| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 4/11/2010; 5:44 PM Marilyn Vos Savant, you're not Martin Gardner. So cut it out. For those of you who don't know who Martin Gardner is, he was the long-running writer of the "Mathematical Games" column in Scientific American. He is also the skeptic's skeptic. His 1952 book, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science is considered a seminal work in rational discussion of fringe topics and so-called "alternative" health care claims. Gardner is probably the most level-headed human being on the planet. He is still writing his long-running "Notes of a Fringe Watcher" column for Skeptical Inquirer, the organ of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal. If you have a silly claim, Martin is prepared to take your nonsense apart with a razor-sharp mind and a take-no-prisoners approach. His books should be on your bookshelf. Then there is Marilyn Vos Savant. She writes a short column for Parade magazine mostly exploring logical puzzles, sort of a poor man's "Mathematical Games." All well and good. But then she makes the horrible mistake of taking on subject way too complex for her brief column, as if she could solve complex philosophical riddles in the same breezy manner she whips off solutions to math conundrums. In this she's no Martin Gardner, and she should stop trying to be. What prompted this is her recent take on the Kansas Board of Education's abandonment of science in favor of ignorance. In case you have forgotten, Kansas decided that evolution--the fundamental organizing principle for the biological sciences--is no longer a part of their standardized curriculum. Creationists, incapable of getting their religion accepted as the science it's not, have changed gears and are hell-bent (pun intended) on getting evolution removed from schools. I suppose the germ theory of disease is next, since it's such a common target for those on the fringe. In the wake of such a disaster for the education of children in Kansas, what was Ms. Savant's insightful take on the situation? To paraphrase her: "The Big Bang Theory is accepted on faith." Go on, read that paragraph again. Her answer to a question about basic science education in this country is "The Big Bang Theory is accepted on faith." She then went on to clarify that, why, yes, she does think the decision in Kansas is wrong. Thanks, Marilyn, for getting around to that a month later. Oh--and too much science is built on faith. Aargh! If you don't have room to make your meaning clear, don't even tackle the darn subject! Because it's clear she has a point of sorts, but the implication everyone would get out of her first response is that she agreed with the decision in Kansas. There was a letter to the editor in my local paper immediately afterwards which boiled down to this: "The world's smartest person says science is just another kind of faith. But where science is the work of Man, the Bible is based on Truth." Thanks, Marilyn, for your work on behalf of the skeptical community. You can't just whip an answer off like this in a two paragraph note in your column like it's the topic of the day at the dinner party. The topic is too complex. Is science built on faith? The short answer is no. Science is built on empirical evidence. You examine something empirically, and try to determine what the subject is and how it relates to the rest of the universe. Read this excellent essay over at the Skeptic's Dictionary for more on exactly how science works. But wait until you're done here, please. Just a few more minutes of your time. Faith, by the most reasonable definition, is belief without regard to empirical evidence. There might be empirical evidence to bolster your faith. There might not be. Your faith endures without regard to this issue. So science, which is built on an empirical foundation, is different from faith, which cares not about empirical verification. So why is Marilyn Vos Savant saying too much science is built on faith? I think she's saying two things. First, many scientists defend a subject without having read the research on the matter. So from an individual standard, if you want to be very strict about it, those scientists might be said to have faith that the research says what they think it says, and that the evidence is there. Second, I think she is saying that some kinds of scientific inferences are just too darn shaky to be on solid ground. For example, the idea that the universe was once smaller than the size of a polka dot seems to particularly offend her. I myself haven't examined the evidence, but I would imagine that it is a very subtle and somewhat tenuous argument that leads to this conclusion. I also would imagine that what cosmologists are busily doing is testing this assumption--universe once smaller than a polka dot--and seeing if the predicts what we actually find in the universe. But since I haven't read the actual research she'd probably dismiss me as just having faith. Now, there is a certain amount of arrogance in the scientific enterprise. There's a legitimate reason for a certain amount of it. Astronomers can't climb down out of their observatories to confront every Veliskovsky who thinks he has revolutionized science. So they become dismissive of those who don't play by the rules--research, test, publish in a peer-reviewed journal. But if you spend enough time looking at the scientific enterprise, you develop a kind of trust in the process. For one thing, unless big business has it's patent-hungry hands in it, science is a magnificently transparent enterprise. You can't claim so much as the sky is up without having to go past the guard dogs of your peer reviewers, who will question every assumption and demand you clear up every ambiguity. Then if you survive that, everybody in your field will now look at your research and bust you if you are at all sloppy. Part of science is repeatability, so if you publish something in a peer-reviewed journal you must be prepared for somebody else to try and repeat your activities to see if they get the same result. There is even a growing understanding of the need to watch out for fraud. After spending any time at all examining this whole grinding wheel claims go through, you will come to the unavoidable conclusion that if a scientist is claiming something of their research, it won't be long before some other scientist points out everything that is wrong with their claim. And then some third scientist will take issue with both of them. And out of this constellation of effort, bogus claims will filter right out into the sewage. This says to me that I don't have to read every bloody piece of research to repeat claims made in some scientific discipline. If Big Bang cosmologists have provisionally concluded that the universe began as a point smaller than a polka dot, I feel comfortable repeating that to people. The process will weed out the claim if it's bogus, and then I'll tell people the new results. I have come to the informed opinion that the scientific process can, for the most part, be trusted. Now, I haven't examined the actual empirical evidence myself. I haven't performed the tests. I haven't cranked the math (thank the gods). So I suppose you could be strictly correct in saying I have faith in the results. But that's a far cry from the religious faith! I've come to an informed opinion about the scientific process, and from then on I will keep that opinion until I've been shown to be wrong. That's much more secure footing for accepting a claim than "It's in the Bible" or "God speaks to my heart"! And for Ms. Vos Savant to shove the two kinds of thought into the same box is just plain wrong. I'm fairly sure that she knows all this. I see the problem that her forum, "Ask Marilyn," is jut too limited to address these issues in any kind of depth. That being the case, she shouldn't address them at all. Not only is that foolish, it is just plain arrogant. "See, in one sentence I can demolish your puny preconceptions." Please. And it's not particularly helpful in warding off the sea of nonsense that's invading our country. It's infuriating. It's not helpful. The final blow to my sensibility is the fact that this woman, like Gardner, is a CSICOP Fellow! Please don't claim to support the goals of one of the premiere skeptical organizations in the world, then go around sowing confusion in your wake. Meanwhile, I'm going to go read some Gardner and clean out my mind. Hope you are doing the same.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Smith on 8/11/2001; 9:47 AM "Go on, read that paragraph again. Her answer to a question about basic science education in this country is "The Big Bang Theory is accepted on faith."" I don't think she has a problem with science itself but that of evolutionary science. I decided to read your link to the skeptic's dictionary and found some things that actually back up Savants position. "Some of the methods are empirical, such as making observations, designing controlled experiments, or designing instruments to use in collecting data." "Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them." "Relying on or derived from observation or experiment:" www.dictionary.com How can anyone claim to have empirical evidence of the big bang without very large assumptions to start with? There are no people on this earth that I am aware of that have observed this event. Therefore it cannot be proven to be true. It can only fall under the realm of faith for there is no direct proof other than the evidence that supports it (see below). After all, isn't that the phrase that scientists use to try and debunk creation or God Himself "I need to see in order to believe"? "It is true that some scientific theories, when they are first developed and proposed, are often little more than guesses based on limited information." Another great cut from the Skeptic's Dictionary clearly stating that theories start with guesses based on little information. I think a more accurate description would be "limited or no information". "The distinguishing feature of scientific theories is that they are "capable of being tested by experience" (Popper, 40)." This statement from the Skep Dic may be true in theory, but not in practice. The theory of evolution both cosmic and biological have so many inconsistencies to be almost considered a bad April 1st joke. "The fact that a theory passed an empirical test does not prove the theory, however." This speaks for itself. I am wondering if you may have read the essay yourself? "No scientific theory can be proved with absolute certainty." Are you sure you read this essay? I would call the previous two statements faith wouldn't you? "Scientific facts, like scientific theories, are not infallible certainties, either. Facts involve not only easily testable perceptual elements; they also involve interpretation." That is where the arguement falls to an incredibly new low. The realisation that even scientific facts are not infallible (oh dear, how can that be?) and those who claim they are, are engaging in elevating evolution (cosmic or biological) into the realms of god like status with plenty of faith in doing so. "However, when we refer to a scientific theory, we are not referring to a speculation or guess, but to a systematic explanation of some range of empirical phenomena. This is where the essay dives in and out of contradictory statements hence their previous statement..."It is true that some scientific theories, when they are first developed and proposed, are often little more than guesses based on limited information." Perhaps they should have developed the explaination a little further. Are they referring to a hypothesis as the development and proposal of a theory or the confirmation of the hypothesis itself (leading to a theory)? "Nevertheless, scientific theories vary in degree of certainty..." This is like an amusing comment I read in a magazine regarding a computer game called Total Annihilation. The comment "...as opposed to what? Partial annihilation?" How can you have varying degrees of certainty? But then they jump again to statements based more in reality, like the following... "We should remember that science, as Jacob Bronowski put it, "is a very human form of knowledge....Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error.... Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible" (Bronowski, 374). "One aim of the physical sciences," he said, "has been to give an exact picture of the material world. One achievement of physics in the twentieth century has been to prove that aim is unattainable" (353). Here Bronowski states that all the 20th century proved was that the physical sciences could not give us an exact picture of the material world. Very humble of him to say so and very much closer to that which I consider a true scientist. Not dogmatically pushing views down other peoples throats but realising that nothing is infallible in the world of man. "Scientific knowledge is human knowledge and scientists are human beings. They are not gods, and science is not infallible. Yet, the general public often thinks of scientific claims as absolutely certain truths." Now to your article. To highlight the above statement, here is what you have written yourself... "But if you spend enough time looking at the scientific enterprise, you develop a kind of trust in the process." The word trust is synonymous with faith. "It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods (374).Jacob Bronowski" Who gave them this "absolute knowledge"? Here Bronowski has tragically missed an observation of the importance of scientific theories and their effect on the population. UCLA Professor Donald Kalish says, "There are no ethical truths... you are mistaken to think that anyone ever had the answers. There are no answers." Frederich Nietzsche "The advantage of our times, nothing is true, everything is permitted." Henry Miller also states "Today I am proud to say that I am inhuman." Views like these bred and justified the inhumane acts of the early 20th century. To highlight... Sir Arthur Keith explains the reality " In 1935, a committee of phychologists, representing 30 nations, issued a manifesto in which it was stated that "war is the necessary outcome of Darwin's theory..." This is not only justified by Darwin but also theories such as the Big Bang which give humans no direction other than that of their own free will. We all know how that turns out. "But since I haven't read the actual research she'd probably dismiss me as just having faith." Well of course she would. You have countered your own debate here. "Now, there is a certain amount of arrogance in the scientific enterprise. There's a legitimate reason for a certain amount of it. Astronomers can't climb down out of their observatories to confront every Veliskovsky who thinks he has revolutionized science. So they become dismissive of those who don't play by the rules--research, test, publish in a peer-reviewed journal." There is far too much arrogance in the scientific community. Far too much sowing words such as "fact" when still theory. Far too much indoctrination at school where nearly everyone who exits school is assured that evolution is fact, while there is little basis for such. The topic, as you have said, is far too large to cover in such a small forum but I suggest you read and investigate like the scientists that you respect. Not to back up your own faith but to search purely for the truth. Tipler, a cosmologist observes of the McLean court decision against creationism, "The judge thought such an idea inherently unscientific: "...Indeed, creation of the world 'out of nothing' is the ultimate religious statement because God is the only actor..." The problem with this is that, as I pointed out in section 2 no. 2 the standard Big Bang theory has the Universe coming into existence out of nothing and cosmologists use the phrase "creation of the Universe" to describe this phenomenon. Thus if we accept Judge Overton's idea that creation out of nothing is inherently religious, and his ruling that inherently religious idea's cannot be taught in public education institutions, it would be illegal to teach the Big Bang theory at state universities..." Tipler could not have put it more clearly. "This says to me that I don't have to read every bloody piece of research to repeat claims made in some scientific discipline. If Big Bang cosmologists have provisionally concluded that the universe began as a point smaller than a polka dot, I feel comfortable repeating that to people. The process will weed out the claim if it's bogus, and then I'll tell people the new results. I have come to the informed opinion that the scientific process can, for the most part, be trusted." Can "for the most part"? Sounds like you have as much faith in scientists as I do in God, while ignoring the very essay you pointed people to in order to support your opinion. Read above on infallible man once again. "I haven't performed the tests. I haven't cranked the math (thank the gods). So I suppose you could be strictly correct in saying I have faith in the results. But that's a far cry from the religious faith!" But is it? Is it such a far cry from religious faith? So far noone has confirmed the big bang theory as undisputed fact. This is the very beginning of the universe we are talking about here and if it has not been proven, how different can this be to religious faith? In fact, if you check how much evidence is in support of creation I think it will suprise you greatly. As stated in "Darwin's Leap of Faith" by John Ankerburg and John Weldon... "Theories that are demonstrably true are simply not challenged by competent scientists, let alone leading scientists and Nobel Prize winners. The fact is that the Big Bang theory, in all it's glory and forms has been subject to serious, and we think, fatal critique by reputable scientists, including Nobel Prize winners." Hannes Alven is given as an example. I urge you to read the afore mentioned book. It is an eye opener. "That's much more secure footing for accepting a claim than "It's in the Bible" or "God speaks to my heart"! And for Ms. Vos Savant to shove the two kinds of thought into the same box is just plain wrong." Even without an in depth examination of your article, I think you will find the opposite. Read on... "I also would imagine that what cosmologists are busily doing is testing this assumption--universe once smaller than a polka dot--and seeing if the predicts what we actually find in the universe." Let me take a few words from the above... "also imagine", "testing this ASSUMPTION" emphasis added. The very basis of your article is to say that Marilyn vos Savant should not comment on Scientific issues because she is not qualified to do so... "But then she makes the horrible mistake of taking on subject way too complex for her brief column," It seems to me that you have done exactly the same here. Entering into the area of hypocrisy.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/11/2001; 11:24 AM At 11:03 AM 8/11/01 -0400, Smith wrote: >How can anyone claim to have empirical evidence of the big bang without >very large assumptions to start with? There are no people on this earth >that I am aware of that have observed this event. Therefore it cannot be >proven to be true. It can only fall under the realm of faith for there is >no direct proof other than the evidence that supports it (see below). >After all, isn't that the phrase that scientists use to try and debunk >creation or God Himself "I need to see in order to believe"? I will post a longer answer to this later, but this claim here -- that the Big Bang is not falsifiable -- is patently false. In fact the Big Bang hypothesis replaced the earlier steady state models precisely because of empirical observations that contradicted the steady state models. In recent years there has been some speculation that newly observed empirical facts about the universe also are beginning to bend the Big Bang hypothesis past the point of breaking. I'm curious if you also believe that it is impossible to prove that plate tectonics is true, since both it and the Big Bang hypothesis are arrived at using the same general logical method (observing current trends and working backward, looking for supplemental information that one would expect to find if the hypothesis were true).
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Smith on 8/11/2001; 2:37 PM "I'm curious if you also believe that it is impossible to prove that plate tectonics is true, since both it and the Big Bang hypothesis are arrived at using the same general logical method (observing current trends and working backward, looking for supplemental information that one would expect to find if the hypothesis were true)." Plate tectonics, I think, is very different to that of the Big Bang theory. Plate tectonics is a study a little closer to home and much more easily tested. Instruments can be applied right here where the event is occuring. It is a study of something that is continual. Even though it had a beginning at some point the study of tectonics is not how it began, but whether it is happening or how it is happening. But to try and assume what happened at the beginning of time or even before that as in some models of the Big Bang is rather frivolous. The cosmic egg (the theory that all energy and matter stored in something smaller than a proton) seems to be flawed. A quote from Dr Gish "The first law [of thermodynamics] tells us that the total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant. If one holds to the belief that these natural laws are all there is and all there ever has been, then it must be accepted that the cosmic egg could not have come into being from nothing." If there is such strong opposition then it must be persued. I do not see such opposition to that of things like plate tectonics.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/11/2001; 3:07 PM At 11:03 AM 8/11/01 -0400, Smith wrote: Mark wrote: "Scientific facts, like scientific theories, are not infallible certainties, either. Facts involve not only easily testable perceptual elements; they also involve interpretation." Smith wrote: That is where the arguement falls to an incredibly new low. The realisation that even scientific facts are not infallible (oh dear, how can that be?) and those who claim they are, are engaging in elevating evolution (cosmic or biological) into the realms of god like status with plenty of faith in doing so. If you don't mind me mixing and matching here, thank God scientific theories are NOT "infallible." The beautiful thing about evolution is that it could be wrong. In fact, no matter how much evidence accumulates in its favor (and at the moment the evidence is daunting for any challengers), natural selection could be overthrown quickly by the discovery of a sufficiently robust set of facts that contradicted its claims. The problem with most non-scientific theories is that it is impossible to falsify them -- there is no set of facts which could contradict them. Many people's conception of god is an unfalsfiable hypothesis, which seems to me to be completely pointless. It is impossible for human beings to judge the truth value of unfalisifiable hypotheses and they should be rejected out of hand as absurd to believe in (if you would like, I'm certain we can all come up with some completely unfalsifiable hypotheses for which I'm certain you do not want to agree). This is like an amusing comment I read in a magazine regarding a computer game called Total Annihilation. The comment "...as opposed to what? Partial annihilation?" How can you have varying degrees of certainty? But then they jump again to statements based more in reality, like the following... You don't believe there are differing gradations of certainty? I think, for example, that I can predict my daughter's choice for lunch with much greater certainty than I can predict tomorrow's stock market close. Similarly, a meteorologist can predict tomorrow's weather with much greater certainty than the weather one month from today. The theory that it is possible to launch a Space Shuttle is far more certain than theories about the behaviors of black holes. In 1980 the theory that AIDS was caused by a virus had very low certainty. Today it has a very high level of certainty (though we can never say that it is "infallible").
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/11/2001; 3:13 PM One more comment on Mark's original essay: Go on, read that paragraph again. Her answer to a question about basic science education in this country is "The Big Bang Theory is accepted on faith." She then went on to clarify that, why, yes, she does think the decision in Kansas is wrong. Thanks, Marilyn, for getting around to that a month later. Oh--and too much science is built on faith. I couldn't find that online, but most people accept most scientific views "on faith" if you define that broadly enough. For example, I've heard it said that automobiles rely on combustion engines. Sure, okay. There could be a monkey under my hood a la the Flintstones as far as I know, since I have no clue (or interest) in how an automobile engine works beyond the very basics. I really don't have much of an empirical basis for not believing there is a gas-drinking monkey in my car, other than the fact that if there is it is a very quiet monkey. I suspect most people have never considered whether or not the laws of aerodynamics have good foundations -- they just know that they need to be on that 2 p.m. flight. The important thing is not to go on talking about things like aerodynamics if you are really clueless (which vos Savant is much of the time -- I love it when her readers catch her in obvious errors. Sort of my view of MENSA -- I wouldn't want to be in a club that would take me as a member.)
