I think that the reparations and anti-discrimination industry has gone way too far. When everyone claims to be discriminated against, it becomes impossible to tell which cases are real.
One thing that is probably under-appreciated by the general public is that the world of science has its share of arrogant posturing, ego-driven disputes, misunderstandings, and small personnel differences blown up into significant disagreements.
In my (short) experience studying at a research university, I didn't see such things every day. But there were people who told stories...
Does this affect Ben Stein's central thesis? I don't know.
When you boil the idea of creation down to its essentials, you are left with one of two choices. Both ID and "random" design, ultimately either something can spring from nothing or time is not remotely as we think it is. Both of those choices seem equally ridiculous and equally unprovable on their faces, so it matters little from a practical standpoint which you choose.
I, and many people the world over, choose to believe that we are not here through the mechanism of sheer chance. Perhaps that is nothing more than hubris, an unwillingness to accept that the entirety of human civilization is precisely as significant in the big scheme of things, no more and no less, than the pattern of sand grains in an anthill on my lawn. You may believe otherwise, and you are welcome to.
Regardless, there seems to be no way *so far* to even gather evidence to support or disprove EITHER hypothesis. And that, I think, is the kernel of the whole argument and why I have to come down on the side of academia on this subject. As Kevin pointed out, the whole point of the scientific method is to restrict itself to things that can be measured and quantified, as those are the only things that can ultimately be proven or disproven. Sciences require real world facts to hang their logic on. Logic alone, no matter how rigorous, can do nothing to advance it.
In short, the ID vs. Sheer Chance debate belongs in the Philosophy Dept., NOT the Science Dept. And that has nothing to do with which religion you believe in, or whether you believe in one at all. It has to do with the definition of "Science".
In short, the ID vs. Sheer Chance debate belongs in the Philosophy Dept., NOT the Science Dept. And that has nothing to do with which religion you believe in, or whether you believe in one at all.
PRECISELY!
And what don't we (formally) teach in primary or secondary school?
PHILOSOPHY
but it is taught informally.
Thank you, Grumpy. You just gave me the key to an essay I've been working on for over a month and couldn't finish.
You're off the mark, unfortunately. Try claiming you're a scientist who believes in intelligent design, and watch your career suddenly implode.
Cartoons aside, anyone who believes in God (except for Muslims, of course) are met with torches and pitchforks by the American left, the American media, and a good portion of the Republican party, which simply panders to us like a TB patient who keeps coughing near the food.
Regarding the particular fiasco of which you speak, I don't support liars or peddlers of creative hysteria, and neither would anyone I consider a friend.
My one anecdote on the subject is interesting. My labmate, who is a gifted researcher (the bastard proved my own theorem that I had struggled with for a couple months) and also a typical left of center democrat who is not anti-business exactly, but who does hop on the "big oil is evil" bandwagon behaved interestingly one time. His parents are both professors at the University of Wisconsin, and his wife who was an EE student at UW (Washington, not Wisconsin, where we all go to school) once told me that handguns are only for killing people.
There's the background, here's the incident: some department at UW (Washington) announced a talk about ID. My lab mate was absolutely up in arms about it, almost frothing at the mouth. The day of the event came, we all sat down, and my buddy was highly on edge. Cards were handed out on which we could write down questions. My labmate was immediately and furiously scribbling down hostile questions on his card. I told him to settle down, and to wait to see what this guy had to say before he went ballistic. Didn't help.
Then the man came out and was very reasonable, describing himself as a friendly critic of ID. Turns out all he was here to do was to give a history of the ID movement and to talk about what exactly is meant by ID. Totally took the wind out of my labmate's sails, but left his indelible initial reaction on me for all time.
How 'bout them apples? I suspect that this is not uncommon in academia.
You're off the mark, unfortunately. Try claiming you're a scientist who believes in intelligent design, and watch your career suddenly implode.
Try claiming you're a priest who doesn't believe in a Divine Being, and watch your career implode faster.
If you're a scientist, and religious, that's one thing. I know many who are.
