Posted on 08/20/2005 5:45:53 PM PDT by Nicholas Conradin
By SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.
After toiling in obscurity for nearly a decade, the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country. Pushing a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
To the pre-conceptual evolutionists here:
<"img src=”http://www.poorandstupid.com/images/20050819preconceptual.jpg">
<"img src=”http://www.poorandstupid.com/images/20050819preconceptual2.jpg">
http://www.poorandstupid.com/images/20050819preconceptual.jpg
http://www.poorandstupid.com/images/20050819preconceptual2.jpg
"Genuine IDers, as opposed to closet creationists are as rare as hens teeth."
I know a bunch, and I have no reason to think that's special.
"Then your gripe should be with creationists who have stolen the disguise of ID."
I think I also have a legitimate gripe with people who say things like, "When the creationists and IDers actually figure out what scientific inquiry is and do some..."
There you differentiate between creationists and ID proponents, but assume (incorrectly) that the latter reject science.
"I'll watch to see whether you spend your time correcting them from here on out."
I'm not going to make it a crusade, but if I see someone claiming to be an ID proponent while rejecting the process of evolution, I may be motivated to comment.
"Except that you claimed that "many, many" teachers are pushing evidence, and you offer absolutely nothing substantial as evidence. When pressed for evidence, you present the one thing that you told people not to use as a counter."
Geez, I haven't run across this much malicious pettifogging since I stopped debating liberals.
Actually, I didn't claim to have offered evidence, but as for my reasons for holding my opinion, I cited not only my experience (your "one thing") but also numerous reports I have read down the years.
If I were as obsessed as you guys, I would have carefully tucked each of those reports away to haul out at times like this, but I didn't. And I'm not going to spend my Sunday, or what's left of it, looking for them.
Besides, even if I had them at my fingertips, you guys would just find some specious justification for ignoring them.
Having finally finished the work that's due Monday morning, I'm going to shower and head off to Burger King for a high-fat, high-sugar feastorama.
Hasta enchiladas, pocitos.
"6 not so easy pieces" is remarkably easy to come by. Amazon has 76 copies on hand as I write this. And it is a selection of lectures from the "Lectures on Physics", which will not be "out of print" until the crack of doom. However, since you are apparently allergic to that reference, here is one of hundreds google found for me--there is also a reasonable discussion of the "it's all in your head" explanation here.
Pretty amazing considering that your unpopular theory was your ONLY defense of your non-Intelligently Designed universe.
Well, it wasn't, actually. The retroactive incredulity defense is probably still my goto argument.
And I have any number of other options I can call on whose evidentiary weight equals or exceeds that of the anthropic theory. Like the Mr. Mxlpixl theory: There actually is a negative 5th dimension from which Mr. Mxlpixl pops through occasionally to bedevil superman, balanced exactly in mass by the lost sox and coathangers and glasses from this universe that displace his mass, and thereby keep the two dimensions from annihilating each other back to the chaos from which they arose.
And then, of course, there's the Odin's battle with the giants at the Horefrost bridge explanation.
especially since I provided you with so much evidence to the contrary and in support of Intelligent Design of the universe.
You've done nothing of the sort. You have compiled the imaginative musings of a dozen or so scientists. All of whom know the difference between science, and creative self-indulgence, even if you don't.
The best Carroll can say is that “[i]t is reasonable to believe that the ancestors of mammals can be found among cynodonts such as the chiniquodontids or galesaurids that reduced their body size, probably in relationship to an insectivorous diet” [Emphasis added]. (Carroll, 410.) However, as Carroll points out, the chiniquodontids and galesaurids of the Lower to Middle Triassic reveal only “the initial stages in the origin of most of the features that characterize the mammalian skeleton.” (Carroll, 392.)
This inability to trace the transition from cynodont to mammal is usually blamed on the paucity of fossils. Carroll writes, “Unfortunately, the record of the immediate ancestors of mammals becomes less complete in the Upper Triassic.” (Carroll, 392.) There are, however, fossils of at least two superfamilies, three families, and seven genera of “advanced” cynodonts from the Upper Triassic. (Carroll, 624.) It just so happens that none of them are suitable as transitions to mammals.