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/11/2001; 5:46 PM At 03:53 PM 8/11/01 -0400, Smith wrote: >"I'm curious if you also believe that it is impossible to prove that plate >tectonics is true, since both it and the Big Bang hypothesis are arrived at >using the same general logical method (observing current trends and working >backward, looking for supplemental information that one would expect to >find if the hypothesis were true)." > >Plate tectonics, I think, is very different to that of the Big Bang >theory. Plate tectonics is a study a little closer to home and much more >easily tested. Instruments can be applied right here where the event is >occuring. It is a study of something that is continual. What are you talking about? The empirical data from which the Big Bang theory was originally derived can be seen just by looking out into space. Or do you have a better explanation for the observed red shift which certainly looks like it has its origins in an initial explosion, especially when coupled with other empricial and experimental data? (Plate tectonics, btw, was also once attacked by creationists who believed it denied God's role in shaping the world). >Even though it had a beginning at some point the study of tectonics is not >how it began, but whether it is happening or how it is happening. But to >try and assume what happened at the beginning of time or even before that >as in some models of the Big Bang is rather frivolous. Why don't you simply type, "I don't understand Big Bang cosmology, but I'll dismiss it anyway"? This paragraph was a complete non-sequitir. >The cosmic egg (the theory that all energy and matter stored in something >smaller than a proton) seems to be flawed. A quote from Dr Gish "The first >law [of thermodynamics] tells us that the total quantity of energy in the >universe is a constant. If one holds to the belief that these natural laws >are all there is and all there ever has been, then it must be accepted >that the cosmic egg could not have come into being from nothing." As usual, Gish doesn't know what he's talking about. The first law of thermodynamics does NOT say that the total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant. It says that energy is constant in closed systems. An entire book could be written on the ridiculous ways that creationists misuse the laws of thermodynamics. And talk about absurd assumptions -- the second sentence there by Gish about "these natural laws" is sheer nonsense. If Big Bang cosmology is correct, then Newtonian laws likely did not apply to the universe at the singularity point (which is not surprising since we already know that Newtonian laws don't apply at the quantum level even in relatively normal states of matter in our universe). >If there is such strong opposition then it must be persued. I do not see >such opposition to that of things like plate tectonics. This is the other problem with creationists -- yesterday's heresy is today's orthodoxy. Lyell's plate tectonics hypothesis in fact provides strong background evidence for Darwin, and Darwin was highly influenced by Lyell's view that the world had been gradually changing for millions of years rather than having been created a very short time ago by an act of God. After all, Lyell was essentially denying much of the Biblical account of the creation and transformation of the world. There's not much room for a massive worldwide flood in Lyell's account of natural history, for example.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 8/12/2001; 12:11 PM >"Go on, read that paragraph again. Her answer to a question about >basic science education in this country is "The Big Bang Theory is >accepted on faith."" > >I don't think she has a problem with science itself but that of >evolutionary science. I, too, have a longer answer to this, but I must point out the rather obvious fact that Vos Savant is discussing Big Bang Cosmology, not evolutionary biology. The only thing the two have in common is (1) they are both sciences, and (2) they both contradict some fundamentalist interpretations of Genesis. They are no more the same topic than nuclear physics and fluid dynamics. --
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Smith on 8/12/2001; 4:08 PM Brian Carnell "What are you talking about? The empirical data from which the Big Bang theory was originally derived can be seen just by looking out into space. Or do you have a better explanation for the observed red shift which certainly looks like it has its origins in an initial explosion, especially when coupled with other empricial and experimental data?" Professor Marvin Lubenow, Vincent Ettari, Burbridge among others have interpreted the red shift phenomena differently thus ending in completely different results. Speaking on the discovery of several hundred discordant red shifts, Arp explains why most of his research has been ignored... "This important result has been largely ignored by astronomers because it does not fit in with the current theoretical framework..." This, if you don't mind me saying so, is the definition of dogma. Complete disregard for contradictory evidence to hold up the theory. Here is an important cut from one of the articles... "If a non-Doppler redshift mechanism cannot exist, all of these papers published by professional astronomers would have to be erroneous! This arouses suspicion, to say the least. The systematic rejection of more than 1,000 papers related to nonvelocity redshift observations show that many scientists are too comfortable with the established framework to be open to ideas that challenge that framework. A non-Doppler interpretation of the redshift actually leads to better agreement of theory with the actual observations, as shown below." Read some of the following links which just brushes on the subject. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/controversy.html http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html An explosion such as the big bang (or any explosion) could not explain such ordered matter like galaxies and super clusters. Bird quotes Leslie in "Origin...Revisited" "Reduction by one part in a million million at an intial stage would seemingly have led to recollapse in under 100,000 years and before temperatures had fallen below 10,000 degrees. Equivelently tiny increases would have had similarly huge results. Even as matters stand it is hard to see how galaxies could have formed in a universe which is flying apart so fast-and an early speed increase by one thousandth would have quickly led to a thousand-fold increase. Again, very slight reductions in the smoothness with which matter is distributed... would apparently have multiplied the primeval heat billions of times with disatrous effect." Vincent Ettari explains that "few red shifts are actually Doppler in nature." Also "Due to vagueness and seemingly contradictory nature of the recorded data, a red shift/distance relationship has never been successfully calculated, leaving the so-called 'Hubble constant' undetermined and indefensible as a theoretical construct. Thus, the Doppler explaination must be abandoned, leaving the 'Big Bang' evolutionary cosmology without any supporting evidence." There is much contradictory evidence which some scientists ignore. They are in a search for truth, yet a lot of discoveries are leading to explainations other than naturalistic means for creation of the universe. This leaves only one other explaination for how it came about and that is, special creation by a powerful creator. But since a lot of scientists are conditioned to look for explainations only in a naturalistic way, this leaves them with only one alternative and that is, to ignore contradictory evidence or make it fit with their current models. This is pure dogma. "Why don't you simply type, "I don't understand Big Bang cosmology, but I'll dismiss it anyway"? This paragraph was a complete non-sequitir." Actually, the paragraph was rather simple although not very well contructed. Lets break it down into a very simple explaination. I was not commenting on how Big Bang cosmology works, but more going back before the event occured and seeing if any scientist has the slightest clue of what was going on at that time. To assume what existed before the Big Bang is pure stupidity. I was also trying to say that measuring events on earth is much different to measuring events that are occuring billions of light years away, on a scale that is far larger than that of plate tectonics here on earth, with many more factors at work. We have limited understanding of the universe at best. Don't try and fool yourself into thinking otherwise. "This is the other problem with creationists -- yesterday's heresy is today's orthodoxy." Hey, you stole my line! :) Except it is meant to be the other way around. Look at most of the old scientific theories that have been completely falsified like spontaneous generation. http://www.accessexcellence.com/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html All this proves is that we are all human. But so far there has not been any theory that is totally and undisputably declared fact, that refutes special creation by God as such in the Bible. "Lyell's plate tectonics hypothesis in fact provides strong background evidence for Darwin, and Darwin was highly influenced by Lyell's view that the world had been gradually changing for millions of years rather than having been created a very short time ago by an act of God." Lubenow quoting Sir Bernard Lovell in Bones "we do not find any change even in what we call the spatial density of the galaxies." Ankerburg/Weldon explain that this indictaes that "if the universe is expanding, that it has not been expanding very long, presumably indicating a recent creation." "In fact, no matter how much evidence accumulates in its favor (and at the moment the evidence is daunting for any challengers)" This is not true. In fact the only thing I find daunting is to try and explain the huge amount of evidence that contradicts evolution. So far from what I have found evolution on EVERY single point has been countered by opposing evidence by very large amounts. "You don't believe there are differing gradations of certainty?" This is another topic I shopuld have developed a little more clearly. Certain in the dictionary means... 1. Definite; fixed: 2. Sure to come or happen; inevitable: 3. Established beyond doubt or question; http://www.dictionary.com Yet people use English words and some of them have become grey matter that doesn't quite reflect the actual meaning. They then use these words to twist facts or theories into "in betweens". What about these examples... Not very definite? Not very inevitable? Not very beyond doubt? "The important thing is not to go on talking about things like aerodynamics if you are really clueless (which vos Savant is much of the time -- I love it when her readers catch her in obvious errors. Sort of my view of MENSA -- I wouldn't want to be in a club that would take me as a member.)" I love seeing comments like these. Like the web page "Marilyn is Wrong!" http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/marilyn.html It seems like there is an army of people that try and find weaknesses in this human, simply because she is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records Hall of Fame for highest I.Q. So they think that if they have found that she is wrong at some point, that their I.Q. is as high or higher than hers ie. They are smarter than she is. We have become so desperate for attention that we have to create web pages that try and belittle an intelligent person. But let me tell you this... it does not take a scholar to know that the evolutionary theory (cosmological or biological) is full of flaws. Mark Morgan "I, too, have a longer answer to this, but I must point out the rather obvious fact that Vos Savant is discussing Big Bang Cosmology, not evolutionary biology. The only thing the two have in common is (1) they are both sciences, and (2) they both contradict some fundamentalist interpretations of Genesis. They are no more the same topic than nuclear physics and fluid dynamics." Mark, you must not have noticed in the original post that I define the difference between biological and cosmological evolution, while still maintaning that they touch on the same subject (evolution on different scales). Hence a quote from the original post "The theory of evolution both cosmic and biological have so many inconsistencies to be almost considered a bad April 1st joke." In conclusion all I can say is that common sense will prevail. Think back to the beginning when there was nothing. Where did this mass of matter and energy come from? It could simply not be the result of chance or time, no matter how large that time is. This is the reality.
Re: Should We Trust Science? By: Matthew Patterson on 8/13/2001; 9:57 PM > Hey, you stole my line! :) Except it is meant to be the other way around. Look > at most of the old scientific theories that have been completely falsified > like spontaneous generation. Because new theories came about that explained every observed example in addition to phenomena that the old theory could not. Furthermore, they did so in a manner that could be independently tested by other researchers. "God did it" is inherently unverifiable because of the nature of God. > This is not true. In fact the only thing I find daunting is to try and explain > the huge amount of evidence that contradicts evolution. So far from what I > have found evolution on EVERY single point has been countered by opposing > evidence by very large amounts. Then why don't you cite examples here instead of just telling us that something contradicts it? > Where did this mass of matter and energy > come from? Irrelevant. If we take the Big Bang to be the point where all physical laws that apply to our universe break down and no longer function, then nothing that happened before then could possibly affect anything that happened afterward. (Likewise, nothing that happened afterward could possibly influence anything that happened before, Star Trek notwithstanding.)
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/12/2001; 5:15 PM At 05:24 PM 8/12/01 -0400, Smith wrote: Professor Marvin Lubenow, Vincent Ettari, Burbridge among others have interpreted the red shift phenomena differently thus ending in completely different results. This is a good example of why some creationist are so annoying. Take professor Marvin Lubenow. Lubenow's only academic credentials are an MS in anthropology from Eastern Michigan University. He's never published an article in a peer reviewed astronomy journal, but he did author a popular anti-evolution book called "Bones of Contention" which is a pile of misinformation. Vincent Ettari is an engineer, not an astronomer. Both Lubenow and Ettari seem to take their criticisms of the red shift from Bubridge who wrote a speculative article for Sky and Telescope about quasars that included some commentary about the problem of red shift in quasars. Nothing any of them presents fundamentally undermines the general Big Bang hypothesis (though it should be remembered that there are many different competing Big Bang hypotheses since so much about the universe remains unknown). There is much contradictory evidence which some scientists ignore. The only ignorance is with Ettari, et al, who a) never bother to present the many criticism of the quasar red shift problem nor b) the work of those altering the Big Bang hyp. to account for the red shift anomaly with quasars. It is interesting,btw, how a litany of basic errors in the Bible never dissuades the believer, but a single anomaly in a cosmological theory is enough for creationists to want to ditch the whole project as mere orthodoxy. Like I said, the Big Bang may turn out to be wrong, but at the moment it has far more explanatory power than any other cosmological hypothesis, including the creationist one.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 8/12/2001; 11:44 PM Mark, you must not have noticed in the original post that I define the difference between biological and cosmological evolution, while still maintaning that they touch on the same subject (evolution on different scales). Hence a quote from the original post "The theory of evolution both cosmic and biological have so many inconsistencies to be almost considered a bad April 1st joke." If there's a straightforward statement of that difference in your
original post, I'm just not seeing it. The term "evolution"
in both sciences is shorthand for "the measurement of change over
time". Evolutionary biology is the measurement of the change of
the frequency of alleles in a given population, over time.
Evolution in a cosmological theory is the measurement of the change of
some cosmological variable, over time. So, for example, stellar
evolution is the measurement of the change of stars, over time. Talk.origins provides two
definitions of evolution (as fact, and as theory); I would
therefore add a third: evolution is used by scientists as a shorthand
way of saying "the change in something, measured over
time". Evolution used without qualifiers is used by
scientists to mean "evolutionary biology".
But with qualifiers? Evolution is appended to all sorts of
things, from the change in the shape of rivers to the development of
political systems. Do you object to all these diverse subjects,
as well, because they use the magic word "evolution"?
They all discuss the change in a system as measured over time, which
is the only similarity between Big Bang cosmology and evolutionary
biology.
I stand by my original statement: Vos Savant was not disagreeing
with evolutionary biology, or even with Big Bang cosmology. In a later
column (not online), she explained that she has a specific gripe with
the idea that the universe began as a dimensionless point smaller than
a polka dot. She can find no empirical support for this idea
(and no cosmologist wrote in to defend this specific point), so
she concludes that it is supported by faith. (Note that this logic
follows my own: if there is no empirical data to support something,
then it is held solely by faith.)
Stunningly, she gave this as an answer to a reader's question
about the Kansas Board of Education's decision to exclude evolutionary
biology and Big Bang cosmology from standardized testing! What
an absurd nonsequiter! I challenge you to write Vos Savant and gain
her support for Creationism; I suspect you'd be upset by the
response. It would do her good to hear some creationists
cheering her on. You accuse me of hypocrisy--but then again, I don't
get paid for a weekly column where I claim that I'm the world's
smartest person, either. And I'm prepared to defend and explain my
comments at length, something Vos Savant is unable or unwilling to do.
Instead, she gave creationists yet another argument in their favor:
"Look, the world's smartest person agrees with creationism!"
Foolish act on her part, so I called her on it.
As I said, if she is correct, if there is no empirical
support whatsoever for the cosmegg, then she is also correct that
belief in it is based solely on faith. I doubt very much she is
correct. Unfortunately, I don't have Brian Carnell's amazing ability
to pull the proper references out of my head (how do you do that?), so
you're going to either have to find the evidence yourself, or wait
until I have time to do proper research. Which would be references to
the primary, peer-reviewed research.
I stand by my original conclusions: Vos Savant clearly believes a
high score on a standardized test, when she was child, gives her the
ability to discuss anything she wants in the format of a brief column
in Parade. In this case, that jumped up and bit her. As
this discussion shows, this is clearly a topic beyond a breezy
one-off. I've noticed that smart people, who are smart on one topic,
then think they are smart enough to talk about anything, and
sometime's they're not. She gives romantic advice in that
column, of all things! Sheesh.
I'll address you other comments, on the nature of scientific
inquiry, in a later post. This one's enormous enough already.
You seem very misinformed as to the nature of what constitutes
empirical evidence. Interestingly, the latest Skeptical Inquirer
has a skeptical look at Karl Popper, by of all people Martin Gardner!