But "Intelligent Design" was started as a way to get Creationism into schools - as was demonstrated in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District lawsuit - where the textbook company admitted that originally they merely "seached and replaced" "creationism" with "Intelligent Design".
ID is not science, and any scientist who professes a belief in it, either doesn't understand ID, or more dangerously, doesn't understand science.
That's not to claim that scientists are perfect, but to fail something basic to the job, say, the root-word of their job description?
"I suspect that this is not uncommon in academia."
It is common everywhere. It is called "jumping to conclusions".
Your labmate knew the subject, but not the content. He jumped to conclusions about what the content would be and reacted to his conclusions. He should have known better.
I understood the point you were making, but I (somewhat) disagree with it.
First, there's a lot of "anonymous" commenters - telling you apart is difficult! From the tone of your first paragraph, it appeared implicit that you were a scientist with leanings towards ID.
The statement "anyone who believes in God (except for Muslims, of course) are met with torches and pitchforks by the American left, the American media, and a good portion of the Republican party, which simply panders to us like a TB patient who keeps coughing near the food." added to that implication.
Where I disagree with you is in the blanket coverage of your condemnation. A lot of people on the Left are (or believe themselves to be - there's a question of semantics here I won't go into) Christian. The American media only goes after the ones outside what they consider "the mainstream." You know - the ones who don't actually try to practice the tenets of their religion.
And the Republicans are much the same.
If you are a fundamentalist of any stripe, however (excluding Muslim, as noted) you are definitely viewed by the Left and by the Media much as proud gun owners are - as some strange and dangerous alien creature.
Regardless, this is a discussion (well, before it turned into an "Airplane II" retrospective) of "intelligent design" and science, and the fact remains, GrumpyOldFart is correct: ID is philosophy, not science.
You are a very decent person, Kevin, and your comment reminds me of that.
In examining what science brings to the table, one can conclude that God exists (theism), that God does not exist (atheism), or that the evidence is inconclusive (agnosticism).
Therefore, I would argue that intelligent design is less a philosophy than it is just one in three conclusions one can draw from science.
Allow me to anticipate claims that science does not attempt to answer those questions by yielding the floor to the many, many scientists who use their scientific findings to claim emphatically that there is no God. If they use science to claim there is no God, I likewise must be allowed to use science to proclaim God's existence.
"Allow me to anticipate claims that science does not attempt to answer those questions by yielding the floor to the many, many scientists who use their scientific findings to claim emphatically that there is no God. If they use science to claim there is no God, I likewise must be allowed to use science to proclaim God's existence."
And THAT has no place in a science classroom either, for precisely the same reasons. 'Scientists' who "use science to proclaim that there is no God" are quite correct in the place they typically start from, which is "there can be found no objective, verifiable evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, and a huge mass of evidence that things occur due to the interplay of natural forces, with no Gods required." That is absolutely 100% true. But as has been noted many times before, absence of proof does not equal proof of absence. Therefore the lack of direct, verifiable, objective evidence does precisely ZILCH-POINT-SQUAT to advance the proving or disproving of the existence of a creator/supreme being/what have you.
And it works exactly the same in reverse, which was my original point. Science is unable to find a single piece of evidence to refute the existence of a superior entity capable of creating a universe, which contributes precisely zero to the debate on whether or not such exists. And THAT is why neither belongs in a science class. It has nothing at all to do with religion, pro or con. It has to do with the *verifiable fact* that neither argument contributes (or indeed CAN contribute) a single thing to *actually resolving the question*.
THAT's why it's not science. Even things that are on the fringe edges, the "crazy theories" of science, have provision for the *POSSIBILITY* of the theory being tested to discern the truth. The "Sheer Chance vs. ID" debate does not, nor does it show any prospect of having possible testing methods in the future. When and if it DOES, *then* will be the time for it to take its place among the nutball theories at the cutting edge of science.
