[The Higgs boson] is the last undiscovered piece of the Standard Model that describes the fundamental make-up of the universe. The model is for physicists what the theory of evolution is for biologists.Lovely!
Higgs particle found?
The physics community is all a-twitter (figuratively and literally) over the announcement today from CERN that two independent teams have detected a particle that has properties consistent with those hypothesized for the Higgs boson, the particle that gives matter mass. Ethan at Starts With a Bang has some background here and has set up a trap for stories on it here.
What caught my eye today, though, was a Reuters story on the discovery. In it we read
21 Comments
SensuousCurmudgeon · 4 July 2012
Great news for the particle physicists, but I'm wondering how the creationists can twist this to their advantage.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 4 July 2012
That is a good comparison, as far as it goes--that is, as far as it is meant to go.
But if one were to seek to fault evolutionary theory via that comparison (as some IDiots would be prone to do), it would not be so hard to do. The standard model is thought by many physicists to be incomplete, not like evolutionary theory is likely to be incomplete (more mechanisms likely to be found, for example), rather missing in some very fundamental aspects. Thus string theory and some other ideas.
So while I do think it's a fine comparison, I can see how anti-science types could misuse it.
Glen Davidson
Just Bob · 4 July 2012
SensuousCurmudgeon · 4 July 2012
Henry J · 4 July 2012
ogremk5 · 4 July 2012
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 4 July 2012
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 4 July 2012
Unless I'm missing something, that is. It could be that Higgs isn't coming out to the mass calculated by string theory--but I simply don't know either way about that.
I don't even know if the evidence thus far pins down the mass of the putative Higgs boson sufficiently to make string theory look likely or unlikely.
Glen Davidson
harold · 4 July 2012
Chris Lawson · 4 July 2012
I'm with harold.
Higgs boson discovered: creationists say it's proof that god created everything and evolution is wrong.
Higgs boson shown not to exist: creationists say it's proof that god created everything and evolution is wrong.
Higgs boson found selling magazines in the subway: creationists say it's proof that god created everything and evolution is wrong.
phhht · 4 July 2012
glipsnort · 5 July 2012
eric · 5 July 2012
harold · 5 July 2012
richardpenner · 5 July 2012
"The model is for physicists what the theory of evolution is for biologists."
I think it's closer to "The model is for physicists what the Modern Synthesis is for biologists."
There is room for growth for both Modern Synthesis of the 1930s to talk about epigenetic and horizontal gene transfer mechanisms and alternate RNA codings as there is room for the Standard model of the 1960s to be led by the evidence to some form of supersymmetry, technicolor, or string theory that is only a tiny one-part-in-a-trillion contribution to the physics we see now.
bigdakine · 5 July 2012
Mike Elzinga · 5 July 2012
I know some of the folks involved in this experiment. Gordy Kane won a $100 bet with Stephen Hawking. He is quite pleased with the findings so far.
diogeneslamp0 · 5 July 2012
Mike Elzinga · 5 July 2012
diogeneslamp0 · 5 July 2012
Oh, and creationists were wrong about vitalism in the 1920's. So they're 0 for 4.
As for Jason Lisle, why do we hear the loudest yelps for the "Uniformity of natural law" coming from those who demand countless violations of every law of physics, chemistry, biology and geology to explain the origin of time, space, energy, matter, life, biochemistry, animals, plants, minerals, geological strata, all fossils, biocomplexity and everything else everywhere.
apokryltaros · 5 July 2012
Virtually all creationists will literally say literally anything to support their underlying claim that (their personal interpretation of) a literal reading of the Bible is literally what happened. If what the creationist has just pulled out of his ass contradicts what he previously pulled out is not his/her/its own fault: it is the fault of the evil unbelieving, God-hating God-hater who had the evil gall to point the contradiction out.