Serendipity, or God's hand in my life? You be the judge.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/13/2001; 7:36 AM At 08:44 PM 8/12/2001, Mark Morgan wrote: >I stand by my original conclusions: Vos Savant clearly believes a >high score on a standardized test, when she was child, gives her the >ability to discuss anything she wants in the format of a brief column >in Parade. Which is kind of funny because she made a terrible gaffe in one of her columns because of a simple mistake in the units she used to express population density (more disturbing was her "it was an editing error" response which just doesn't make sense, unless she's really got assistants doing much of the writing for her). See http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/squarefeet.html for all the details.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Smith on 8/13/2001; 4:58 PM I have posted to the last comment in the forum. It seems to be more readable this way. Brian Carnell "This is a good example of why some creationist are so annoying." This is a good example that some evolutionary scientists can be a little condescending (and seemingly for no reason at all, see end). In defence of myself and God, I am trying hard to be honest yet not to be insulting. "but he did author a popular anti-evolution book called "Bones of Contention" which is a pile of misinformation." Misinformation or an alternative interpretation of evidence? "(though it should be remembered that there are many different competing Big Bang hypotheses since so much about the universe remains unknown)." That's correct. I will touch on this more at the end of this post. If there are competing hypotheses then there should be no debate that the Big Bang rely's on faith, with which you seem to agree. "It is interesting,btw, how a litany of basic errors in the Bible never dissuades the believer, but a single anomaly in a cosmological theory is enough for creationists to want to ditch the whole project as mere orthodoxy." Actually I find a multitude of errors in all forms of evolutionary theory, so large that it is hard to know exactly where to start with this information. A friend of mine once said that the Bible is full of contradictions. Well it is full of contradictions and does contain a litany of errors if one has not read it. The Bible is more accurate on many topics than you could ever imagine. It requires a lot of study to find this though, not just a simple browsing on the surface. "...but at the moment it has far more explanatory power than any other cosmological hypothesis, including the creationist one." That's purely opinion. I have found that there is an abundance of evidence that supports creation. "there is no set of facts which could contradict them [ie. scientific theories]. Many people's conception of god is an unfalsfiable hypothesis, which seems to me to be completely pointless." In a single sentence you have found a similarity between evolutionary (cosmic, biological) and that of religion. Saying that people's conception of God is not falsifiable is totally pointless. You then state there are no set of facts which could contradict a scientific theory. Both being (according to you) completely pointless. Maybe evoultionary theories are not so far from religion? ********************************* Mark Morgan "If there's a straightforward statement of that difference in your original post, I'm just not seeing it." "They all discuss the change in a system as measured over time, which is the only similarity between Big Bang cosmology and evolutionary biology." The second sentence here is what I was referring to. I thought it was rather clear, but obviously it was not :) "Evolution is appended to all sorts of things, from the change in the shape of rivers to the development of political systems. Do you object to all these diverse subjects, as well, because they use the magic word "evolution"?" Of course not. It is only common sense that I mean only cosmological and biological evolution, which at the core are related. That is, both refute creation by God and support each other in their opposition. "Stunningly, she gave this as an answer to a reader's question about the Kansas Board of Education's decision to exclude evolutionary biology and Big Bang cosmology from standardized testing! What an absurd nonsequiter!" If it has not been proven as fact why is it so amazing to you? Religious teaching in public schools in the U.S. is similar to that of evolution. If you wish for it to be taught in public education institutions there should then be no question about education of religion in such places. "I challenge you to write Vos Savant and gain her support for Creationism; I suspect you'd be upset by the response." The only reason I would be upset is in finding that another person does not believe in an all powerful God. It is everyone's personal choice as to where they go after death. It's not for me to make that decision for them. "You accuse me of hypocrisy--but then again, I don't get paid for a weekly column where I claim that I'm the world's smartest person, either." Actually she does not claim to be the worlds smartest person. That is a world record that has done that. It seems there is a lot of jealousy toward this person. The fact is, in the Bible it states that man's greatest wisdom is foolishness to God. That is enough to humble everyone and bring them down to the same level without attacking each other. "she gave creationists yet another argument in their favor: "Look, the world's smartest person agrees with creationism!"" Seems to me like you are admitting that creationists have a lot of arguements in their favour? "I doubt very much she is correct. Unfortunately, I don't have Brian Carnell's amazing ability to pull the proper references out of my head (how do you do that?), so you're going to either have to find the evidence yourself, or wait until I have time to do proper research." Brian Carnell (whether he realises it or not) has effectively backed up my own position and Marilyn's on several occasions. "gives her the ability to discuss anything she wants in the format of a brief column in Parade." Yet someone with a smaller I.Q. ie. The original author of this article, does the same thing in his breif column yet with boastfulness beyond that of Marilyn. Yet noone seems to be criticizing him in his efforts other than myself. Maybe because it slots in with their beliefs so there is no need to criticize? "In this case, that jumped up and bit her." Nothing bit her other than a group of people that seem to agree with one part of what she said, but didn't like the end result of it. They agree that a lot of scientific theories are based on faith, yet because it doesn't sit well with their belief in evolution they have to attack. Why? "She gives romantic advice in that column, of all things! Sheesh." You know, you don't actually have to take that advice :) "You seem very misinformed as to the nature of what constitutes empirical evidence." I have a very clear idea of what empirical evidence is. It also seems that others do here as well. Nobody here has disputed the fact that the Big Bang has not been proven as a scientific fact. Empirical evidence is interpreted in various ways. Time will show which of these interpretations is correct. ********************************* Mathew Patterson ""God did it" is inherently unverifiable because of the nature of God." Romans chapter 1 verse 19-22 "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools..." "Then why don't you cite examples here instead of just telling us that something contradicts it?" Not a problem. But it will take some time to list just a few of them. Here are some examples... Resistance itself is no indication that evolution is true, simply because resistance does not produce any new genetic information. This is more an illustration of adaption, rather than evolution. Our own body's can defend themselves from many viruses and diseases. Yet this is not new genetic information added to our own DNA. Mutations are also no indication of evolution. Read biologist Lee Spetner's book "Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution". French evolutionist Grasse "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution" in the book The Evolution of Living Organisms. George Gaylord Simpson says even with extremely favourable conditions the probability of just 5 mutations in one nucleus would be one chance in 10 to the power of 22 and the event would occur once every 274 billion years. H.J. Muller who won a Nobel prize for his work on mutations says "...extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them [mutations] to be detrimental to the organism... good one's are so rare that we can consider them all bad." In Wysong Creation Evolution Controversy. Good one's being so rare that they are hardly going to affect a whole population of a species. Mutations don't involve additional DNA code. It is either recombination of existing code or the loss thereof. There are many citations I have available from evolutionary scientists as well as creation scientists. Biochemistry professor Michael Behe author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution states, "It was once expected that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed... the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins." Dr Isaac Manly (MD Harvard Medical School) "What I have learned in the past ten years of review of recent scientific knowledge of cellular morphology and physiology, the code of life (DNA), and the lack of supporting evidence for evolution in the light of recent scientific evidence is a shocking rebuttal to the theory of evolution." Creation out of nothing by an intelligent creator is a much more sensible and credible view to that which evolution holds to be true (that nothing created everything in all it's complexity). The root of evolution is by which everything started and this is obviously unprovable (the Big Bang). Lets not forget how we explain these ideas even today... as "theories". Evolutionists believe not just in a single miracle event but TRILLIONS of miracle events with odds even more staggering than those above. Time magazine, "Scientist's concede that even their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments." Scientific American, "The human fossil record is short and scant." New Scientist, "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table." Science, "The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man's evolutionary history." Unusual seeing it is the most modern of evolutionary species. Actually there have been thousands of homonid fossils found, yet because they do not fit into the current evolutionary framework, they are discarded. To further illustrate... Dr Stephen Jay Gould, "New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region... The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists...". Even the mighty Darwin himself claimed, "...innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why is not every geological formation not full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." Origin of Species. Again Darwin observed, "Nothing is more extraordinary in the history of the vegetable kingdom, as it seems to me, than the apparently very sudden or abrupt development of the higher plants." Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. Unusual for a theory that should demonstrate clean and clear transitions between species. Yet this is clearly not the case. Neither will science be able to explain how consciousness itself evolved. This is one gap in the whole theory of evolution. What about the development of the eye where several major factors must be in place in order for it to work? How can the eye have evolved if the part of the brain that interprets visual information was not there to start with? There are thousands of examples that really put Darwinism in the grave comprehensively, but only if looked at it with a totally open mind. If one assumes evolution to be true (as most scientists now do) every contradiction of evidence must either be forced to fit into the framework of evolution or be discarded altogether. Ok, I think that is enough for today :) "Irrelevant. If we take the Big Bang to be the point where all physical laws that apply to our universe break down and no longer function, then nothing that happened before then could possibly affect anything that happened afterward. (Likewise, nothing that happened afterward could possibly influence everything that happened before, Star Trek notwithstanding.)" This sounds like ad hoc explainations to me. Not only that, you have dodged my original question. There is no way to prove that the universe was smaller than a proton and to assume that all matter arised from zero matter is pure speculation. It is a simple question and so far only Brian Carnell has given an almost clear answer to this and that is - we don't know. But the question is even simpler... how did matter arise from no matter at all? It cannot, even if given infinite time. You can try and give an explaination but it will only be speculation. ********************************* All: I have listed some comments here that really confuse me. The original author of this article seemed to be of the viewpoint that the Big Bang was pure fact ["In the wake of such a disaster for the education of children in Kansas, what was Ms. Savant's insightful take on the situation? To paraphrase her: "The Big Bang Theory is accepted on faith." Go on, read that paragraph again."" So I decided to comment that this is the truth. The Big Bang theory IS accepted on faith and so far noone here has disputed this fact. In fact they have verified it. Brian Carnell "IF Big Bang cosmology is correct, then Newtonian laws LIKELY did not apply to the universe at the singularity point" Emphasis added. "though it should be remembered that there are MANY different competing Big Bang hypotheses since so much about the universe remains UNKNOWN" Emphasis added. "Like I said, the Big Bang may turn out to be WRONG" Emphasis added. "The beautiful thing about evolution is that it could be wrong." "I couldn't find that online, but most people accept most scientific views "ON FAITH" if you define that broadly enough." Emphasis added. Mark Morgan "Instead, she gave creationists yet another argument in their favor" "As I said, if she is correct, if there is no empirical support whatsoever for the cosmegg, then she is also correct that belief in it is based solely on faith." So then... what is the actual arguement? I have started by trying to explain that evolutionary cosmology has not been proven, yet people are hunting me like it actually has been proven. This is what confuses me. You are coming down with such condescension as if to say that the Big Bang was proven a long time ago and I am some sort of "flat earther" that hasen't woken up to the truth. ********************************* Some more interesting information of the red shift phenomenon... Victor Ambartsumian and Halton Arp have both provided alternate theories... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0941325008/qid=976724140/sr=1-7/104-0092169-6192741 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0968368905/qid=976723821/sr=1-1/104-0092169-6192741 "known polar-ring galaxies. Their unusual disk-ring structure is not yet understood fully. One possibility is that polar rings are the remnants of colossal collisions between two galaxies sometime in the distant past, probably at least 1 billion years ago." What I have trouble with is collision at all, when matter should be dispersed in all directions. A great quote from one of the web sites... "They would rather believe that they understand what's going on instead of admitting that there is still a lot more work to be done." http://www.livingcosmos.com/quasar.htm "Quasars have been a mystery since their discovery. Immense energy is packed into a relatively small object that may actually be the energy cores of recently born galaxies. Approximately double the size of our solar system, they emit hundreds of times more energy than an entire galaxy. Quasars appear to move at enormous, often superluminal, speeds when the standard interpretation of redshifts is considered. According to relativity theory nothing should travel faster than the speed of light, and therefore, the apparent superluminal -- faster than light -- speeds of some objects alone brings into question the standard interpretation of redshifts." "A redshift field is also found in the plane of the Milky Way with what conventional theory would call an "expansion" (Hubble constant) that is ten times higher than the Universe as a whole. Such a notion seems ridiculous, because constants are supposed to be just that, constant. However, because this effect is stronger within systems than between them, it demonstrates interaction is taking place, not expansion." The point to posting any of this information is that we have a very limited understanding of the universe. Why debate that?
Re: Should We Trust Science? By: Matthew Patterson on 8/13/2001; 6:54 PM on 13-8-2001 1714, Smith at ended@freemail.com.au wrote: > ""God did it" is inherently unverifiable because of the nature of God." > > Romans chapter 1 verse 19-22 > "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it > evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, > His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood > through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though > they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became > futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing > to be wise, they became fools..." Error: Lousy debate tactic. One does not attempt to prove the veracity of a document under attack by quoting the document itself. Sorry, doesn't work that way. What I meant was, if God is God, he can manipulate the results of any test that could possible be conceived of to ascertain his existence. You can't prove that God did anything because God is quite capable of making it *look* like he did nothing. That's why we call it faith, boys and girls. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 8/13/2001; 7:59 PM Again, a fuller discussion of the scientific method, and it's
disconnection from creationism, awaits another post. It's a
complicated subject, and one I certainly won't try to answer with a
breezy one-off.
I will also not take the time here to address your claims that
supposedly show evolutionary biology to be flawed. I will
instead point you to the extensive work done over at Talk.Origins where they have
debunked all of these tired claims, backed up by citations to the
primary research. I see no point in just copying all the archive
into an e-mail message.
Wrong. The "original author" was me (you can say
Mark Morgan from now on, it's really my name, honest and for true),
and nowhere did I claim the Big Bang was "fact." I
defy you to find anything in the original post saying that the Big
Bang has been proven beyond doubt. My argument, which I believe
I made very clearly, was that Vos Savant ignored the question as posed
to go off on some kind of brief tirade about how some scientists hold
too much science by "faith." Good grief, she's a
member of CSICOP, she's listed in their masthead, what the hell was
she thinking? There is no doubt she is opposed to creationism,
but she didn't bother to say anything about it. The original question
posed to her, was her opinion on the Kansas decision. Her answer
clearly implied she agreed with it! And she didn't! Would
it have killed her to say so?
I'm at a loss to understand the woman's position, to be honest.
Does she mean there is no evidence whatsoever for some scientific
claims? Or just that nonspecialists have not examined every
study on every topic everywhere? That Big Bang cosmology is too
big for its britches and that cosmologists claim it is better
supported than it really is? What?
I don't know, and none of us will ever find out, because the
woman arrogantly thinks she can dust off any bit of controversy and
slay it in two sentences. Meanwhile in this thread alone, I
remain overjoyed at the existence of the e-mail variant, as we've gone
off for pages and pages on this topic and not even scratched the
surface.
Mark Morgan Wrong. Scientists have provisionally accepted Big Bang cosmology
as the best explanation for the observed empirical data. Did you
not catch the phrase "no empirical support whatsoever" in my
statement? Even you admit there is empirical support, you merely
claim the interpretation favors the creationist view.
I will be as clear on this as possible:
Faith is belief in something while completely ignoring the
empirical evidence.
If there is no, none, zero, nada, nothing, none at all, no bit at
all, empirical evidence for the cosmegg, then it is held by
faith.
Not "shaky evidence for Big Bang cosmology means it is held
by faith." Not "if I only list the evidence I agree
with, then Big Bang cosmology is held by faith.
No. Empirical. Evidence.
You are merely proving Brian's point: you believe any
possibility, whatsoever, that a scientific theory could be
wrong automatically invalidates it. Huh? All those
statements apply to all scientific enterprises. On the one hand, you
quote us saying that Big Bang is not utterly proven, but on the other
hand somehow think Brian and I are also arguing that it is.
Big Bang is not only not completely proven, there is the exciting
idea that it might be wrong. Scientists for the majority love to
see a major theory break. Nobel prizes come out of major
theories breaking. Research grants. Paradigm shifts.
What I am arguing is that there is in fact empirical evidence in
favor of the Big Bang, and nothing in favor of creationism. For
more on that see the end of this post.
"I couldn't find that online, but most people accept most scientific views "ON FAITH" if you define that broadly enough." Emphasis added. When Brian talks about "most people" he means
"those of us who ain't studying the topic." Of course
I don't know the evidence for every single scientific theory in
existence. How the heck does it provide evidence against Big
Bang cosmology that my mom doesn't know the empirical evidence, and
hence believes in it on "faith" by that broad
definition?
Specialists in the field find they must provide the evidence, or
their colleagues and competitors will skewer them, if the article even
makes it through the blind peer-review process in the first
place.
The point to posting any of this information is that we have a very limited understanding of the universe. Why debate that? Because you believe "very limited" means "those
darn dogmatic scientists must be wrong and we people of God must be
right."
I have a question for you. Can you state:
1. The theory of creationism
2. How this theory could be falsified
3. Any peer-reviewed published studies that provide
positive evidence for creationism. (Note when Matt Patterson talks
about citing, he's talking about peer-reviewed research.)
You are correct that I do not believe that religious education is
appropriate for the public schools, except as a general survey of
religions from a secular view. I am particularly opposed to any
attempt to teach the first two books of Genesis as if they are a
scientific document with a great sea of evidence in their favor.
I have spent years waiting for this great sea of empirical evidence to
wash over me, and it hasn't happened yet.
I am also rather of the opinion that many Christians would be
offended at the idea that they have to accept creationism to be true
believers in God.
But I Could Be Wrong (TM)
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 8/13/2001; 8:05 PM
like he did nothing. That's why we call it faith, boys and girls. Actually, Matthew, I think what you're arguing here is that it's
impossible to falsify the "God hypothesis." If
the test failed, perhaps God was simply not in the mood to be
tested.
But it's been pointed out to me that you could provisionally
conclude there is a God if He violated a fundamental law of physics.
For example, by having cold travel to hot and violating the second law
of thermodynamics. And of course by being willing to replicate
the results whenever asked.
In other words, in principle it is possible to find positive
evidence of God, but there is no way, even in principle, to ever
falsify God's existence. If you study shows that prayer does not
heal the sick, you've not falsified God, because God could have chosen
to withdraw from the test. A type of withdrawal not available to
those of us stuck here in the realm of natural laws.
Note that I am talking here of principles. Anybody who thinks
they've found positive evidence of God had best dust off the good
clothes, there's a Nobel waiting for you. At the very least. And
a million dollars from Randi.
Fame, fortune...
Re: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 8/13/2001; 9:53 PM >> Where did this mass of matter and energy >> come from? >Irrelevant. If we take the Big Bang to be the point where all physical laws >that apply to our universe break down and no longer function, then nothing >that happened before then could possibly affect anything that happened >afterward. (Likewise, nothing that happened afterward could possibly >influence everything that happened before, Star Trek notwithstanding.) Matt's right. But... *IF* you really want an answer, there's a very simple one. Because the gravitational energy of the universe is negative (the math is complicated, but it's true), the entire net mass/energy content of the (observable) universe is so close to zero, that it has been proposed (by Pascual Jordan, and seriously considered by Einstein) that the origin of the Universe is a Heisenberg fluctuation. Remember, from one of my other stories (Who is this Heisenberg guy...), delta E * delta t < h. If delta E is essentially zero, delta t (time) could be a VERRRRRRY long time.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/14/2001; 7:37 AM At 07:55 PM 8/13/2001, Matthew Patterson wrote: >What I meant was, if God is God, he can manipulate the results of any test >that could possible be conceived of to ascertain his existence. You can't >prove that God did anything because God is quite capable of making it *look* >like he did nothing. That's why we call it faith, boys and girls. Yes, yes, yes. Matthew sees this, so why didn't Descartes? The only way around this is to define God in such a way that deception is logically impossible, but I've yet to see anyone do that in a way that wasn't tautological.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/14/2001; 7:55 AM At 08:59 PM 8/13/2001, Mark Morgan wrote: >When Brian talks about "most people" he means >"those of us who ain't studying the topic." Of course >I don't know the evidence for every single scientific theory in >existence. How the heck does it provide evidence against Big >Bang cosmology that my mom doesn't know the empirical evidence, and >hence believes in it on "faith" by that broad >definition? Exactly. You could say "most people believe X on faith" about almost everything. I suspect most people have heard of plate tectonics and perhaps understand the basics of earthquakes, but how many people have actually spent time investigating the evidence behind the theory so that they could say they really understand the theory sufficiently that they are not simply accepting what they've heard about plate tectonics, in much the same way that they really just accept what they've heard about the Big Bang? I certainly haven't.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/14/2001; 8:00 AM At 09:05 PM 8/13/2001, Mark Morgan wrote: >But it's been pointed out to me that you could provisionally >conclude there is a God if He violated a fundamental law of physics. >For example, by having cold travel to hot and violating the second law >of thermodynamics. And of course by being willing to replicate >the results whenever asked. But I think that's one of the problems that many theists have with the scientific method. The quasar red shift problem, for example, is not used to invalidate the Big Bang theory but rather set aside as an anomaly or used to simply revise the theory. I think the suspicion is that there is no phenomenon which could ever occur which would lead scientists to abandon naturalism and say, "okay, fine, there is supernatural intervention in the universe" (partly because it would seem to me that science is completely pointless if God intervenes in the world.)