On a final note, lest the "nutball theories" comment offend or confuse anyone, I would like to point out that Alfred Wegener's theory of plate tectonics was one of those "nutball theories" for right around half a century before it was found to, in fact, be remarkably accurate. "Nutball" is a measure of the *perception* of a theory's merits, not a measure of those merits themselves.
Grumpy, you are absolutely 100% spot-on. You wrote:
"...there can be found no objective, verifiable evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, and a huge mass of evidence that things occur due to the interplay of natural forces, with no Gods required."
When science responds with, "Religion? That's not our department," I find that both credible and honorable. What they cannot do is use science as an arm of the ACLU to remove all mention of God from the marketplace of ideas, and then prohibit those who believe in God from mentioning science and God in the same breath, because that's "not fair" somehow.
Both you and Kevin are quite right, if I understand you saying that it's frankly not the business of science to be mucking around with religion.
Both you and Kevin are quite right, if I understand you saying that it's frankly not the business of science to be mucking around with religion.
And vice-versa.
To quote LabRat from the previous comment thread on this topic:
You know, PZ Meyers drives me NUTS, the same way that Dawkins does. The guy has an intellect like a diamond-edged buzzsaw, but he allows a few idiots to reinforce his entire bigoted, ill-thought position on religion.
So I'm forced to side with him, against Ben Stein, who I used to like a lot.
The anti-theists irritate me every bit as much as the anti-Darwinists.
Dawkins and his band of windmill lancers are every bit as in error when they claim to have used science to dispose of God as any IDer is when he claims his "intelligent design" is a scientific theory. It's not a matter of who invoked it first, they're both equally just-flat-wrong and for the same reasons.
They (the Dawkins Light Brigade) are also guilty of reinforcing the popular fundamentalist perception that scientists have replaced God with a "religion" of science. It's not true, as it can't be done- science is morally and metaphysically sterile- but the same fundamental error is being made. On the flip side of the issue, you could also note that the rock-ribbed creationists are doing rather a disservice to God in essentially drawing the position that either God's inscrutable creation must be the end point of all understanding of the natural world, or God has no relevance to mankind at all.
"The anti-theists irritate me every bit as much as the anti-Darwinists."
The more I read you, Kevin, the better I like you.
"On the flip side of the issue, you could also note that the rock-ribbed creationists are doing rather a disservice to God in essentially drawing the position that either God's inscrutable creation must be the end point of all understanding of the natural world, or God has no relevance to mankind at all."
LabRat, you're absolutely right. Not only are they doing a disservice to God, they apparently don't pay careful attention to Scripture. My copy reads, "The fear of the Lord is the *beginning* of wisdom." I know many here don't believe in Scripture, but I think it's pretty telling when your statement and the Bible match up quite nicely! It sounds like we're all on the same side of this Ben Stein issue.
That's something I've always had trouble with, when dealing with religious zealots. They don't seem to understand the idea that "The fear of the Lord is the *beginning* of wisdom" is NOT equivalent to "The fear of the Lord is the SUM OF ALL wisdom."
But to be fair, I must agree with you that the "there is no objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of God, therefore Occam's Razor *proves* there is no such thing as God." BS. Occam's Razor cannot *prove* anything, nor can be counted as *actual evidence* for or against anything. Occam's Razor is a rough, often useful, guide to critical thinking on a subject, and is not capable of ever becoming any more than that.
The ideology behind Occam's Razor's application to religion is basically that, substantively, any creator must be at least as or more complicated than its creation. Complexity here refers to explanatory background, not existentialism (since we could just well argue that God is incredibly simple and merely builds complex things). God does not offer, by way of explanation, a solution to the "where everything began" problem that is any less complex or convoluted as simply supposing that all of "creation" was there to begin with.
It simply goes back to "well, then where did God come from?" I have to agree with the simple assertion that if you state God created himself or was always there that you accomplish nothing - you can simply just state that the universe was always here or brought itself into existence.
This should not be misread as the search for the simplest solution, however. For this case, it simply states that offering God as an explanation does not, in fact, serve any purpose AS an explanation. I do find that Dawkins is absolutely batshit-crazy fanatical in his misapplication of the scientific method - let's call it the difference between the scientific method and Science.
