.
What would be the problem with taking the approach that talk about the 'supernatural' or of something 'outside of science' or 'beyond our perception' or the 'unknowable' or the 'transcendent' is simply talking claptrap about stuff that does not exist, but is merely the product of fervent imaginations.
Stop even allowing the rhetorical accommodation of such ideas, and take the honest position that such things do not exist until they can actually be demonstrated, or just STFU!
Yes, it would be shrill and arrogant and all the other things that the religious and spiritual already say about scientists and atheists, but it would take the important step of putting the burden of proof squarely where it belongs. It could finally change the conversation, and put us on a progressive, not defensive, track.
It could also be a lot of fun. Imagine the spectacle of believers gathering to invoke the appearance of their deities, only to be chagrined once again when all efforts by humanity can not conjure even a paltry poltergeist.
Frank J · 30 November 2009
Mike Elzinga · 30 November 2009
Jozef K · 1 December 2009
"I'm interested to know however, how someone can infer that there is no design in nature by looking at incense smoke. Have we come to that?"
Yes, we have. We have learned that all natural processes are fundamentally the same, so, for example, if one wants to, one can draw a(valid, at least in a broad sense) analogy between Biological Evolution, swirling incense smoke, patterns formed by an oil slick atop a puddle of water, or whatever else you like. Nature practically shouts her 'oneness' at us, and once one hears her, all of these(apparently) varied phenomena make perfect sense. One gaines a higher understanding. One no longer agonizes(like your comical Dark-age Christian theologians did)over the existence of 'evil', or sits up at night wondering why 'bad' things happen to 'good' people. One simply sees that all of these things which appear so different to us are in fact part of a much larger process, one which is altogether incomprehensible to the ordinary brain, but which yields to close study using the scientific method. These 'how do YOU know?' questions(asked of a scientist, that is) are basically rhetorical, and the fact that they're being asked by people who would have us believe the universe was created by a gaseous Hebrew vertebrate(a JEALOUS one, by his own admission)strikes me as pretty ironic. So tell me, Kris...are people like you DELIBERATELY trying to prevent others from understanding nature, in order to further some agenda, or are you just THAT dense? The best argument against 'intelligent design' is it's own advocates.
Judy Crayton · 3 December 2009
Judy Crayton · 4 December 2009
Leslie Kirnon · 4 March 2010
Yes! thought your post is a thought-provoker Order in Chaos - The Panda's Thumb! Leslie Kirnon