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Smith on 8/14/2001; 5:42 PM Mark Morgan "Wrong. The "original author" was me (you can say Mark Morgan from now on, it's really my name, honest and for true), and nowhere did I claim the Big Bang was "fact." Sorry, I apologise for not recognising that you were the original author J I checked for your name but obviuosly did not retain it for later. "On the one hand, you quote us saying that Big Bang is not utterly proven, but on the other hand somehow think Brian and I are also arguing that it is." I know that you both agree that it has not been proven. But somehow it is the laguage that is employed that portrays that it has been. It is very similar to the wording of many documents of the talkorigins.org web site. The articles try and brush away the evidence against evolution but invent scenarios to do so (see below). "There is no doubt she is opposed to creationism, but she didn't bother to say anything about it" "I'm at a loss to understand the woman's position, to be honest." Well in that case that makes two of us. If she is opposed to creationism then her position confuses me as much as it does you. "Faith is belief in something while completely ignoring the empirical evidence." I think that is where the misunderstanding occurred. I have a different perception of faith. The above statement is almost correct when taking a “leap of faith” to believe in something of a religious issue. But to get to that initial stage, there has to be evidence that accrues to build this faith. Much the same way for evolutionary theory. You obtain many observations that back this up (although not entirely understanding everything, one then makes a leap of faith to believe in one side or another). Personally I do not believe that it is a total ignorance of evidence that constitutes faith on a Christians side. It is revealed slowly as one observes the world around them. "You are merely proving Brian's point: you believe any possibility, whatsoever, that a scientific theory could be wrong automatically invalidates it. Huh?" Not really as that is too wide a statement. Many scientific theories do lead to scientific facts, I do not doubt that. Because my faith is so strong, based on many factors, I do not believe that evolutionary history is true. That is also too wide a statement though. "...and nothing in favor of creationism" I could mention prophecy but I am sure that you would not consider this objective. Perhaps I will anyway as this may clear up a lot of misconceptions of Christianity. "Of course I don't know the evidence for every single scientific theory in existence. How the heck does it provide evidence against Big Bang cosmology that my mom doesn't know the empirical evidence, and hence believes in it on "faith" by that broad definition?" No I am not saying that not knowing the ins and outs of evoultionary theory provides evidence against it. I am trying to make people aware of misinformation whether conscious or not. Here is one example which you probably have already reviewed. Look at the work of Ernst Haeckel who made drawings of several species at the tailbud stage and tried to provide this as an example of biogenesis. “Showing” that many species seemed to derive from a common ancestor this work was only recently corrected by Michael Richardson in 1997. The work of Haeckel had been republished many times for over 100 years. In Germany his work was infamous already as he was charged for scientific fraud. Yet the work based on his main opponent Rutimeyer had not been published in England or America or even translated into English! If such misinformation lasted for so long what is to stop other erroneous theories surviving for as long or longer? This should put everyone scientists or not on their guard when trusting science at face value. After all, lets just say if the Bible turns out to be correct, it will not only be the scientists that have to answer to God but also your mom (using the example given). It is up to the individual to test as much as they can. "1. The theory of creationism” In truth there are many varieties. My own particular variety is based on all matter and energy deriving from a supernatural being, not nothing. That being; God of the Bible. “2. How this theory could be falsified” Well using the examples you have given previously, perhaps it cannot be? Not because of my own belief saying that it is true and cannot be falsified but more on the nature of God. What is his nature? This is for us to find out if we believe in Him. “3. Any peer-reviewed published studies that provide positive evidence for creationism. (Note when Matt Patterson talks about citing, he's talking about peer-reviewed research.)"” There are many. I will have to dig up the list of names that I have in order to answer this question in detail. I know that many of the scientists that give evidence of creation are actually evolutionists. The rest are of course creationists. "I have spent years waiting for this great sea of empirical evidence to wash over me, and it hasn't happened yet." I think you have defined the nature of God in a way here. This is the area where one may search for more evidence to see if it is possible (creation), then at one stage reaches a point on whether they should make a decision one way or another. "I am also rather of the opinion that many Christians would be offended at the idea that they have to accept creationism to be true believers in God." This goes back to your question “what is the theory of creationism?” Some believe in two books… the book of the Bible and the book of nature. I do not believe this personally as it presents problems in areas. Brian Carnell "You could say "most people believe X on faith" about almost everything. I suspect most people have heard of plate tectonics and perhaps understand the basics of earthquakes, but how many people have actually spent time investigating the evidence behind the theory so that they could say they really understand the theory sufficiently that they are not simply accepting what they've heard about plate tectonics, in much the same way that they really just accept what they've heard about the Big Bang?" This goes back to the discussion on Ernst Haeckle. Very dangerous stuff. Well, I guess I can state something that may confuse you now J There seems to be a movement in the Christian movement that wants universities to abandon the second law of thermodynamics. This seems rather silly as depending on who you believe it can also back up creation. Here are some cuts I found online… "That's hardly an optimistic view of a world the Lord created for mankind. The American people are sending a strong message here: We don't like the implications of this law, and we will not rest until it has been reversed in the courts." I think these people have ignored their Bibles. In regards to whether God wan’t us to have an optimistic view, it is irrelevant. If one reads their Bible they will find out that we humans are sinners and that an optimistic view (outside of the afterlife depending on what side one is on) is not what we deserve. "Why can't disorder decrease over time instead of everything decaying?" Because sin (or disobedience against God) is increasing. Even more amazing… "I wouldn't want my child growing up in a world headed for total heat death and dissolution into a vacuum," or "What do these scientists want us teaching our children? That the universe will continue to expand until it reaches eventual heat death?" or "The only 'heat death' Jesus ever mentioned is the one that sinners will suffer for all eternity in the Lake of Fire," Once again they have not been reading their Bibles. 2 Peter Chapter 3 verse 7 “But by his word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgement and for ungodly men.” Why did I mention such a story? Because God says to test things so it is in my nature to test even those who claim to be Christians. This is how science should operate also (and I understand that the majority wishes it to be so). But every now and then someone slips through like Haeckle and ruins it for the rest. This is why we should be on guard at all times. Do not trust the institution, but test it always. Mathew Paterson “What I meant was, if God is God, he can manipulate the results of any test that could possible be conceived of to ascertain his existence. You can't prove that God did anything because God is quite capable of making it *look* like he did nothing. That's why we call it faith, boys and girls.” Actually I fully recognise this. I was not trying to prove a document by quoting the document itself. I was trying to encourage people to look around. See what is around you and ask yourself if all this can come from nothing. All I had a look at the talkorigins.org website and it seems that very interesting. I saw a lot of things that were presented as fact yet were not so. Such as Chrality, being probably the most thinly covered topic on the entire site. In regards to Chirality… "Lightning and chance can, on principle, never produce only pure laevorotatory forms; they produce race-mates only - exactly 50% D and exactly 50% L forms - and are therefore unsuitable for life's proteins." and "...just as useless for biogenesis as no amino acids at all..." Wilder-Smith in the book Natural Sciences. So far I know of no information that totally disregards this (in regard to Dr Stanley Miller's experiments in which he produced amino acids in a lab - who he himself said later in life "The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, or most other people, envisioned.")... Dr A.E. Wilder-Smith states "... in reactions of this type, synthesis of polypeptides from amino acids does not take place in the presence of excess water... Any amounts of polypeptide which might be formed will be broken down into their initial components (amino acids) by the excess water. The ocean is thus practically the last place on this or any other planet where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids. Yet nearly all text books of biology teach this nonsense to support evolutionary theory and spontaneous biogenesis. It requires a very great unfamiliarity with organic chemistry not to take into consideration the above mentioned facts when proposing postulates for biogenesis... or has materialistic neo-Darwinian philosophy overwhelmed us to such an extent that we forget or overlook the well known facts of science and of chemistry in order to support this philosophy?" A great reply from one of the readers of talkorigins “You see...the problem is that there is some really fascinating thought about how things "might" have come about, but all too often, these ideas are taken as facts. This in turn contributes to the development of further erroneous theories. As a result, many contributors to this URL use terms that suggest that "this is how this happened", rather than "this is an idea about how this might have happened"”.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 8/14/2001; 11:06 PM So far I know of no information that totally disregards this (in regard to Dr Stanley Miller's experiments in which he produced amino acids in a lab - who he himself said later in life "The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, or most other people, envisioned.")... I'm very tired, and don't have the time to provide the lengthy
explanation of the scientific process--which I don't think you
understand, but it's difficult to tell--but I will point out that
abiogenesis--the origin of life--is, like Big Bang Cosmology, separate
from evolutionary biology.
In fact, abiogenesis is not very well understood at all. It
is one of the most exciting fields of research.
I will take this opportunity to mention the "God of the
gaps" problem--if you succumb to the temptation to say "the
origin of life is not understood yet--that must be where God is!"
(as you are trying, it seems, with Big Bang cosmology)...
...well, then you are essentially making God into a convenient
term for ignorance. Is God merely an explanation of those things
were are ignorant of? This seems a very limited view of
God.
This thread has not even begun to address the very important
areas it has touched on. Here is a list of things we have not
discussed, but are vital for the issue at hand:
Again, my basic point in my original essay stands: Vos Savant
clearly felt she could brush this complex issue off with a witty
statement. And look at us, who haven't even scratched the
surface! Instead, she merely confused the issue. And gave
creationists the impression she is on their side, something she had to
retract later with a dismissive "of course."
I'll stick with Martin Gardner for my witty skepticism. And
Scientific American for my mind-bending math problems. And my
mom for my relationship advice!
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/15/2001; 2:10 PM Mark Morgan wrote: Quoting Smith: So far I know of no information that totally disregards this (in regard to Dr Stanley Miller's experiments in which he produced amino acids in a lab - who he himself said later in life "The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, or most other people, envisioned.")... There is a very good, lengthy interview with Stanley Miller here which goes into great lengths about both the amino acid experiment as well as its significance. It is interesting that Miller's experiment is roundly dismissed as irrelevant by contemporary creationists. This was still a phenomenal result -- it demonstrated that the building blocks of life can arise strictly from natural processes that don't require any supernatural intervention. This is the sort of experiment that goes from "impossible, only God could do that!" before it's done to "oh big deal, it doesn't mean anything" after it is performed. Does this mean life started as a mixture of ammonia, methane, etc. and random electrical charges? Of course not, especially since we still know so little about the precusor forms to living organisms (what we really need is a process by which a proto-RNA is formed, and then it's all over). But it clearly undercuts the idea that life is some mystic thing that requires a deity to intervene directly. I'm very tired, and don't have the time to provide the lengthy explanation of the scientific process--which I don't think you understand, but it's difficult to tell--but I will point out that abiogenesis--the origin of life--is, like Big Bang Cosmology, separate from evolutionary biology. The interesting thing is that, as Miller points out in the interview, an meteroite hit Australia in 1969 and was found to have relatively high concentrations of amino acids very similar to those that Miller managed to create in the lab, so we have some limited confirming evidence that what Miller did in the lab also occurs outside the lab. In fact, abiogenesis is not very well understood at all. It is one of the most exciting fields of research. Right, but enough is known to suggest that the hypothesis that the creation of life requires the intervention of a supernatural being is likely false. We haven't quite hit on the exact formula to go from building blocks to RNA, but the broad outlines of how you get there naturally are coming into focus.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 8/15/2001; 7:07 PM And here's a story in the NY Times showing that scientists are willing to throw away centuries of work because the theories don't fit data. Essentially, the article says that some fundamental constants may have changed as time passed. This would have major repercussions. Needless to say, the data is undergoing severe scrutiny. One scientist used the phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (I may have the quote wrong, but it's the one that Mark Morgan likes). Show me a creationist who is willing to throw out his beliefs in the face of new evidence.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 8/15/2001; 10:21 PM "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (I may have the quote wrong, but it's the one that Mark Morgan likes).Show me a creationist who is willing to throw out his beliefs in the face of new evidence. In fact, to the contrary, I have heard both from creationists,
that scientists dogmatically hold onto beliefs despite new
evidence...or that the fact that scientists are willing to change
their views with new evidence shows that scientists don't know what
they're doing.
The closest I think you'd get in the creationist camp is the
belief that dinosaurs somehow were on the ark. And some of the
more goofy things (like the vapor canopy) are no longer held in regard
by "mainstream" creationism.
But no, I defy anyone to show me a creationist who would accept a
falsification of the "literal genesis" hypothesis. Or
of the "God hypothesis." But all sciences, in
principle, are liable to falsification.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Seth Dillingham on 8/15/2001; 11:13 PM On Wednesday, August 15, 2001 at 8:23 PM, ScottN wrote: >Show me a creationist who is willing to throw out his beliefs in the >face of new evidence. You mean evidence that God didn't create the world in any way? (That was pretty insulting, Scott)
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/16/2001; 7:30 AM In fact, to the contrary, I have heard both from creationists, that scientists dogmatically hold onto beliefs despite new evidence...or that the fact that scientists are willing to change their views with new evidence shows that scientists don't know what they're doing. ... But no, I defy anyone to show me a creationist who would accept a falsification of the "literal genesis" hypothesis. Or of the "God hypothesis." But all sciences, in principle, are liable to falsification. On the other hand, there are plenty of scientists -- and entire groups of scientists -- who do dogmatically hold on to ideas long after they have been falsified (or the evidence should have been clear that they had been falsified). For example, an effective vaccination for polio was delayed by several decades because the core group of heavyweights in polio research in the early 20th century were all heavily invested in the notion that the polio had to directly infect the central nervous system. Largely for sociological, rather than scientific, reasons, the competing (and accurate) theory that polio virus is enters the body by being ingested was discounted and ignored because it didn't fit with the central nervous system-only view. I suspect, too, that scientist's reactions to this claim that the speed of light was slightly different several billion years ago will also drive creationists nuts. I'd think the average non-scientist would suspect that if the laws of the universe have changed over the past several billion years and C is not as constant as previously thought, that this would provide serious problems for existing cosmological theories, but instead the news reports are basically saying that if it's true it simply provides some of the first confirming evidence for string theory, which is an extremely bizarre view of the universe (try explaining to your local creationist that the universe has 26 dimensions, but most of them are folded in on each other so they're almost impossible to observe directly -- they'll go to town on that hyp.)
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Eoghainn Oniongardail on 8/16/2001; 10:44 PM ScottN on 8/15/01; 8:07:22 PM wrote> >And here's a story in the NY Times showing that >scientists are willing to throw away centuries >of work because the theories don't fit data. That is a fascinating article. Thanks!
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 8/17/2001; 4:46 PM More fuel for the fire... The Social Text Affair. Essentially, back in '96, Alan Sokal, a physicist at NYU, wrote a parody paper propounding the relativism of science, and having as its main thesis that there is no real world. This paper was published by a respected sociological journal, though had they refereed it properly, it would have immediately been revealed as parody (or at least as bad writing/argument). Highly frightening.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/17/2001; 5:29 PM ScottN wrote: This paper was published by a respected sociological journal, though had they refereed it properly, it would have immediately been revealed as parody (or at least as bad writing/argument). Social sciences in the U.S. have really gone down the tubes in the last couple decades. For a graduate seminar in history my wife was actually assigned a pomo. piece of crap that argued the concept "women" (as opposed to the concept "men") is a socially constructed category with no basis at all in biology.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 8/17/2001; 7:30 PM Okay, just so you know, Yahoo! is making its future ruler very angry, only allowing me to check mail through Eudora mail, but not letting me send any out. I think the most hilarious part of the whole Skoal incident was the "explanation" by the editors of Social Text. In essence, it was "well, since he was a scientist crossing over to our side for the first time, we cut him some slack." The incident is best understood this way: all science proceeds following the evidence. Postmodernism instead does a lovely job of building huge empty cathedrals of theory, beautiful to look at--and having no connection to reality in any fashion. And the incident belongs in this thread because in my opinion, that is the fatal flaw in Creationism: it begins with a literal interpretation of Genesis, and tries desperately to fit every fact into that preconceived notion. Bad enough when a science begins with the evidence, has a theory, and then refuses to abandon that theory for political reasons (as is the case with the current dogma about child sex abuse); much worse to just skip the evidence part altogether. Not sent by Eudora, so I shall post it:
Sayeth the Seth: You mean evidence that God didn't create the world in any way? I don't agree it was insulting, Seth. Would a creationist accept a test that falsified the existence of God? Or a test, or series of tests, that completely falsified the entire first two books of Genesis? The difficulty I have with creationism is that Scott's challenge is not well defined, because I have seen no actual theory of creationism, ever; no formulation of creationist "theory" that is falsifiable, because they all require the intervention of a divine, omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural entity. By definition, such an entity cannot be falsified. Note, for example, that a theory like punctuated equilibrium could certainly be falsified. But I'm prepared to see a creationist theory. It should itself be falsifiable in principle, make testable claims, and explain all the current evidence explained by the currently accepted theory. At least!