Honestly, as a lifelong atheist, the concept of believing in a God really is alien and a bit confusing to me. What I'm seeing is a lot of amalgamations behind well-evidenced scientific theory and prior religious beliefs on here, which seems a bit strange when you consider the domain of scientific theory is expanding and the one of religion seems to be shrinking. Personally, I'd find this indicative of something - it looks a hell of a lot like the usual, "Well, science can't explain THAT, therefore it's God!" The only issue there is that eventually it does seem to explain it. So far it appears to have only stopped short of the metaphysical and philosophical, where a lot of the discussion has no pragmatic value and asks questions without meaning (being able to put a "why" into a grammatically correct sentence does not make it a logistically valid question).
"Honestly, as a lifelong atheist, the concept of believing in a God really is alien and a bit confusing to me."
I think you're saying you understand the concept of God, but why people choose to believe is somewhat foreign. Did I understand correctly?
*If I'm misinterpreting a rhetorical statement as an invitation to talk, I apologize. I also respect and value Kevin too much to turn this thread into a pulpit, so I assume someone will tell me to go away if that happens.
Occam's razor is appropriate for a philosophical quest to power over the natural world. It is not appropriate for a philosophical exploration into ultimate meaning, standards of right and wrong, or purpose.
That's how I can be both a Christian and a scientist.
"I think you're saying you understand the concept of God, but why people choose to believe is somewhat foreign. Did I understand correctly?"
No, I mean that I do not understand the concept. It is an application that has no bearing and makes no sense practically, logistically, or in any other form of interpretation I can take. Believing is actually very simple to understand, however. I have principles I believe in, and I have reached my belief in these by analysis and determination that these are valid and sound principles. These are principles that make me happy and which I and I believe others can live by. Some of them embody thousands of years of human wisdom, some of which was reached religiously, most of which was not. On the other hand, as I stated, this belief comes from analysis.
I believe in capitalism and I believe in the right to arm myself. I believe in reciprocity in kindness. I believe in many of the same things you believe in, and this is not, I hope, the only reason we get along. I believe that, as a programmer, navigation of a linked list data structure is faster by forward pointer than it is by index.
All of these "beliefs," however, I am willing to change, given new information and evidence. I became disenfranchised with philosophy (and liberalism, for that matter) when I realized that the things I was arguing were hypothetical and founded more on the concept that they could be debated and NOT disproved rather than being based on something tangible and which could be given evidence for.
The creator does not solve any problems I have encountered. Scientific inquiry hasn't solved many, either, but it's the one of the two which has an expanding field of "things explained," while religion and belief has the shrinking one. When the only things the creator apparently solves fall under that philosophical bearing - that bearing under the hypothetical where debaters can simply state, "well, science can't touch here," - then I simply disregard the creator as a credible theory. I feel that we've reached that point.
--
"Occam's razor is appropriate for a philosophical quest to power over the natural world. It is not appropriate for a philosophical exploration into ultimate meaning, standards of right and wrong, or purpose.
That's how I can be both a Christian and a scientist."
And yet you seem to completely and totally miss the application thereof for this topic. I have stated the issues with philosophical bearings and they are well-known. Advancing the idea of a creator does not offer explanation into creation. Advancing the idea that you are a computer simulation does not offer explanation, either. Neither even addresses the scope of the problem, which is simply an explanation of what's around you to begin with. To advance the idea of a creator or a simulator entirely requires that you THEN EXPLAIN THE CREATOR. This is how Occam's Razor applies. Advancing the general sterility of the scientific method as a faltering point of this simple failure in a creator as an explanation does not serve your point.
The fact that you must constantly push back the boundary of what realm of explanation a creator supposedly solves should tell you that this is indicative of an issue inherent to that idea (damn, was that alliterative?). I am not advancing Occam's Razor as a hard-and-fast rule and you will never see anyone doing it as such, so let me put this in terms that can be viewed that way. Throw out Occam and his sharp things.