On the evidence, that seems sort of doubtful.
All science theories are subject to inevitable recall, as the history of science makes painfully obvious. Science is not about unquestionable truth, it is about provisionally accepted working hypotheses.
There was absolutely nothing whatsover in that article regarding "fundamental symmetries in the nature of the initial quantum event" only a couple of half-hearted grasping attempts posited AFTER the fact.
But this part takes the cake (YOU GOTTA READ THIS EVERYBODY!!!):
"(B)y means of a random quantum fluctuation the universe "tunneled" from pure vacuum ("nothing") to what is called a false vacuum, a region of space that contains no matter or radiation but is not quite "nothing." The space inside this bubble of false vacuum was curved, or warped. A small amount of energy was contained in that curvature, somewhat like the energy stored in a strung bow. This ostensible violation of energy conservation is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for sufficiently small time intervals."
This is hilarious! Do you actually believe this crock? Absolute nothingness just suddenly becomes something for NO REASON WHATSOVER?!
"A random quantum fluctation"?! Before anthing existed? That's so funny! And you call yourself a scientist?
I know, I know, next you're gonna tell me, "No! Really! Absolute nothingness is actually unstable! "Nothingness" will self-create into "something".
Is this really what you have been reduced to?
This is your science today?!?!
Gimme a break.
I KNEW there was some reason you wouldn't answer! You knew it was ridiculous! Thanks for the laugh, though! You really made my day!
Go back to school, Bucko. You fail this one. Miserably.
This is a statement of opinion. What's the evidence? Hoyle drew the same conclusions from biology, but he was neither a physicist, nor a biologist. I don't know what he's referring to concerning physics above (do you?), but I have read his "observations" about biology, and the man was a complete crank. He drew his "conclusions" about the alleged insufficiency of natural processes from his complete misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about those processes. Hoyle was a genuine "crank" on a lot of topics, I'm not sure that anyone would be wise to tie the credibility of their position to Hoyle.
[Einstein:] "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."
Neither this, nor your other Einstein quotes, in any way supports your implication that he considered "a supernatural entity beyond the capacity of science to observe, [to be] the best scientific explanation of the universe". Thinking that there *is* some supernatural entity isn't the same as mistaking that position for a "scientific explanation", much less the "best" one. In all my readings of Einstein's works and writings, I've never seen him make that kind of error. Quite the contrary.
[Einstein:] "I am convinced that God does not play dice with the universe."
I find it especially amusing that you would include this quote in your list, because it a famous example of how, the one time that Einstein *did* let his belief in some sort of "universal consciousness" directly affect his views on physics, it led him to one of his few *ERRORS* on that subject. Einstein lived long enough to learn the universe does indeed "play dice" -- unlike the behavior which Einstein expected if a deity were in charge.
In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable." "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125).
Key word here is "seem". And by taking this out of context of the preceding pages, which discuss the anthropic principle, you're being *very* misleading about the nature of Hawking's actual intent in writing this passage.
"For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded... It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."
Nothing in this passage was meant to be interpreted as "evidence" of a creator, nor was Hawking presenting it as such. Furthermore, you've LEFT OUT the passages on the same page in which Hawking makes it clear that the appearances (of "fine tuning") may well turn out to be the physical necessity: "It may be that one day we shall discover a complete unified theory that predicts them all..."
Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)"
This out-of-context passage *VERY* badly misrepresents what Hawking was actually saying. Did you actually read his book, or are you just relying on out-of-context snippets of it from creationist pamphlets?
Oh, I see -- you just cut-and-pasted the snippets *and* the "discussion" from a creationist website. Same thing.
The *full* sentence was:
On can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science or as support for the strong anthropic principle."Hawking's point here is that since it could be taken as apparent "evidence" of two contrary explanations, then it's really no "evidence" at all for either proposition -- since it fits the expectations of *both*, it can't be used as evidence for one versus the other.