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Smith on 8/18/2001; 4:38 PM Brian Carnell "There is a very good, lengthy interview with Stanley Miller here which goes into great lengths about both the amino acid experiment as well as its significance." It doesn't seem to go to great lengths of anything other than stating "I happen to think prebiotic synthesis happened on the Earth, but I admit I could be wrong." Or further hypotheses on things like PNA. It looks more like speculation that we will never be able to verify, simply because we do not have direct access to such information of the distant past. "which is an extremely bizarre view of the universe (try explaining to your local creationist that the universe has 26 dimensions, but most of them are folded in on each other so they're almost impossible to observe directly -- they'll go to town on that hyp.)" Impossible to observe directly? That sounds like the arguement evolutionary science has had against creationists for years. That they cannot see Him nor can He be tested in any scientific manner to prove His existence. Talking about dimensions is starting to get more spiritual than anything else. This completely disregards what science is based upon. Mark Morgan "In fact, to the contrary, I have heard both from creationists, that scientists dogmatically hold onto beliefs despite new evidence...or that the fact that scientists are willing to change their views with new evidence shows that scientists don't know what they're doing." Actually this is not so contradictory as it seems. When mentioning that scientists hold on to views stongly, one would be talking about the overall theory of evolution. But you can also believe that these same scientists can disregard information that is incorrect on a smaller level to uphold the theory of evoultion. Therefore they can “hold onto” and also disregard at the same time. All Chicken before the egg or egg before the chicken? At one time this cycle had to start somewhere and even evolutionary scientists would agree that the matter that constitues an egg came from somewhere on earth. Yet the cosmic egg seems to have appeared out of nowhere, from nothing, defying all known laws of physics not to mention common sense. What about the short fall of quantity in mass of the universe? The hypothesis of “dark matter” had to be proposed in order to save the “Big Bang theory from another opposing piece of evidence. Or another questionable area of cosmology, postulating that the universe should be slowing down. Yet the observations by Adam Riess describe quite the opposite, saying it is actually speeding up. This is confusing to cosmologists to say the least. Another point talking of fractal patterns in the universe… “If this dissenting view is correct [that the universe is fractal] and the Universe doesn’t become smoothed out on the very largest scales, the consequences for cosmology are profound. ‘We’re lost,’ says [Professor of Astrophysics, Peter] Coles. ‘The foundations of the big bang models would crumble away. We’d be left with no explanation for the big bang, or galaxy formation, or the distribution of galaxies in the Universe.’” Chown, p. 23. http://www.creationscience.com It seems clear to me looking at the distribution of matter so far is not very uniform at all. I mean the collection of matter forming galaxies is a simple indication of this fact. Or another quote from the same site… “Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg” that existed before a big bang?” To me any cosmic egg would be the ultimate black hole. Also there seems to be some questions regarding time periods in evolutionary theory. http://www.creationevidence.org/HomePage/Museum_Tour/London_Artifact/london_artifact.htm http://www.creationevidence.org/HomePage/Museum_Tour/Meister-Pot_in_Coal/meister-pot_in_coal.htm The article on the London artifact shows a hammer having been found within cretaceous rock. More confounding than this is the example of the “meister track”. A human footprint, wearing a sandle, crushing a trilobite is estimated to be around 300 to 600 million years old. I have seen information that tries to argue with this, but the argument is weak. Some assume that this is caused by natural processes. It may be but looking at the defined shape it is rather unlikely. I think these discoveries throw current dating methods into serious doubt. Now these examples are amazing yet there is more to find on such evidence that contradicts evolution. Another cut from the same web site… “A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296.” This is a number with 1862 pages of zeros. This, I find, is very powerful evidence of the impotence of evoultionary theory. The beginning of the book “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins states “Biology, is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Yet then opposes this view by saying that chance and time created these things. This, I am afraid is not science. To make an observation leading one way and then to totally deny it is not good practice. The lack of transitional forms that talkorigins tries to prove wrong are rather suspect. Even the mighty Darwin said "Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."—The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. I find it so difficult to find so much matter, energy and appearance of design being rejected by anyone as evidence of creation. So far, no matter how much “evidence” is presented to support biological evolution there is still many topics that are left untouched on such sites such as talkorigins.org (and even our discussion here). I find talkorigins.org amazing. The name and the even the front page implies that is is an open discussion without bias. But looking at only 1 article shows that it clearly is not. I decided to do a search for the time where it all began. “Before the big bang” was my search criteria (without the quotes which left it more of an open search). I came up with two links. One not related to the subject of my search. The other stating the following… “Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, "What happened before the big bang?" Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless.” At the beginning of this article they state the following… “As the bankruptcy of creation "science" becomes increasingly recognized” Arrogantly stating that creation science has no case, yet they also correctly administer evolution’s own suicidal philosophy. Since nobody here, or anywhere else for that matter can answer a very simple question and that is… how can matter arise from no matter? According to talkorigins we should not ask such questions, contradicting the very core of science in doing so. This question can be answered and it is a clear no. Evolution on any scale will never be able to attack this problem as it simply cannot be solved. It defies the one thing that science claims to hold true to their hearts and that is logic.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 8/18/2001; 6:18 PM The bulk of your post shows, at most, the Big Bang cosmology is still a work in progress. Like any other science. New evidence comes in, and is incorporated into the theory. Such as dark matter--you make it sound as if scientists aren't doing their job, changing the theory to fit the evidence. But changing the theory to fit the evidence is exactly what science is all about. I shall come back to this momentarily, but first: I find talkorigins.org amazing. The name and the even the front page implies that is is an open discussion without bias. But looking at only 1 article shows that it clearly is not. I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. From the introduction to the site: The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins. In other words, they do have a "bias"--in favor of mainstream science, which is to say, in favor of evolutionary biology. Something they must drearily tell people every month is the feedback pages... I decided to do a search for the time where it all began. "Before the big bang" was my search criteria (without the quotes which left it more of an open search). I came up with two links. One not related to the subject of my search. From the front page: Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology. (Emphasis mine.) It does not surprise me in the least that the archive, a volunteer compilation of content addressing these topics, does not have anything on "before the big bang", since as I have pointed out Big Bang Cosmology is a completely different topic than evolutionary biology, as different as cabinetmaking and deep-sea scuba diving. Their only connection as a topic is both contradict a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis. And sorry, but Genesis is utterly irrelevant to science. Science merely follows the evidence. If you want a complete understanding of what scientists are doing, you'll need to start reading some science journals. So far, no matter how much "evidence" is presented to support biological evolution there is still many topics that are left untouched on such sites such as talkorigins.org (and even our discussion here). This surprises you? It was the original point of my essay! Evolutionary biology is a complex, sophisticated mature scientific subject matter that you and I, and Brian, and Seth, and Matthew, and Marilyn vos Savant are not going to brush off in a moment. But I also stand by original statement: science operates in a fashion to weed out unsupported nonsense and arrives that much closer to a correct description. I said I would discuss the nature of science, but even at that, there is an entire academic discipline dedicated to unweaving how science works. But in essence, here is how a science works, that you might tell it apart from a religious belief masquerading as a science:
As humans, we have a massive cognitive system in place to quickly sort information, that we might not get eaten by tigers. But this system can often fail us, leading us into self-deception and bias. The scientific process is designed to buffer us against these, to make sure that the face we see on Mars is not a bunch of rocks, to make sure that if we think we've found God, that we have to show the evidence! Limited, imperfect, a very human endeavour, science is still astonishingly important. In this I am in agreement with Albert Einstein; science is the most precious thing we have. On the matter of "transitional forms" The lack of transitional forms that talkorigins tries to prove wrong are rather suspect. Even the mighty Darwin said "Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin". I find it so difficult to find so much matter, energy and appearance of design being rejected by anyone as evidence of creation. Quoting Darwin? Sorry, Darwin's evidence is over a hundred of years old. Like quoting Newton to contradict Einstein. I'm sorry if you don't like the peer-reviewed, published evidence that talk.origins presents. I don't see any citations to peer-reviewed published evidence that you have presented to counter it. As for mere gaps in the fossil record--well, there will always be gaps in the fossil record. Howso? Try this simple experiment, taken from Michael Shermer's Why We Believe Weird Things. Go into your kitchen and gather yourself a collection of coffee cups. Place two on the dining room table. Those are your fossils--and look! There is a gap! Quickly, fill it in with another cup, between the two, before anybody noticed the lapse in your theory. Now there are two gaps. You can go on forever, filling in gaps, and always fall behind. Because there is an infinite number of points between any two points on a line. And finally, on the idea that, if a science cannot any all questions, it must be unable to answer any: "Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, "What happened before the big bang?" Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless." At the beginning of this article they state the following: "As the bankruptcy of creation "science" becomes increasingly recognized" Arrogantly stating that creation science has no case, yet they also correctly administer evolutionÃs own suicidal philosophy. Since nobody here, or anywhere else for that matter can answer a very simple question and that is: how can matter arise from no matter? According to talkorigins we should not ask such questions, contradicting the very core of science in doing so. This question can be answered and it is a clear no. Evolution on any scale will never be able to attack this problem as it simply cannot be solved. It defies the one thing that science claims to hold true to their hearts and that is logic. Really, I'm at a loss here. In this paragraph you lump evolutionary biology, Big Bang cosmology, time before there was time, and the origin of matter from non-matter all into one topic under the rubric "evolution." The only thing they all have in common is that a naturalistic explanation of them contradicts a strictly literal reading of Genesis. Again, science cares not about the Bible, and if the Bible had never been written, evolutionary biology would still be here. But creationism would not. That, more than anything, is why evoution is a science, and creationism is not.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 8/20/2001; 2:34 PM Yet the cosmic egg seems to have appeared out of nowhere, from nothing, defying all known laws of physics not to mention common sense. Wrong. It does not defy all known laws of physics. Please see this post above.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Smith on 8/20/2001; 3:30 PM First I must apologize for such a large post. It was not intended but also could not be helped. To answer questions in a clear manner one can not wisk them away with a “breezy one off”. Isn’t that right Mark? :) Mark Morgan The opening statement in talkorigins is "is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins." Discussion in the dictionary means... "Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation" www.dictionary.com There is no conversation happening here, nor is there any consideration taking place. It is a one sided view with all involved already having made their choice. I do not have a problem with people making choices one way or another, but perhaps they should leave words such as "discussion" from the front page, or any page on the site for that matter. Talkorigins website states "but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology. (Emphasis mine.)" Mark Morgan continued "It does not surprise me in the least that the archive, a volunteer compilation of content addressing these topics, does not have anything on "before the big bang", since as I have pointed out Big Bang Cosmology is a completely different topic than evolutionary biology" But above they state that other topics include cosmology. The lack of coverage on the site on this subject is not due to their concetration on biological evolution. I am sure if there were any such evidence from before the big bang, they would have put it up on the site. It is dedicated to provding evidence that there is no God. But this subject is impossible to cover. "The science follows the evidence, not the other way around. For example, if the evidence shows a very old Earth, the scientific theory incorporates a very old Earth. Regardless of what Genesis says, sorry." No apologies necassary. So far, in relation to the artifacts found in cretaceous rock and coal perhaps either the world is not as old as some think or evolution happens at an extrodinarily fast rate? If the latter is true then it must be happening so fast, that new life forms would evolve in very short times, making them observable and evolutionary biology a proven fact a long time ago. “Scientists seeks positive evidence in favor of their theory, instead of merely attacking other theories and trying to find "flaws."” Actually talkorigins and many other websites like it, seem to be dedicated to explaining the contradictory evidence against evolution on all scales and also looking for flaws in evidence of creationism. Simply because some scientists are so adamant to prove evolution, it becomes the motive. Maybe that’s just my interpretation though? “Quoting Darwin?” You make it sound like I quoted Oprah Winfrey or some other person who is equally unrelated to evolution :) Is it really so bad to quote the father of evolution in an evolutionary debate? There have been many homonids found since that time. But the thousands of homonids that have been found have had to be disregarded as evidence of transitionary forms because they did not fit into the current evolutionary framework. Leaving only that handful of bones and evidence that barely covers a “billiard table” as the primary evidence. “I'm sorry if you don't like the peer-reviewed, published evidence that talk.origins presents. I don't see any citations to peer-reviewed published evidence that you have presented to counter it.” Most of the scientists I mention here are presenting information that has already been reviewed. Just not with a great deal of enthusiasm because it contradicts what evolution’s faith is built upon. “As for mere gaps in the fossil record” Mere gaps? I would consider this a very important detail. “Really, I'm at a loss here. In this paragraph you lump evolutionary biology, Big Bang cosmology, time before there was time, and the origin of matter from non-matter all into one topic under the rubric "evolution."” I have covered this on several occasions yet it doesn’t seem to be well understood what I mean when generalizing evolution. That is, all forms deal with the same topic (an explaination of the creation of everything in the universe without God) except on different scales. So when I talk about ‘evolution’ I am (probably ignorantly) encompassing abiogenisis, cosmic and biological evolution. It saves time, put it that way. I think that it would be difficult to find someone who believes in evolutionary biology, yet doesn’t believe in the Big Bang theory or some other naturalistic formation of the universe. They go hand in hand. But regardless of that, in this answer you attack the description yet avoid the question of how matter can arise from no matter. It is a question that is avoided by all evolutionists and is the fundamental argument against cosmic evolution. “The science makes predictions that can be verified by looking at the evidence. Where are creationism's predictions?” WARNING – If you are not interested in things that are not entirely topic related please tune out now. Perhaps this might get me removed from the forum also? Well I am not sure which predictions you are talking about in regards to creationism but there are many that I know of. It is a good opportunity to clear up some misconceptions of Christianity. Prophecy is a controversial subject much like evolution. I will start by saying, do not consider everyone who believes in such as being involved in cults like much of popular media portrays. Cults are easily identified because they usually revolve prophecy around specific dates. I, nor every other true Christian will do such a thing because it clearly opposes one of the things Jesus stressed in Mark chapter 13 verse 28-32 "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. "Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, {right} at the door. "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father {alone.}” Here Jesus clearly states that we will see the time draw near yet not know an exact day or hour. So anyone claiming such can be immediately dismissed. In regards to another online debate, a topic that may interest you will be the introduction of what I believe. I think it is a very important subject. “Unfortunately Constitutions will be a moot point and may already be so now. You see, governments of the world have been madly signing away their soveriegnty to foreign nations (UN). Only in June this year another subdivision of the UN was formed... the URI (United Religions Initiative). All parts of this proposal speak of freedom to believe in what one wants unless the government changes it's mind. http://www.united-religions.org "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Constitution United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion... Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." Many did not see the importance of this correlation so I condensed it for them… "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Constitution "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law..." United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This constitutes (no pun intended) a complete override of the U.S. Constitution, not only that but the very first amendment of it! I am not American but I can certainly assume that this would be a shock to anyone who lives there and did not know such things were going on behind the scenes. In case you might say that there have been generations of others that have blindly said the same thing in the past with no result, here is some more information that may interest you. There are several major differences between those people of the past that believed the end was nigh and today's believers. 1. Never before in the history of mankind have we ourselves (humankind) had the power to destroy the world and everything in it. Through nuclear weapons or other means. 2. Never before has the world ever seen mass communication on the scale that we are using today that makes things like the "mark of the beast" a possibility. Look into Identichips or Digital Angels on the Internet and then compare it to Revelation Chapter 13 verses 16-18. "He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could BUY OR SELL unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666." Emphasis added. This is a perfectly viable reality that no previous generation has seen. A cashless society, which we are told in the world's media "is inevitable", can certainly make this a reality. 3. No previous generation has seen the possibility of a fully functional world government, world religion and world economy coming to power. United Nations, United Religions Initiative, World Bank and International Monetary Fund. 4. No previous generation has seen a man who "utters proud and blasphemous statements" (2 Thessalonians, Revelation 13, Daniel chapter 9) like that of ‘Maitreya’. 5. How about the birth of the Jewish state of Israel in 1948, the fulfillment of a 2500 year old prophecy? 6. The most strong case of prophetic fulfillment comes from the possibility of there being a middle east peace treaty very soon. 7. What about the proposal of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem by Maitreya? 8. How about the hole in the ozone layer? These are just a few examples that build a detailed and accurate portrayal of the world today (remember with these points that no other generation has seen them). That's eight major prophecies that cannot be misinterpreted. Previous generations may have seen parts of prophetic fulfillment, "midrash" is the term used to describe an example of what is to come in the future. But to reiterate no other generation has seen them all together like we do today. Does that mean the end is nigh? I think so, others do not. What's important is not the timing of these events, it's being saved that counts. Deeply Christian thing to say I know, but we're getting into some deep territory. 1. "ONE WHICH WILL SYNTHESIZE THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD" 2. "Maitreya explains that, although many basic truths are shared with all of them, each of these seven religions have ONE SINGLE OUTSTANDING MESSAGE, which when realized and combined with the six messages from the other truths, a great SPIRITUAL PATH will be revealed, and if followed, human liberation is GUARANTEED! " 3. He teaches that not only are great religions of the world not contradictory but actually are COMPLEMENTARY. and yet more amazing... 4. He is the One, the Incredible, the Powerful. He is the Merciful, the Compassionate One, He is the Destroyer, the Creator, the Preserver, the Sustainer. There is none beside Him. 5. Maitreya is Christ (Christos: Christ-us); He is Krishna; He is the Vishnu, He is Brahma. He is Shiva. Maitreya is the first Adam and the second, and the third,... He is Mohammed and Bab and the Babas. He is the Teacher and He is the Student. There is none beside Him. 6. Maitreya is the Buddha and the Bodhisattva. He is none but the Nirvana itself. He is the Light seen in the moment of death. He is the Enlightened One, the Truth and the Way. There is none beside Him. 7. Maitreya is the Father and the Mother. He is the Son and The Holy Ghost. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. He is the first and the last. There is none beside Him. Emphasis in original text. John Chapter 14 verses 6-7 "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Nowhere does Jesus say that he himself is the destroyer like Maitreya does above. Have a look at some of the sites dedicated to him. http://www.maitreya.org/ http://www.shareintl.org/ This is rather lengthy, but worth your time, so you can see that the Bible can never be misinterpreted. God is clear unlike those who make him out to be unclear (I'm not referring to you, just those in general that paint a picture that the Bible is grey). Interesting note: Grey is a mix of black and white. 1 John Chapter 1 verse 5, "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." Here are some Bible versus that explain the truth about this being... 1. Revelation 13 verses 5-8 "The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for 42 months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints [see a previous information on UN sanction and URI] and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast..." 2. 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2 verse 3 "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and exalt himself above everything that is called god or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God. Don't you remember when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so until he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing." 3. Daniel 11 verses 36-39 "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard of things against the God of god's. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. He will show no regard for the god's of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all." Hence the words of Maitreya, "There is none beside Him." Of course you can accept or dismiss the views here. But if you look hard enough you will find an abundance of evidence to support it.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 8/20/2001; 6:23 PM 6. The most strong case of prophetic fulfillment comes from the possibility of there being a middle east peace treaty very soon. I'm sorry, this is a joke, right? I certainly don't see either side willing to seriously work for peace. In fact, I daresay this confict is going to erupt into full-blown war relatively soon.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/20/2001; 6:55 PM At 07:39 PM 8/20/01 -0400, Matthew wrote: >I'm sorry, this is a joke, right? I certainly don't see either side >willing to seriously work for peace. In fact, I daresay this confict is >going to erupt into full-blown war relatively soon. "War" generally requires at least two combatants facing off. The Palestinians don't exactly have much in the way of a military force, even with their illegal military buildup (the U.S.-Iraqi war might have been more lopsided, but not by much). It's kind of an interesting situation for that reason. The Palestinians are clearly no match at all for the Israelis, but they certainly do know how to set off bombs in pizza parlors! A lot like the Ireland situation, except Israel doesn't have a large body of water to separate itself from its antagonists. The only thing I can't figure out is why Israel is waiting so long before launching an outright invasion, whose main purpose should be the complete destruction of the Palestinian Authority infrastructure (though they have to be sure not to wipe out the Palestinian officials -- ideally they want to do to the Palestinian Authority what the U.S. did to Saddam Hussein; cripple but not destroy). I'd also submit that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is a classic instantiation of a variety of the Prisoner's Dilemma where both sides would be far better off with different choices, but the incentives in both camps lead the respective parties to try to maximize their own gains out of distrust, fear, and hatred.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Seth Dillingham on 8/20/2001; 7:07 PM On Monday, August 20, 2001 at 7:55 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: >"War" generally requires at least two combatants facing off. The >Palestinians don't exactly have much in the way of a military force, even >with their illegal military buildup (the U.S.-Iraqi war might have been >more lopsided, but not by much). This is true, but Israel has more to worry about than just the Palestinians. Elite Iraqui military units have been caught trying to sneak through Jordan into Palestinian territories - with tanks. There's also the danger that Egypt will manage to mobilize before it's too late, in support of the Palestinians. The last thing Israel wants is to fight a war on three fronts. Stratfor predicted that they'd decimate the Palestinians weeks ago for specifically this reason, and I don't know why it hasn't happened yet. Actually, I do have an opinion. We're not in the situation, and don't have all the facts, and from our perspective it already looks like an incredible mess of opposing forces. My thought is that being in the situation, being responsible for telling a military to go do something... it would paralyze almost anyone's decision making abilities. But then I could be wrong. Seth
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/20/2001; 7:16 PM At 08:07 PM 8/20/01 -0400, Seth wrote: >The last thing Israel wants is to fight a war on three fronts. Stratfor >predicted that they'd decimate the Palestinians weeks ago for specifically >this reason, and I don't know why it hasn't happened yet. Exactly. At least from the outside, it is difficult to fathom why they haven't attacked already given other policy decisions they have made. >Actually, I do have an opinion. We're not in the situation, and don't have all >the facts, and from our perspective it already looks like an incredible mess >of opposing forces. My thought is that being in the situation, being >responsible for telling a military to go do something... it would paralyze >almost anyone's decision making abilities. Good point. Plus, you have to figure that even if they do go in and just wipe out the Palestinian Authority they're inevitably going to face even more waves of terrorist bombings. Personally, it looks like they're going to be dealing with that even with the sort of half-measures they're taking, but Sharon might rightly calculate that even with the terrorist attacks, an invasion could turn into a political disaster for him (maybe that crushing defeat of Barak has softened Sharon up a bit -- maybe he likes being popular again).
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: NS on 8/20/2001; 8:57 PM ...how matter can arise from no matter? --Smith I am at a loss as to why you keep asking this question. The answer is this: True, in the beginning of the universe there was no matter. However, there was Energy. And since matter and energy are interchangable [E=mc²(you must believe this because it is on this principle that cars work)] the energy cooled into matter.
Re: Should We Trust Science? By: Matthew Patterson on 8/20/2001; 9:30 PM > And since matter and energy are interchangable [E=mc²(you > must believe this because it is on this principle that cars work)] Cars? I think I missed something there, mind running that by me? (Platonic dialogues will do that to a person. The car, being a vector of Speed, cannot be said to possess the Form of Sloth... bah, I hate when I start talking like things I read.) _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 8/21/2001; 12:00 AM Discussion in the dictionary means... "Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation" www.dictionary.com There is no conversation happening here, nor is there any consideration taking place. Did you miss the part where it says Usenet discussion group?