If the question is, "Where did this come from?"
And the answer requires the same explanation...
...the answer does not address the question.
It adds an unnecessary layer of no pragmatic value. It has only philosophical value, and I want to make it very clear that that, in and of itself, is not something on which you wish to rationally argue. Philosophical discussion is largely semantical and - this is the crux - HYPOTHETICAL.
"Duuuude, what if what I see as blue is really green?"
That is your philosophical basis. It's the average amateur philosopher's ideological advancement (and the fact that the field considers itself rigorous in its labeling and study of these ideas should also be indicative of something) of a rational question. It isn't one.
How does a creator approach the issues of "ultimate meaning, standards of right and wrong, or purpose?" The Greeks had a philosophical idea of "essence," and what you list are hypothetical manifestations thereof. You encompass "Right" and you encompass "Wrong," but your definition thereof depends entirely on the concept of the creator, which is the very point you're trying to address. This is the very question.
By all means, I would love for someone to argue how a creator actually ADDRESSES these issues, or that of the entire universe (or creation, what have you), for that matter. Then tell me how that is any less complex or requires any less explanation than the very thing we already have evidence of.
Grumpy, I'm confused. Why do you keep presenting the option of chance vs. ID? It isn't chance; the opposition to ID is a very powerful feedback engine. It doesn't defy entropy, because entropy is a law of thermodynamics and not of biology - but it is, indeed, a Maxwell's Demon.
Evolution does have a scientific basis - it is testable, it has been tested. Insofar as everything else in the universe behaves as we expect it - i/e, God didn't plant fossils to trick us - then evolution is as heavily tested and proven as gravity.
And that is the whole of science. The act and art of testing. That is the reason ID isn't science; it can't be tested. There isn't a single piece of hypothetical evidence which could disprove it. (Actually, that's incorrect; if God showed up and said, "Hey, I didn't create you guys, you just sort of showed up one day," that would do a pretty good job of disproving ID, at least insofar as we could take Him on His word.)
And that is what makes it unscientific, and what makes it utterly worthless as an idea; indeed, you'd be hard pressed to generate a definition of "nonsense" which doesn't describe "Intelligent Design," or at least any version which doesn't allow aliens from Alpha Centauri to go unexplained.
The reason I keep saying "sheer chance" is because once you get back to fundamentals, that's what operates, no? Yes, NOW everything is the result of a complex feedback engine. But so far as I can tell, that complex feedback engine is the result of "This happened to occur; it marginally improved the chances of that occuring", and so forth. Correct me if I am wrong, but the existence of Earth itself, much less the existence of life, especially sentient life, on its surface, is the result of a series of coincidences that make winning the lottery a near statistical certainty by comparison. Just as an example, how likely is it for a given planet to 1) be at a distance from its parent star for surface temperatures to be between the boiling point and freezing point of water for much of its orbit, AND 2) have a satellite of such exceptional size as to create tidal forces sufficient to effectively push evolution from water to land, AND 3) have a high enough background radiation to create an ongoing crop of mutations, AND 4) have that background radiation level be low enough to *not* threaten the stability of the system it is constantly adding small changes to?
My reasons for believing that magnificent feedback engine didn't build itself through essentially random actions is because I am just insecure enough to be uncomfortable with the idea of purposelessness. If the universe was created, presumably it was done with some sort of object in view. If not, then there is no purpose to anything we do beyond our own individual purposes that we choose to assign importance to. In other words if my entire family and all my loved ones are raped, tortured and killed, that is precisely as important and significant, no more and no less, than whether or not I scatter and destroy an antbed while moving the lawn. That is, in the overall scheme of things.
I *CHOOSE* to believe that isn't so. I realize that the only rational, provable reason I can give for that belief is an unwillingness to give the same attention and consideration to every ant, mosquito, etc. that I give to my son, for example. Nonetheless, that is my choice.