Please explain why you present this passage as "support" for your assertion that Hawking actually believes that the "best scientific explanation" is creationism. This appears to be a grossly dishonest attempt to misrepresent his position.
But not the only resolution. Beware the "simplest" alleged "resolution" (especially one which requires "turtles all the way down").
The open model of the universe thus implies a supernatural Creator.
No it doesn't.
Oh - and one more thing from your article:
"So how did our universe happen to be so "fine-tuned" as to produce these wonderful, self-important carbon structures? As I explained above, we have no reason to assume that ours is the only possible form of life and perhaps life of some sort would have happened whatever form the universe took--however the crystals on the arm of the snowflake happened to be arranged by chance."
So he just avoided the whole argument! He cannot explain the fine-tuning (which was ostensibly the whole reason for the article) and just says, basically, "Well, any universe might have some kind of life in it...duh, I think. Looky pretty snowflake!"
What a crock!
The transistors that send this conversation speeding on it's way would not work if "nothingness" did not self-create and somethingness did not spontaneously uncreate on a statistically predictable, routine basis right under your nose. That is the essence of quantum theory.
This is a non sequitur to the post of mine to which you are replying.
Are you attempting to have a conversation and failing?
Or are you just trying to proselytize?
In any case, your quote seriously misrepresents the positions of scientists. They do not "choose" to believe one thing or another, they arrive at conclusions based on their observations of the evidence. Do you "choose" not to believe in Santa Claus? Could you actually "choose" *TO* believe in Santa? Or did you arrive at your conclusions about the reality of Santa in a way that can't accurately be described as "choosing to believe"?
Furthermore, such conclusions are in no way based on "faith" in the sense of the word as it is being used in this passage.
Fine, but then not even evolutionary biologists claim that it occurred "by accident". There are more processes at work in evolution and other natural processes than mere "accident".
Are you *trying* to misrepresent so many different things in your posts, or are you just unable to properly discuss them?
Your misunderstanding of his post is what makes it appear "the dumbest thing you have seen". His actual point is a valid one. Try actually understanding it, instead of looking for ways to misread it so as to have an excuse to consider it inconsequential.
Yet another non sequitur "response".
Do you want to talk, or do you want to do random cut-and-pastes in reply to my various posts?
Its massive complexities clearly pointed to a Great Designer, and that was no good. So they made up a new far-fetched theory which in essence was saying - we see that there must be a God, but we do not want to acknowledge Him, so we must place God somewhere else and are saying the following theory.
Ah, yes, the Conspiracy Theory version of science...
Do you guys even listen to yourselves? Why do you post this moonbat stuff?
...in the 1950's...
You know, biochemistry has progressed just a *little* bit since then...
No, you very obviously *DON'T* get it, since you're able to completely misunderstand what people have written to you, as:
Black is White and White is Black. Right is wrong and wrong is right...
Not even *CLOSE*.
Work on your reading comprehension and try again.
What a crock!
Braying like a jackdaw really doesn't do a thing for your arguments. You asked for alternative explanations, I offered them to you. None of them are science, any more than your anthropic principle is a science, so what is the point in refuting them? It's like that story about the guy who put on his sneakers when he saw the bear coming, and his friend said--"what's the point, you can't outrun a bear?". And he answered, "I don't need to outrun the bear, I just need to outrun you.". Sure my answers have problems, if viewed as science, but they don't have to be great answers, they just have to be better than yours, and they are--they have the exact same amount of credible forensic evidence going for them, and they are more entertaining.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
![http://www.poorandstupid.com/images/20050819preconceptual.jpg"](http://www.poorandstupid.com/images/20050819preconceptual.jpg"){kind=link}
![http://www.poorandstupid.com/images/20050819preconceptual2.jpg"](http://www.poorandstupid.com/images/20050819preconceptual2.jpg"){kind=link}