The newsgroup itself is accessed through a newsreader, like Outlook
Express of Netscape's newsreader. The archive itself is not a
discussion group. I can provide more information on Usenet, if
you are interested. The Usenet was one of the major building
blocks of the Internet, long before the World Wide Web.
It is dedicated to provding evidence that there is no God. But this subject is impossible to cover. Again, this is completely wrong. There is no philosophical
discussions about the existence of God in the archive. It is a
compilation of the scientific evidence concerning evolution. You
are correct that the site is a collection of rebuttals...the exact
thing it claims to be in its welcome message.
The archive only includes those items the volunteers have found
the time to address. I'm not surprised that any particular topic
is not in the archive. Sorry, it's not a complete
one-stop science outpost. It's whatever the people involved can find
time to write. Writing a well-documented scientific paper is extremely
time consuming; one must be learned in the subject, one must find the
current research, one must double-check one's answers, and hardest of
all one must make the result understandable to the layperson.
It's hard work. I know, I've done it before. You can't
write one of those article like they have in an afternoon.
"The science follows the evidence, not the other way around. For example, if the evidence shows a very old Earth, the scientific theory incorporates a very old Earth. Regardless of what Genesis says, sorry." You'll have to cite some scientific papers (not the
popularizations you've been quoting). There's an astonishing
amount of evidence for a very old Earth.
ìQuoting Darwin?î You make it sound like I quoted Oprah Winfrey or some other person who is equally unrelated to evolution :) Is it really so bad to quote the father of evolution in an evolutionary debate? There have been many homonids found since that time. But the thousands of homonids that have been found have had to be disregarded as evidence of transitionary forms because they did not fit into the current evolutionary framework. Leaving only that handful of bones and evidence that barely covers a ìbilliard tableî as the primary evidence. Citations? And I did not deny that Darwin is pertinent--but
you clipped the main point. The evidence is drastically
increased since Darwin's time. That was over a hundred years
ago. Lots of time for evidence to accumulate.
Peer-reviewed. As in, published in a scientific journal.
Not just "looked at by people." Peer review is a very
specific process--a potential paper for consideration is sent to
specialists in the same field, with the author's name removed and
chewed up and spit back out, with every mistake and flaw in logic
pointed out. Peer review is a brutal process, but it keeps the
most obvious nonsense from being published.
Have you studied the process of how science is done, and how it
is reported, before you decided to criticize it?
"As for mere gaps in the fossil record"
Mere gaps. Any set of discrete items arranged
in a series will have gaps. Fossils arranged chronologically,
coffee cups, plastic soldiers arrayed on a sandbox battlefield.
It is not avoided. It is one of the hottest topics for
current study and an exciting field of current research. We
don't know yet, but we're close on its trail. And I'm sorry, but
Big Bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolutionary biology and remain
completely separate areas of study.
WARNING ñ If you are not interested in things that are not entirely topic related please tune out now. You are correct; all of that is completely off topic. A
scientific prediction is drastically different than biblical
prophecy.
I think the real issue here, Smith, is that I simply do not want
your Christian beliefs taught as a science in biology classrooms.
It's that simple. If you want your children taught religion, put
them in a private religious school. For my tax money, my
children, Christian children, Hindi children, Jewish children, all
children, get a secular education.
That's how it should be. Creationism has attempted to take the
mantle of scientific language without doing any actual science to back
it up. Creationism is not a science, and it should not be taught
in a science classroom. That is why I laid out the general aspects of
what a science is, and until a "creationist theory" comes
even within a country mile of those simple standards, it can stay in
church where it belongs.
Re: Should We Trust Science? By: NS on 8/21/2001; 7:06 PM My point relating cars to E=mc² is the following: Cars utilize fuel (gasoline, petrol, ...) that is matter. It is combusted to make energy (in this case Kinetic, the energy of motion, and heat energy). If you measure the mass of the fuel before the combustion, then measure the mass of the resultant products you will find a mass difference. (note this difference is in a "far out" decimal place, I'd guess somewhere in the 13th or more decimal place) However, if you don't like my car example, there are others. For instance, the sun "works" by changing matter into energy. Also, nuclear power plants change matter into energy (and the mass difference there is something along the lines of 2%... quite measurable)
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/21/2001; 7:29 PM At 04:46 PM 8/20/01 -0400, Smith wrote: >"I'm sorry if you don't like the peer-reviewed, published evidence that >talk.origins presents. I don't see any citations to peer-reviewed >published evidence that you have presented to counter it." > >Most of the scientists I mention here are presenting information that has >already been reviewed. Just not with a great deal of enthusiasm because it >contradicts what evolution's faith is built upon. No, actually, almost none of the material you mention has ever been peer reviewed. In fact most of the people you cite fall back on the "they won't peer review us because we're a threat" type nonsense.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 8/21/2001; 7:31 PM At 01:00 AM 8/21/01 -0400, Mark wrote: >Smith (?) wrote: It is dedicated to provding evidence that >there is no God. But this subject is impossible to cover. > >Again, this is completely wrong. There is no philosophical >discussions about the existence of God in the archive. It is a >compilation of the scientific evidence concerning evolution. You >are correct that the site is a collection of rebuttals...the exact >thing it claims to be in its welcome message. No, no, no Mark. I like what he said at the beginning. If God's existence is a "subject [that] is impossible to cover" then by definition it is impossible to provide any evidence for God's existence. QED, atheism. I'm surprised he would grant such an obviously atheistic premise.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 8/22/2001; 11:10 AM > >No, no, no Mark. I like what he said at the beginning. If God's existence >is a "subject [that] is impossible to cover" then by definition it is >impossible to provide any evidence for God's existence. QED, atheism. > >I'm surprised he would grant such an obviously atheistic premise. I stand corrected, sir.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Smith on 10/21/2001; 10:48 AM NS “I am at a loss as to why you keep asking this question. The answer is this: True, in the beginning of the universe there was no matter. However, there was Energy. And since matter and energy are interchangable [E=mc²(you must believe this because it is on this principle that cars work)] the energy cooled into matter.” Because I find it very hard to believe that all matter or energy in the universe came from nothing at all. You assume here that energy has existed for all eternity, which is highly speculative. Not only that, the explainations are simple one word answers such as “Wrong”, “Irrelevant” or something similar. It’s not as simple as you think. Mark Morgan “Again, this is completely wrong. There is no philosophical discussions about the existence of God in the archive. It is a compilation of the scientific evidence concerning evolution. You are correct that the site is a collection of rebuttals...the exact thing it claims to be in its welcome message.” Perhaps the structure of my explainations are rather vague. What I mean to say is that any naturalistic theory of the creation of the universe is implicitly against creation. Therefore sites like talkorigins become a way of describing how a god did not form the universe or are providing evidence that there is no god indirectly. “Did you miss the part where it says Usenet discussion group?” No. I know what a BBS is. But what I am saying is BBS posts do not have the same impact as something that is published. No evidence against evolution would ever be published on that site and that’s what makes it sinister science. You said yourself that the theory of evolution could be proven wrong at any time, so why are sites like this blindly claiming that it could not be. “Sorry, it's not a complete one-stop science outpost.” Lol. :) Nice selection of words. “Writing a well-documented scientific paper is extremely time consuming; one must be learned in the subject, one must find the current research, one must double-check one's answers, and hardest of all one must make the result understandable to the layperson.” Yes, this is correct. I am not ridiculing these people for the enormous amount of time and energy they have invested in their research. What I am saying is that maybe they are ignoring some very obvious observations around them. “You'll have to cite some scientific papers (not the popularizations you've been quoting). There's an astonishing amount of evidence for a very old Earth.” Well it seems mostly that only creationists have researched these things. Perhaps this is too much for evolutionary scientists to believe. “Mere gaps. Any set of discrete items arranged in a series will have gaps. Fossils arranged chronologically, coffee cups, plastic soldiers arrayed on a sandbox battlefield.” The examples given are not convincing. When you talk about “mere gaps” you make it sound like there is a very clear geneology of species and even evolutionary scientists would have us believe this is true. But when looking at the evidence there are very large gaps that still remain from Darwin’s time which are far too large to be called “mere”. “It is not avoided. It is one of the hottest topics for current study and an exciting field of current research. We don't know yet, but we're close on its trail. And I'm sorry, but Big Bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolutionary biology and remain completely separate areas of study.” Of course I understand that they remain different areas of study but as I have said in nearly every post, they all deal with the same side topic and that is… naturalistic means of the creation of everything. Is this really so difficult to understand? “I think the real issue here, Smith, is that I simply do not want your Christian beliefs taught as a science in biology classrooms. It's that simple. If you want your children taught religion, put them in a private religious school. For my tax money, my children, Christian children, Hindi children, Jewish children, all children, get a secular education.” Likewise I do not want theories taught as undisputed fact in publically funded institutions, when they clearly are not so - this is even admitted by yourself. The condescending manner of many replies to creationists is a perfect example to how much people consider these theories as pure fact. Listen to some of these examples which, if cited in the classroom, would amount to indoctrination, since even you admit that evolution could be overturned at any time. Rene Dubos in American Scientist “…now accept as a fact… evolutionary processes.”, Richard Goldschmidt in American Scientist says “Evolution… is considered by all entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed.” I like how the words “considered by most” are used. Anything for which no further proof is needed would not use such words. William Patton in Scientific Monthly “It is one truth we most surely know.”, Calvin S. Hall in Sigma Xi Quarterly says that if someone was of a view other than evolution their “views deserve little serious consideration.’, H. H. Newman “There is no rival hypothesis except the completely outworn and completely refuted idea of special creation…”. The list goes on and on clearly pointing to many evolutionists as hypocrites. Dean H. Kenyon states when evolutionists consider creation science a religion in disguise “is regrettable and exhibits a degree of close-mindedness quite alien to the spirit of scientific inquiry”. Look at the human brain for instance. 10 to the power of 15 connections, that’s 1000 trillion connections. On average, from the time evolution of organic organisms was supposedly starting to take place 1 billion years ago, this means the human brain if evolving from that time would need to make on average over 2700 connections per day to reach the complexity that it is now. I know this is a rather simple example and I am obviously not stating this is how simple evolution is to be broken down in such a way. But what it does do is to show how out of sync some of the ideas of evolution are, how much incredible complexity they are missing. Take this to a smaller level and think of the amount of time it would need for a brain cell to evolve. Go further and try and estimate how long it would take for a sequence of nucleotides to arrange themselves in such a way that describe the function of a brain cell. Go further and look at the complexity of the human DNA strand as a whole and try and estimate if it is at all possible for something so complex to arise by chance. Starting at the first simple observation and viewed in context, life in itself could not have evolved. It is that simple, because life itself is so complex. Consider another example here… http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5195-2001Aug27.html The brain cell itself is so complex and we humans with all our intelligence are running into material contraints within the simple microchip. Originally this research was aimed at increasing speeds of computers that are reaching material limits. 0.15 microns is getting unstable and we are looking for better models. Unfortunately when I first saw this site they had a screenshot of the cell and the microchip transistors. It showed just how simplistic our current technology was. This is something I find that proves the need for intelligence in the first place to create what is around us. With all our intelligence we fall short by a mile. Charles Darwin in Origin of Species declared on the evolution of the human eye... "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." One last point, I was recently looking at some pictures of creatures that live in the deep sea. There is such a variety of life on this planet even at extreme conditions such as the deep sea, that it would suggest that life should be all over the solar system. If we found that, then we could easily suggest that the universe is full of life. Yet no life has been found in this solar system other than here on earth. NASA always jumps to conclusions with samples taken from Mars yet all have been debunked by others in peer review. It is all rather simple when you look at it with an open mind. As one scientist stated, noone would suggest that the 4 presidents heads on Mt Rushmore were the product of millions of years of chance erosion. Intelligence regognizes design.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 10/21/2001; 1:24 PM Hmmmm.... Does anyone else feel like we're just going rounds here? I've certainly just repeated myself over and over again, and I feel like Smith is just repeating himself over and over again. Supernaturalism and NaturalismThe ongoing debate about what is a science and what is not a science, what is a fact and what is not a fact, is all important. But lost in all the namecalling on this topic (sinister?) is an important question: what is the role of the supernatural in scientific endeavors? Smith writes: Of course I understand that they remain different areas of study but as I have said in nearly every post, they all deal with the same side topic and that is… naturalistic means of the creation of everything. Is this really so difficult to understand? I got in a side discussion with my good friend Sean on this topic. Sean and I generally arrive at a gentlemens' standoff, to agree to disagree. I won't speak for his side, but he pointed out to me that I keep expanding creationism into a theory of Deity. He is correct. Science is built on the foundation that we can understand and predict, to some degree, the universe. Some areas we can do better than others, but a theory is completely useless if we can't say "IF this is correct, THEN this result will happen." How do you test God? How do you falsify the "God hypothesis"? If God is necessary for creationism, how do you build a theory that is untestable? By that I mean, assume for the moment that God created the universe using special creation. Excluding prophesy (which is not a scientific construct), what can you predict you will find if you look at the evidence? Gaps in the fossil record, and no gaps in the fossil record, are equally evidence for God. Bad eye design, perfect eye design, both evidence for God. If God intervened regularly in the creation of the universe, he could if he chose to hide all his tracks. Was there a global flood? We'll never know. We can't say there *wasn't*, because God can make miracles and could have hid the evidence of the flood. God can make miracles that hide his existence in the universe. All the evidence of a naturalistic universe does not falsify God, because God could have made a miracle and made the universe appear to be completely naturalistic. We can never know one way or the other. If your prayer does *not* heal the sick, we haven't falsified the evidence, because God can make miracles. Perhaps God was mad at your hubris and withdrew himself from the test. You have not found any evidence against the existence of God. Creationism is the only thing, claiming to be a science, that requires the existence of a supernatural agent whose existence is immune to falsification. Talk.Origins, Usenet and Web Archive“Did you miss the part where it says Usenet discussion group?” There are two different things here:
Does anyone have any links for Smith, that provide an introduction to Usenet? I appear to have deleted all mine, or they have suffered from linkrot.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 10/21/2001; 8:32 PM At 12:04 PM 10/21/01 -0400, Smith wrote: >Because I find it very hard to believe that all matter or energy in the >universe came from nothing at all. You assume here that energy has existed >for all eternity, which is highly speculative. Not only that, the >explainations are simple one word answers such as "Wrong", "Irrelevant" or >something similar. It's not as simple as you think. Why? This is hardly a problem unique to a naturalistic explanation of the universe, but also afflicts all theistic explanations of the universe that are not tautological. In fact, I'd argue the atheistic explanation is preferable because it doesn't include the extra layer of complexity necessary to add god into the equation. Or, to put it another way, The atheistic version at this point postulates the universe coming into being through an as-yet-unknown mechanism. The theistic version requires that God comes into existence through some as-yet-unknown mechanism, and that then God for some reason decides to create our universe for some as-yet-unknown. Simply using Occam's Razor, we should prefer the naturalistic hypothesis to the theistic hypothesis for its sheer simplicity. And the problem becomes many-fold more complicated once we start looking at specific religious beliefs, such as trying to reconcile what we know about the universe with claims made about the universe in the Old Testament.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 10/22/2001; 12:46 PM Aside from the Occam's Razor implications, it is quite possible for the universe to have come out of nothing. We've discussed the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle before, and it generally is acknowledged to have two common forms...
Dx Dp > h The second one (the uncertainty in energy multiplied by the uncertainty in time is greater than Planck's Constant) allows the universe to have appeared literally out of nothing. The universe has energy both radiant and from mass (E=mc2). However, it also has gravitational energy, and that is negative. If the universe is flat or closed, that gravitational energy is greater than or equal to the mass/radiant energy of the universe, giving the universe a net energy close to 0. If the universe is a quantum fluctuation gone out of hand, then the DE term is essentially zero, allowing the Dt term to be absurdly large. However, modern physics even has a way to make the "eternal universe" people happy (authors note: this is my personal interpretation -- I COULD BE WRONGTM). Most superstring theories today assume that the Big Bang occurred when the "other" 6 dimensions decoupled from the four we can directly observe. Prior to that, the 10-D universe was in a state called "false vacuum", a metastable state that was not the lowest possible, but at a local minimum. At some point, it tunneled through the energy barrier around the metastable state to the state of the universe "as we know it", and the "Big Bang" occurred. There is no way of knowing how long the metastable state lasted, and as far as I know, it could have been eternal...
Again, I must state that this is my interpretation of things, as I understand superstring physics. But there they are, in black and white, two ways for the universe to have come out of "nothing".
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 10/22/2001; 1:22 PM At 02:02 PM 10/22/2001 -0400, ScottN wrote: Aside from the Occam's Razor implications, it is quite possible for the universe to have come out of nothing. We've discussed the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle There is an interesting book by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith called Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology. Craig is a theist, Smith is an atheist, and they both know way more about big bang cosmology than I do. But at one point Craig dismisses the exact sort of argument (though not necessarily on the particulars) you are making on pseudo-complexity grounds. That essentially this is a deus ex machina introduced at the last second to try to salvage the naturalistic explanation and requires positing things that are absurdly complex and unlikely to exist. But we don't really have to know anything about whether or not the super string theory is correct to point out that any naturalistic explanation is certainly no less fantastic than postulating a supernatural being (after all, what more blatant deus ex machina is there than to backtrack through time relying on essentially naturalistic explanations until you get to point where the universe first exists and then say, "oh, God did that.")
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Smith on 10/24/2001; 4:30 PM Mark Morgan "Does anyone else feel like we're just going rounds here? I've certainly just repeated myself over and over again, and I feel like Smith is just repeating himself over and over again." Without being offensive the only reason I repeat myself here is that some things I say are being overlooked. I will wrap it up now though... "But lost in all the namecalling on this topic (sinister?)" Don't get me wrong, this is not name calling - this is true in many instances (although of course not all). As I mentioned before in a previous post Ernst Haeckel is one of the scientists that deserves the words of "sinister science". The man deliberately mislead many thousands of others without anyone even checking his study! This is an embarrassment to both science and humanity since only recently his misleading activity was made public through research. "Sean and I generally arrive at a gentlemens' standoff, to agree to disagree." I take the hint. Here I will definitely agree to disagree simply because I do not have much time lately - many deadlines forthcoming. It also seems that many people here are firmly set in their beliefs including myself. I reply simply to defend and try and correct misconceptions of Christianity. "If God intervened regularly in the creation of the universe, he could if he chose to hide all his tracks." This is not true of my God (of the Bible). Hence... Romans Chapter 1 verses 19 - 22 "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools" and... Isaiah 29 verse 16, "You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter "He knows nothing"? "Does anyone have any links for Smith, that provide an introduction to Usenet? I appear to have deleted all mine, or they have suffered from linkrot." Yet I must repeat myself again :) Sorry, but the main purpose of that post was to say that a polished web site with published articles looks more "official" than rants by anyone in a BBS. I know exactly what a BBS is and exactly how they are viewed by people who do not know what subtle manipulation is (on a spiritual level that is, no insult intended to those that write such things). These are all personal beliefs, just to be clear. "But we don't really have to know anything about whether or not the super string theory is correct to point out that any naturalistic explanation is certainly no less fantastic than postulating a supernatural being." Thanks for pointing that out. So where does that bring us? To the exact point I believe God wants us to be at - equal. Why? As it says in the Bible "...so that no man may boast". Perfect.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 10/24/2001; 5:53 PM ...until you get to point where the universe first exists and then say, "oh, God did that." I have no problem with G-d kicking off the universe. What I have a problem with is his alleged intervention after the fact. Personal belief: G-d set up the laws of the universe, set up the initial conditions (quantum fluctuation, 10-D metastable state, or other TBD...) and let it go. He's watching us on (for a lack of a better analogy, please don't be nasty about the term -- I really don't have the theological vocabulary to describe it) G-dVision, but he's not interfering...
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 10/25/2001; 1:46 AM Smith: Okay, just a couple more things, since no one is adressing the only topic I care about any more (the role of the supernatural in science). First, I apologize if that comment about repeating myself sounded like a dig. I do feel like I've said all I want to say about this topic, honestly. Here it is, summarized:
Second, my comments about the nature of the Talk.Origins Archive are directed towards your comments (waaaaaayyy up there) that there is no discussion there. Of course there isn't. It's a site that provides lay introduction to evolutionary biology. The newsgroup is where the discussion happens. The site is not intended to provide a balanced view between creationism and evolutionary biology--it is blatantly pro-evolution. You criticize it for never posting any articles that would criticise evolution; the same can be said for the many creationist websites that would never question the existence of God. (Aside: If God is not a falsifiable concept, and if He is necessary for creationism, creationism is not a falsifiable concept and hence is not a science.) The comments about subtle manipulation go right past me, sir. I have nothing to say about such things, as I do not feel the Archive is being subtly manipulative. It's blantatly argumentative--in favor of the science of evolutionary biology. As for people ignoring you....well, for starters this thread is now a metric ton of bits to download. I suspect, save for the people on the mailing list, and myself, reading all this is just too painful. That's partially my fault, as I haven't activated pagination, for various reasons. (It would eliminate the bookmarking of individual messages, for starters.) Having added quite enough to an already too--long discussion, I shall stop here.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Smith on 10/25/2001; 6:09 PM Great :) It's over. Thankyou Mark for letting me voice my opinions here, no matter how offensive they may have seemed to you and others at the time. I wish you all the best for your future and the others that have contributed to this debate. If I offended anyone here during this discussion, forgive me. It seems that most of the participants are very passionate about their beliefs here and I am definitely no exception. I will keep reading articles on this site since it nearly always spurs me to think (which is a good thing yes?).
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 10/25/2001; 6:27 PM At 07:09 PM 10/24/2001 -0400, ScottN wrote: >I have no problem with G-d kicking off the universe. What I have a >problem with is his alleged intervention after the fact. But that's sort of a pointless God. Saying everything's naturalistic except some distant God who we can know nothing about seems to add an unnecessary chain of events without adding any explanatory value.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 10/25/2001; 10:37 PM Yes, it violates Occam's Razor. But, unless some future work either gives some reason for the fundamental physical constants (h, c, G, qe, the fine structure constant, etc...), or postulates alternate universes with differing constant values, then we need to explain the constants. At this point, a "Prime Cause" is as good as any.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 10/26/2001; 1:16 AM Smith, I don't think anyone here is offended. You certainly haven't done anything to violate the mood of this site--no namecalling, for starters, for which I am extremely grateful. You just happened to catch me on a topic I, personally, am tired of talking about. But if you'll read above this post here, you'll see that Brian and Scott are still splitting hairs. (Hint: Scott, the God of the Gaps is an untenable definition of God. Danger, Wil Robinson! Logical fallacy! Danger!) I certainly have no problem with you continuing to discuss issues raised on this site.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 10/26/2001; 5:06 PM Yes, it's illogical, but I am not postulating G-d as a testable hypothesis here. I freely admit that it's unscientific. I'm using Him to explain our ignorance (at this point in time). Note that I said that I was hoping for a theoretical explanation of the constants (including the possibility of alternate universes). Otherwise, the anthropic principle applies, and at some point people look for a better answer than "it just is". Remember, I consider my self to be religious (just not particularly observant -- WARNING POTENTIAL HYPOCRISY ALERT), so I personally do believe in G-d. As I said, I'm looking at Him as the Prime Cause only, not as an interventionist.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Matthew Patterson on 10/26/2001; 5:28 PM >Otherwise, the anthropic principle applies, and at some point people >look for a better answer than "it just is". Remember, I consider my >self to be religious (just not particularly observant -- WARNING >POTENTIAL HYPOCRISY ALERT), so I personally do believe in G-d. As I >said, I'm looking at Him as the Prime Cause only, not as an >interventionist. Well, I think Morgan's question was, what happens if science should come up with a different Prime Cause? If you're saying "God did it" because we don't have a way to explain how it happened yet, what happens to that argument when we *do* find a way to explain it? _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 10/26/2001; 11:43 PM If something better comes along, then I abandon my theory of G-d as the Prime Cause. He's still there, though, still just watching. That's assuming, of course, that it's not "turtles all the way down".
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 10/30/2001; 11:28 AM The New York Times today has an aarticle about the rise and fall of sciences in the Islamic world, and a leading questions is why did Muslim societies got from far ahead of the West on science issues to extremely far behind. There are a number of reasons, but one reason kind of highlights exactly what I was talking about with what happens when you reject naturalism and start saying that God can intervene in the universe any time He pleases.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 11/2/2001; 8:44 PM Continuing to beat this dead horse, I agree with the Muslims. If you're going to enter a supernatural being into your science, you must abandon cause and effect as science understands it. Therefore, you must abandon science. I bring this up in the context of this great new article on prayer in the Skeptic's Dictionary, which points out: Targ's study of the effectiveness of prayer on healing seems to be self-refuting. That is, if God were to answer prayers and heal some patients but not others, depending upon which patients had prayers said for them, then we could never know whether anything occurred due to natural causes or due to divine intervention. No causal study could rule out the possibility that its results were not due directly to God interfering with the course of nature. In short, it would be pointless to do causal studies, and hence, pointless to study whether prayer is effective in healing. That logic invalidates any so-called science that incoporates the existence of a supernatural being that can perform miracles. This is why science is traditionally neutral on the existence or non-existence of God. God is not a testable construct. I don't so much mind the religious people who are honestly trying to reintroduce religion into public schools, although I will oppose them. But this "Creationism is an alternative scientific theory" stuff is, in my opinion, dishonorable.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 11/2/2001; 9:12 PM At 09:00 PM 11/2/2001 -0500, Mark Morgan wrote: >Targ's study of the effectiveness of prayer on healing seems to be >self-refuting. That is, if God were to answer prayers and heal some >patients but not others, depending upon which patients had prayers said >for them, then we could never know whether anything occurred due to >natural causes or due to divine intervention. No causal study could rule >out the possibility that its results were not due directly to God >interfering with the course of nature. In short, it would be pointless to >do causal studies, and hence, pointless to study whether prayer is >effective in healing. > >That logic invalidates any so-called science that incoporates the >existence of a supernatural being that can perform miracles. This is why >science is traditionally neutral on the existence or non-existence of God. >God is not a testable construct. This argument has always seemed to me to be somewhat tautological. Here's my new religious belief -- if you have cancer, all you have to do is say "Supercalifragilistic" 3 times and God will intervene to cure your cancer. Now if we run a couple studies and find that Supercalifragilians are 5 times more likely to have their cancers go into remission vs. those heathen nonbelievers, I think that would be pretty good proof of the divinity of Mary Poppins. Heck, suppose we ran a study of atheists, Christians and Muslims and found, say that, atheist and prayerful Christians had similar rates of cancer remissions, but the Muslims have five times better rates. Maybe you'd still be skeptical, but if somebody repeated that a few times I'd be reading the Koran. I can think of dozens of ways that God could be inferred from empirical evidence. The real problem being that if God exists, he doesn't choose to reveal himself in a manner that is empirically testable (which, for me, is largely the same thing as saying God doesn't exist).
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Jason Sowder on 9/21/2002; 10:07 PM To Whom It May Concern, I will not use a lengthy misdirected flying-off-on-many-tangents answer. This will be straight and to the point. God made all things. He has a complete book to outline everything you needed to know and more. I could sit here and blow holes in all the information that seems to simulate the miss-truth of the Big Bang Theory, The Darwin Theory..oops I mean the Neo-Darwin Theory (this was changed recently as the Darwin Theory had so many holes blown in it had to be reconstructed using a whole new set of unsubstantial laws of science). One last thing the whole idea of evolution is based on Radiocarbon dating and sometimes Carbon14 dating. Did you all know that there are many cases that have proven that the whole "dating" thing is a fallacy? For instance scientists have sent lava formations from Mt. St. Helens which we all know for a fact blew up on May 18th 1980. When this stuff was radiocarbon dated it returned a date several hundred of thousands of years old! OOPS! Looks like when we know an exact date of a mass the "dating game" simply does not work. But always seems to work on all things that have undetermined dates of creation! So if this "dating game" does not work, then all the dates and times of all things that were thought to have exact date of creation really in fact are "all over the map", thereby invalidating the whole thing! Again God created all things and some day you ALL will have the great pleasure of meeting him. I pray that all of you "hecklers" of the Lord Jesus Christ will start a personal relationship with him. God gave his only son for you because he knew we were prone to sin. How can you deny that? God bless you all.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 9/22/2002; 2:02 AM For instance scientists have sent lava formations from Mt. St. Helens which we all know for a fact blew up on May 18th 1980. When this stuff was radiocarbon dated it returned a date several hundred of thousands of years old! And shall we start poking holes in your so-called evidence? Nobody would use radiocarbon dating to measure lava. Radiocarbon dating is only useful for ORGANIC MATERIAL. If your so-called evidence is that good, then it's not even worth it.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 9/22/2002; 11:10 AM Jason! Welcome to Unreason. Don't let those of us (including me) who disagree with creationism scare you off--everyone's welcome here as long as they don't indulge in namecalling and you seem to be off to a good start on that end. 67 messages and this thread took forever to download, even over DSL. I can't imagine how painful this would be to read on dialup. Let's hear it for the mailing list, hmmm? I despair anyone trying to make heads or tails out of this thread. Regarding the Mt. St. Helen's "counter-evidence": Scott, he's referring to a creationist argument about coal bed formation and the age of the Earth--the scientific rebuttal is over at talk.orgins archive, as is usually the case.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 9/22/2002; 2:02 PM Mark, I checked the link you referred to. It talks about the rate of peat accumulation. Nothing about radiocarbon dating. You'll note that Jason specifically referred to radiocarbon dating of lava formations.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 9/22/2002; 2:22 PM I suspect that Jason is repeating something he has read third hand, but I see your point. It was the only citation for Mt. St. Helens at T.O. I could find. Jason, could you clarify what you mean?
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 9/22/2002; 5:22 PM At 11:23 PM 9/21/2002 -0400, Jason Sowder wrote: One last thing the whole idea of evolution is based on Radiocarbon dating and sometimes Carbon14 dating. I'm not sure if Mark wants the site turned into a lecture on evolution, but the above claims is false and displays an elementary ignorance of Darwinian evolutionary theories. The "whole idea of evolution" was conceived and elucidated by Darwin and others long before carbon-based dating techniques were invented.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 9/22/2002; 5:52 PM There are several misunderstandings in Jason's original post, but I'm waiting for him to respond before going much further. I'm not sure what I could provide for learning about evolution that some time with a good biology textbook or some time at talkorigins couldn't do better. I suppose if I didn't want a debate on evolution I wouldn't have brought the subject up in the first place, but after almost seventy messages in this thread I'm not sure if we're not just talking in circles by now.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Vincent A. Ettari, PE on 11/11/2002; 4:03 AM I am somewhat surprised to find derogatory remarks about myself. It has always been my view that scientific and philosophical discussions must be devoid of negative emotions towards thse who hold alternative opinions. Apparently, my detractors do not hold to such a lofy type of science. What is interesting to also note is that Robert Jastrow actually admitted that the Big Bang Cosmology is really a Creationist Model. In his article in Reader's Digest, he concluded with some brief words which I will paraphrase here. "And the astronomer, after climbed the peaks of scientific investigation, reached the top of the mountain, only to find a band of theologians have been there all along." The Big Bang cosmology postulates that some 10 or so billion years ago, the Universe was created out of nothing. That it exploded into existence. Of course, under the processes of nature, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Consequently, even with this model, an outside source of energy and matter is still required. And so, we still come back to the open postulate of Scripture that, "In the beginning, God created..."
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Vincent A. Ettari, PE on 11/11/2002; 4:15 AM Please note that when I used the phrase "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" I was fully cogniscent that matter and energy are equilivant. So, lest someone introduce the ridiculous answer that the "matter formed from cooling energy" let me reiterate the statement. Matter and energy, being equilivants, cannot be created nor destroyed. As the First Law of Thermodynamics goes, the quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The first law also requires that all matter reach their lowest energy state (Enthalpy). The second law requires that all available energy is ultimately becoming unavailable as it is used up by natural processes (Entropy). In the physical realm, the corrolorary is that matter seeks its most random state. Since an expanded universe is both the lowest energy state possible as well as the highest entropy state, it is axiomatic that the universe had a definitive beginning. Any idea that repeated big bangs can occur after a big contraction run contrary to both laws of physics. Therefore, we are left with the only viable postulate, to wit, that God energized the universe at some time in the past and that the energy/matter continuium is spreading out as the universe drives toward a state of low energy (the drive to enthalpy) and maximum randomness (the drive to entropy). Sounds like a Creationist Model to me, even if it places the creative event billions of years in the past.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 11/11/2002; 4:35 PM Nice try, but current thinking is that the current space-time (and release of mass/energy) was caused by the universe (such as it was) falling into a lower energy state from a higher "metatstable" state. I'd draw a picture, but I doubt it would work well. Consider an energy potential shaped like a sombrero. Consider a ball in a small depression at the top of that sombrero, and it's gravitational potential. However, it is only in a LOCAL minimum state. This state is metastable, because it can be disturbed quite easily, and drop into a state of much lower potential. Indeed, if this were a quantum system we were discussing, there would be a significant probability of tunnelling through the local barriers. Remember, the Heisenberg equeation (delta)E(delta)t >= h-bar, means that it would be fairly easy for the system to borrow enough energy to go over the energy barrier. In addition, there is a theory that the universe evolved out of literally nothing, that it is a vacuum fluctuation. Because the net effect of all the gravitational energy in the universe is negative, the total net energy of the universe could be awfully close to zero. If the Universe is nothing but a quantum fluctuation gone out of hand, the Heisenberg relation described above puts an upper limit on the length of time the universe can exist. Assuming an energy of essentially zero, then (delta)t could be a hell of a long time.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Vincent A. Ettari, PE on 11/14/2002; 2:52 AM In the world of engineering, we must confine ourselves to science facts. We cannot delve into flights of fancy. Were I to design structures in the same way that you practice science, my designs would fail and my engineering license would be quickly revoked. Little children sing and rhapsodize about such nonsensical things as cows jumping over the moon. But, when we grow up, we learn that, in the real world, cows do not jump over the moon, dishes do not run away with spoons, and the matter-energy continuum of the universe did not create itself out of nothing. It is a Law of Science that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. You may theorize to the contrary. However, at the end of the day, the Laws of Science prevail and your theories must bow before law. Let us now examine your theories. In your first paragraph, you state: "...current thinking is that the current space-time (and release of mass/energy) was caused by the universe (such as it was) falling into a lower energy state from a higher "metatstable" state." However, please refer to the following statement which I made: "Please note that when I used the phrase "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" I was fully cognoscenti that matter and energy are equilivant. So, lest someone introduce the ridiculous answer that the "matter formed from cooling energy" let me reiterate the statement. Matter and energy, being equilivants, cannot be created nor destroyed. As the First Law of Thermodynamics goes, the quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The first law also requires that all matter reach their lowest energy state (Enthalpy)." Yet, this is exactly what you did. Your phrase "falling into a lower energy state" is simply a way of saying the word "cooled". You simple push the origin of the universe back another step, to wit, to "a higher "metatstable" state." Unfortunately for your hypothesis, you still have not shown that the matter-energy continuum could be created out of nothing. You simply assumed the existence of a higher "metastable state". How matter and energy in such a "higher metastable state" came into existence remains unexplained in your theory. Why? Well, for the obvious fact that under the laws of science, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Hence, you have actually proved the absolute need of a creator to create the "higher metastable state" which you postulate and depend on in your model. In your third paragraph, you start off with the following phrase: "if this were a quantum system we were discussing". But it is not. So, the rhapsodizing which follows is meaningless. If the proposition is false, the conclusions must also be false. Finally, there is your third postulate, to wit: "In addition, there is a theory that the universe evolved out of literally nothing, that it is a vacuum fluctuation." I do hope you never take to practicing engineering. The First Law of Thermodynamics (I took 3 credit hours of Thermodynamics at Manhattan College School of Engineering) simple and clearly states that Matter and Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I have never seen an energy system where the equation "Matter/Energy In + Matter/Energy Present = Matter/Energy Out + Matter/Energy Left". Millions of billions of electrical, hydraulic, and mechanical systems, operating billions of times since 1850, have failed to show any deviation from this simply equation of thermodynamics. That fact remains that matter and energy (i.e., the universe) cannot simply pop of nothingness. If it could, such an effect would have been observed by now in one of the hundreds of billions of energy, fluid, and gas systems in operation around the globe. Once I was up late at night, having just finished the design of a building. I flipped on the tube and watched a talk show which had three "new-agers" and a Roman Catholic Priest. On the table before the host was a variety of crystals. The "new-Agers" were trying to convince the audience that these crystals could magnify the powers of the universe and bring healing to those who engaged in stroking the rocks. One of the New-Agers, a female, then attempted to justify her position in the following manner. She stated (quite incorrectly, of course) that transistor radios used their crystal transistors to magnify energy and power. Her reasoning was that since the crystals of the transistor radio can magnify power (which is incorrect, of course), her belief that the crystals on the table could also magnify power was justified. Of course, such a position was simply nonsense. The crystals of transistors do not magnify power. They magnify signals at the expense of power. They consume the power in the batteries to step up the amplification of signals so that those signals can become audible. Were the crystals able to magnify power, transistor radios would produce live, fully charged batteries. Rather, true to the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, they produce dead batteries. Your theory that a statistical fluctuation in a vacuum can form all of the matter and energy in the universe is as flawed as her theory that crystals can amplify power. If you choose to write again, please confine yourself to discussions based on the known laws of nature. I have very little tolerance for people who make up theories to bolster still other theories. In Disney cartoons, I have seen talking dogs and foxes. But, in real life, I have never encountered a fox or a dog which could talk. So, let us confine our dissertations to what we know to be real, not to Disney like fantasy.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Vincent A. Ettari, PE on 11/14/2002; 3:02 AM Please note, the following sentence contains an error. The sentence which reads: I have never seen an energy system where the equation "Matter/Energy In + Matter/Energy Present = Matter/Energy Out + Matter/Energy Left". Should read: I have never seen an energy system where the equation "Matter/Energy In + Matter/Energy Present = Matter/Energy Out + Matter/Energy Left" did not hold true. Also, Scott, I mean no personal anomosity toward your theories. However, in the end, they remain nothing more than working hypothesis which will forever remain non-provable. I believe such hypothesis go by another name, to wit: religion.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 11/14/2002; 9:14 AM At 03:08 AM 11/14/2002 -0500, Vincent wrote: >Your theory that a statistical fluctuation in a vacuum can form all of the >matter and energy in the universe is as flawed as her theory that >crystals can amplify power. > >If you choose to write again, please confine yourself to discussions based >on the known laws of nature. I have very little tolerance for people who >make up theories to bolster still other theories. In Disney cartoons, I >have seen talking dogs and foxes. But, in real life, I have never >encountered a fox or a dog which could talk. So, let us confine our >dissertations to what we know to be real, not to Disney like fantasy. In this matter, you might be better served by spending less of your time making these silly cartoons comparisons and actually reading some works on theoretical physics, especially as related to hypotheses about the early moments of the universe. There is a lot more to physics than the laws of thermodynamics, especially as we approach the beginning of the universe (in fact, the laws of physics don't apply to the beginning of the universe since the Big Bang was not an event occuring in space-time). Quentin Smith has a nice survey of these sort of theories at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 11/14/2002; 9:20 AM At 03:18 AM 11/14/2002 -0500, Vincent wrote: >Also, Scott, I mean no personal anomosity toward your theories. However, >in the end, they remain nothing more than working hypothesis which will >forever remain non-provable. I believe such hypothesis go by another >name, to wit: religion. In fact, these theories are implied by the field equations of General Relativity Theory along with other observations that we have about the universe (such that it appears to be expanding and that the past appears to be finite).
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Vincent A. Ettari, PE on 11/14/2002; 2:22 PM Brian Carnell wrote "There is a lot more to physics than the laws of thermodynamics, especially as we approach the beginning of the universe (in fact, the laws of physics don't apply to the beginning of the universe since the Big Bang was not an event occuring in space-time)." If it does not occur in space and time, it is unknowable. If it is unknowable, it is untestable. If it is untestable, it is not science (which depends on repeatability of test), it is religion.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 11/14/2002; 2:29 PM If I'm wrong because I believe it's possible that the universe is a quantum fluctuation, then I'm in good company. Einstein, Gamow and Pascual Jordan also thought it was quite possible.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 11/14/2002; 4:00 PM At 02:38 PM 11/14/2002 -0500, Vincent wrote: >If it does not occur in space and time, it is unknowable. Not if it has effects that are felt in space time. There are limits to what we can know about the singularity and we cannot know of events before it, but we can have access to information about it based on the universe. > If it is untestable, it is not science (which depends on repeatability > of test), it is religion. By your definition, all descriptions of historical events are a priori religious ones and outside of the realm of science. I strongly disagree with that claim.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 11/14/2002; 5:34 PM Also, Big Bang cosmology *DOES* make predictions that can be repeatably tested. The most notable of said predictions is that there should be a uniform background radiation. Gamow worked the equations of GR, and came up with a value of about 3K for the temperature of this background radiation. Guess what? Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson won a Nobel Prize for detecting said 3K radiation.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Vincent A. Ettari, PE on 11/14/2002; 6:06 PM Brian Carnell wrote "By your definition, all descriptions of historical events are a priori religious ones and outside of the realm of science. I strongly disagree with that claim." But, of course, every university and college in America would be in agreement with me. If history was a science, it would be in the Science Building of every college campus. But, it is not science. Therefore, history is taught in the Liberal Arts Buildings of our colleges. Questions of history are, at best, philosophical. Let me demonstrate. A Ossuary which bears the inscription "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Yeshua" was recently brought to light. Archaeologists have confirmed that the artifact originates from the time of Jesus. Josephus, Euscebius, and Luke inform us that there was a James who was the brother of Yeshua (Jesus) and the son of Joseph. The archaological community is of the opinion that this Ossuary held the bones of the James recorded by these three authors. So, all of the authors were accurate in that they recorded the existence of a James, who was the son of Joseph and brother of Jesus. Now, all three historians also record that this Jesus performed micacles. Josephus, a Jew and former Temple Priest, records that Jesus was such that he could not even be called a man, but was far more than a man, performing many micacles. Luke and Eucebius both recount miracles performed by Jesus. Eucebius even quotes from a letter writted by Jesus to the King of Odessa. So, in light of all of this evidence, do you accept the proposition that there was a man names Jesus who performed numerous miracles and wrote letters to heads of states in response to the letters they sent to him? If not, then you are rejecting the historical evidence and proving my point quite nicely that history is subjective and not scientific. If you reject this evidence, then you show that you will only accept evidence or speculations which agree with your preconceived notions, in which case your championing the Big Bang Cosmology is virtually meaningless since you subjective choose which historical evidence to accept and which to reject. Moreover, you wrote also wrote the following: "In this matter, you might be better served by spending less of your time making these silly cartoons comparisons and actually reading some works on theoretical physics, especially as related to hypotheses about the early moments of the universe. There is a lot more to physics than the laws of thermodynamics, especially as we approach the beginning of the universe (in fact, the laws of physics don't apply to the beginning of the universe since the Big Bang was not an event occuring in space-time)." I practice physics all the time as I design structures, bridges, dams, retaining walls, and the like. I am curious as to what physics your practice during the course of your work. Are you an engineer/scientist, or simply relying on what others have done? If you do not practice physics, I suggest you obtain a Civil Engineering Degree and familiarize yourself with the workings of nature before dismissing my credentials as an engineer/scientist. Unfortunately for theorists, we live in the real world, where scientific law reigns. Speculation about the origins of the universe must forever remain an imaginative pursuit.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Vincent A. Ettari, PE on 11/14/2002; 6:17 PM Scott N wrote: "Also, Big Bang cosmology *DOES* make predictions that can be repeatably tested. The most notable of said predictions is that there should be a uniform background radiation. Gamow worked the equations of GR, and came up with a value of about 3K for the temperature of this background radiation. Guess what? Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson won a Nobel Prize for detecting said 3K radiation." Unfortunately, other theorists have come up with similiar background temperatures of the universe using Steady State Models of the Universe's origin. Since many models predict a 3 degree Kelvin background temperature, the prediction is meaningless. Several models predict such a state of the universe. Why not choose one of the Steady State Models? Moreover, I never said in this string of letters that the Big Bang did not occur. I said that, since it required the formation of energy/matter from nothing, it was a model which still required a creator. As for predictions, Ezekiel and Jeramiah both predicted that Tyre would be scrapped based and thrown into the sea. Even the liberal theologians admit that these two men wrote during the time of Babylon. Yet, the even did not occur until hundreds of years later, when Alexander the Great conquerored this Phoencian city. So, since these two prophets made a prediction which was fulfilled hundreds of years later, do you accept their model of the universe? If not, then, once again, you are selectively choosing the data you like and rejecting the data you do not like. Such a pursuit is not science. It is philosophy or religion.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Vincent A. Ettari, PE on 11/14/2002; 6:35 PM Scott N wrote: "If I'm wrong because I believe it's possible that the universe is a quantum fluctuation, then I'm in good company. Einstein, Gamow and Pascual Jordan also thought it was quite possible." Einstein was one of the scientists who used his talents to develop nuclear weapons. I am glad that you are happy to be in his "good" company. As for me, I prefer the company of peace loving men and woman, not the company of the scientists who developed the weapons of mass destruction which currently threaten the globe.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 11/14/2002; 8:45 PM We're now waaay OT, but do you really believe that if Einstein hadn't been part of the Manhattan project, nukes wouldn't have been developed? Or would you rather live in a world where the Nazis got them first? (Yes, I know, +1 in The Game, but in this case it's actually relevant). Further, you have to look at the historical context. Einstein was a Jew. He fled Nazi Germany because he was a Jew. He believed that the Nazis were trying to develop an atomic bomb. He believed the best way to prevent them from doing that was to develop one first.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 11/14/2002; 8:59 PM At 06:51 PM 11/14/2002 -0500, Vincent wrote: >Einstein was one of the scientists who used his talents to develop nuclear >weapons. Nope, sorry, that is simply not true. Einstein played no role whatsoever in developing nuclear weapons. Einstein's role in the Manhattan Project was limited to a couple letters to Roosevelt (at the behest of Oppenheimer) urging the president to move forward on nuclear weapons development. Einstein believed (incorrectly, it later turned out) that the Nazis had already succeed in splitting the uranium atom and that a successful Nazi nuke program would lead to a fascist-dominated world.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 11/14/2002; 9:10 PM At 06:22 PM 11/14/2002 -0500, Vincent wrote: >Brian Carnell wrote "By your definition, all descriptions of historical >events are a priori religious ones and outside of the realm of science. I >strongly disagree with that claim." > >But, of course, every university and college in America would be in >agreement with me. If history was a science, it would be in the Science >Building of every college campus. But, it is not science. Therefore, >history is taught in the Liberal Arts Buildings of our colleges. You have just argued that there is no such thing as science, just religion and philosophy. Since science itself is an inherently historical endeavor, and if all descriptions of historical events are a priori religious ones, there is no scientific knowledge that is distinct from religion/philosophy. I would, for example, like to take a dataset derived from several controlled experiments and analyze them to test a hypothesis. But this is pointless since my dataset is nothing more than a description of several historical events which we have already agreed are themselves inherently religious/philosophical statements that are not scientific.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Vincent A. Ettari, PE on 11/15/2002; 3:44 AM To Scott: We definitely are off target. And yes, eventually some scientific team would have had the audacity to develope nuclear weapons, anyway. Fortunately, Hitler was defeated before anyone developed nuclear weapons. Their existence did help to bring about the surrender of Japan with little loss of allied lives. Its so unfortunate, however, that we now have to live with their existence.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Vincent A. Ettari, PE on 11/15/2002; 4:07 AM To Brian: Yes, a data set obtained in an experiment becomes an historical record. But what distinguishes science from history is that the experiment is repeatable and the same, or a very similiar, data set should result. History, per se, cannot be repeated. This is the main distinction between history and science. The point which I am trying to get across (and I agree with Scott, we are somewhat off target) is that Cosmology is different from Astronomy. Astronomy provides data which can be confirmed time and time again (each observation becomes, so to speak, a repeat experiment of other observations). However, when we begin to talk about events which are outside of space and time, and for which we theorize the laws of nature were different, we have left the realm of science (which is a pursuit subject to repeat experiment) and entered a different realm. Is that realm history? Well, not really. At least history provides us with witnessed accounts. Those accounts may be reliable or unreliable. But at least we have the musings of someone. But in models on the origin of the universe, we do not have even that. We can merely theorize. And that is why, in my view, such musings are more akin to philosophical or religious thought. What is interesting is that this whole chain is based on the original title, "Can we trust science?" We must remember that science does not ask us to trust it. It asks us to perform the experiments for ourselves so that we may be satisfied that reported results are, in fact, correct results. Science, by definition, is self-correcting. As more data is obtained, hypothesizes are either confirmed or disgarded. Paradigms often change due to new observation and experimental evidence. One such paradigm was that of "ether." Scientists used to believe that the cosmos were filled with ether. Now we view it more as a vaccuum which has numerous energy beams travelling across it. Perhaps, in the future, we will have a different view of what space is. Continued work will either provide data which supports our current view, or causes us to change it. But I do not think it wise to classify the whole cosmos as a chance quantum fluctuation. What we are, who we are, is simple too complex to be a mere chance accident. We need to think better of the world we live in. Otherwise, we may wait for chance to rectify problems which we can solve now.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brian Carnell on 11/15/2002; 9:37 AM At 04:23 AM 11/15/2002 -0500, Vincent wrote: >To Brian: Yes, a data set obtained in an experiment becomes an historical >record. But what distinguishes science from history is that the >experiment is repeatable and the same, or a very similiar, data set should >result. History, per se, cannot be repeated. This is the main >distinction between history and science. If historical events cannot be repeated, then an experiment -- which is a historical event -- cannot be repeated either.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Vincent A. Ettari, PE on 11/15/2002; 7:41 PM However, an experiment is a repeatable historical event. Most events are not, however, repeatable.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: ScottN on 11/16/2002; 3:05 AM But, GR and Big Bang theory have predictions (namely the 3K background radiation), which lead to repeatable experiments which can falsify that theory, namely searching for said 3K radiation. Changing topics, you seem to be of the "Intelligent Design" school of thought ("What we are, who we are, is simple too complex to be a mere chance accident"). Here is some discussion of Intelligent Design. Incidentally, the next two sentences after that seem to be non sequiter. What does rectifying problems have to do with the topic at hand?
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Mark Morgan on 11/16/2002; 3:03 PM Holy crap is this a long thread! Vincent, thank you for mostly keeping on topic despite quite a bit of topic drift earlier in this thread. Scott, Vincent Ettari is a member of Creation Research Society (see also Talk.Origins Archive on the Society.) I think Scott and Vincent have gotten to the heart of the difference between a historical science and history. "Jesus existed and did these things" is a claim of history. We will perhaps never know for sure. "A large object hit the Earth and was the downfall of the dinosaurs" is a claim that can be answered by a historical science, in this case geology. What is the difference? There are testable results of the latter. IF a meteor hit at a certain time THEN that strata rock should show certain elements to be more common than normal. I can perform an experiment that tests if that is true. So can you. So can anyone with the proper equipment and training, of any religious faith or non-faith, of any gender, anywhere in the world. This leads to why statements about the Big Bang are not statements of faith or religion, because they lead to testable results. IF there was a Big Bang THEN there is a certain kind of background radiation. And Lo! It was there. Anybody can test to see if it's there. Big Bang cosmology leads to a theory that produces testable results, or it is not a science. Period. And when the tests seem to fail, the theory must change to adapt to it. That does not mean tossing the whole theory out immediately but instead improving it to make it match reality. In this fashion, even a theory about the very beginning of the universe can be put on just as solid a ground as anything. And for the record, I am still infuriated by Vos Savant answering a question about politics and evolutionary biology with a complete non-sequiter about Big Bang cosmology!
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Brad Bretzin on 1/28/2003; 6:26 PM At the risk of extending this thread - let me first commend you all on mostly a very interesting discussion and for the most part very on topic even in those times when philosophy or current events became too inviting not to include. and for the record, at the beginning of this thread, Mark, I was just as infuriated with you for the way you characterized Marilyn's trivializing a connection between politics, evolutionary biology, and religion (and/or faith) as you seem to still be with her. Let me just say - were we to tackle much of your discussions using the power of the scientific method (which in many cases you did especially when pointing to "some" scientific sources) to the Kansas Board of Education's decision. It is unfortunate your view was " abandonment of science in favor of ignorance" when this entire thread support's their decision. To not allow the inconsistencies and outright fallacies of evolutionary biology to be subject to proper scrutiny and be tested against current data is tantamount to Vos Savant's quote about the "Big Bang Theory" - accepting it based on "Faith" and not testable results. Well, even if you won't accept it there is much about Biblical Creation Events which are better supported by current data than that data supports Evolution. And stereotyping all people's belief in religion as "blind faith" is actually more ignorant than being willing to test their theories and arguments. I am not interested in revisiting your previous discussions which devolved into statements like "we can define (or redefine) God so that He can meet the crireria we determine as valid. I am challenging your recent discussion on History and Science into a true interdisciplinary investigation of the "MANUSCRIPT" evidence, the ARCHEOLOGICAL evidence, the documented "PROPHECY" accuracy, and the"sciences of STATISTICAL PROBABILITY" as an objective means of discussion. It is irrelevent that this type of investigation may be of no interest to you - just as the arguments of the Big Bang Theory may be of no interest to someone else - we can both agree that it is not appropriate for Marilyn Vos Savant to disregard, or regard, these concepts as mere "Faith" - yet in that respect their relationship is no-longer "non-sequitar" (as they may relate to each other as potential origin theories - not as Vos Savant has attempted to categorize them) We should trust the SCIENCE!!!!
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Bob Grumman on 11/5/2004; 9:08 AM About Marilyn Vos Savant, she's not very good on math puzzles, either. She once argued that if there are three people on stage and one of them is hiding a teddy bear or whatever behind his back, and a person in the audience will get a prize for guessing who has the teddy bear and wrongly guesses A, the next person to guess will have a better than fifty-fifty chance of guessing right by following some procedure. I think it was changing his guess from what it was before the first person's wrong guess but I can't remember. Who knows, maybe I have it wrong. Can anyone remember this problem, or something like it, from her column? --Bob G.
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Seth Dillingham on 11/5/2004; 11:34 AM On 11/5/04, Bob Grumman said: >Can anyone remember this problem, or something like it, from her >column? I remember it, and she was absolutely right. You don't have the details exactly right, though. It works like this: you pick one of the people (your choice is completely random), and the person who hid the teddy bear then tells one of the other two to reveal her empty hands (the original hider always picks a person *without* a teddy bear, to tell them to reveal the empty hands). You then have the choice of sticking with your original guess, or switching to the remaining person who might be holding the teddy bear. (I've been working on my own version of this same puzzle (and an explanation of how it works) for a little while now, and am going to post it on my own site.) Shoot, I know I'm going to regret this, but... her point was that if you pick the remaining person instead of sticking with your original guess, you have a 2/3 chance of being right, but only a 1/3 chance of being right if you stick with your original guess. Now I'm really going to ruin my own puzzle for those few who read both this site and my own, but... this is called the "Monty Hall Problem," because it's based on Let's Make a Deal. I also know how to prove that she was right. However, she didn't come up with this puzzle herself, she was simply rehashing something that had been going around in the puzzle communities for decades. Seth
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Bob Grumman on 11/21/2004; 11:02 PM I just saw your reply to my query about the teddy-bear hiders while randomly following my name around the Internet, Seth. Your 2/3 made me see that I am wrong. I diagrammed it. I see mathematically why you and the columnist are right, but don't understand it. A weird paradox. Oops, now I do. There's a 2/3rds chance that any pair of choices is right. So once one choice in a pair is shown to be wrong, the pair continues to have the same 2/3rds chance of being right, but is now only one choice. But this can only happen after a pair has been designated, which is what makes it confusing. It would still work, wouldn't it, if it were a pea and three shells, and the shell man hid the pea under one shell, pushed one shell away from the other two, and removed one of the paired shells he knew didn't have a pea under it. You could make a first guess that would be 67% likely to be right by guessing the remaining shell of the paired shells. I feel very stupid. I was sure vos Savant was wrong about another problem I can't remember at all. Thanks for the response. --Bob Grumman
RE: Should We Trust Science? By: Seth Dillingham on 11/22/2004; 10:28 AM On 11/21/04, Bob Grumman said: >I feel very stupid. I was sure von Savant or whatever her name is >was wrong about another problem I can't remember at all. Don't feel stupid. A lot of very smart mathematicians thought this was a math problem, and made a lot of noise about how wrong she (vos Savant) was. The related puzzle on my site is actually designed to make vS's a littel easier to understand. I've been told by a few people that it helped to "unconfuse them" a little about the original puzzle. Seth
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|