But at bottom, I stand by my original point: The reason that whole debate doesn't belong with the sciences is because science consists only of those things that have a prospect of gathering verifiable evidence to prove, disprove or refine a given hypothesis. There is no such prospect for speculation regarding the events *preceeding* the Big Bang, therefore it can only remain speculation, not science.
"Given the billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars..."
Well, yes, there is that. Douglas Adams likened it to a puddle looking around and determining that the hole it was in must have been made for it because it fit it so well. Not surprisingly, life that evolves on a planet is going to find that the planet is incredibly well-suited for said life.
The argument that "if the planet were even one mile closer or farther away, then it wouldn't have been possible" is sort of a pointless one - it assumes the very thing it's trying to argue. If life evolved to suit the conditions, then we can expect the conditions to be suitable. If it were 50 degrees hotter across the surface of the planet, you might find life that is suited for being in 50 degree hotter weather.
It's a misapplication of the classical philosophical point, but Descartes put it best - "I think therefore I am."
Rarity and statistical unlikelihood are not explained by mythical circumstances. Evolution is believed in mainstream science to be largely adaptive and random only at the most base, biological level (and there is some evidence to suggest that this is entirely influenced at higher genetic levels BY the environment). I say by mainstream science because evolutionary researchers are at each others' necks over the smallest, most minute details. It's difficult to generalize across an entire field. There are perfectly valid and even testable ideas explaining human life and, to some extent, sentience. Religion doesn't advance or offer anything that requires any less explanation.
You're here and you're arguing it. Now which explanations make more sense - the ones you can test, verify, and which have wider scope and application, or the ones which you must throw into the metaphysical and philosophical realm of bullshit where it can be just as validly discussed on drugs as it can be soberly?
- 1.) You start with the presumption that water is necessary to life. Who says this is the case? There's plenty of it on Earth, we should EXPECT to see lifeforms evolved in it to take heavy advantage of it.
2.) You presume secondarily that tidal forces are necessary to push life once established in water to land. Tectonic forces could accomplish this just as easily, by first isolating, and then shrinking, a pool of water.
3.) Background radiation isn't necessary to mutation, at least of the genetic variety. All you need is a miscopy of genetic data, in the case of genetic life.
4.) "Threaten the stability of"? You may want to look at the Daisy simulation. First, unstable systems don't persist - i/e, they're rare. And second, life itself has a habit of stabilizing its environment. (Not out of interest to the environment, but because any "unstable" situation represents an opportunity. Too much methane encourages organisms which utilize it to utilize it in greater quantities.)
"My reasons for believing that magnificent feedback engine didn't build itself through essentially random actions is because I am just insecure enough to be uncomfortable with the idea of purposelessness."
- And being uncomfortable with an idea doesn't make it any more or less true.
"I *CHOOSE* to believe that isn't so. I realize that the only rational, provable reason I can give for that belief is an unwillingness to give the same attention and consideration to every ant, mosquito, etc. that I give to my son, for example. Nonetheless, that is my choice."
- Alternatively, you could accept the idea that importance is a personal, rather than a universal, ideal. Your son is a hell of a lot less important to me than, say, me. Doesn't say anything about your son, only about me.
"But at bottom, I stand by my original point: The reason that whole debate doesn't belong with the sciences is because science consists only of those things that have a prospect of gathering verifiable evidence to prove, disprove or refine a given hypothesis. There is no such prospect for speculation regarding the events *preceeding* the Big Bang, therefore it can only remain speculation, not science."
- And I don't disagree with that at all, if one starts with the assumption of the Big Bang. (Personally, I regard the idea as nonsense.)
1) I start with the assumption that life, or any ongoing increase in complexity, is much more likely in a fluid medium than either a solid or gaseous one. This is based on the premise that in a solid the various parts of the mixture move too little or too slowly to change things much, and that in a gaseous mixture the parts of the mixture are typically too far apart for a lot of interaction. Both will appreciably slow the process of change. I presume water simply because it is the only substance made up of elements that are abundant in the observable universe and that is also liquid at appreciable energy levels. It's not really about solid/liquid/gas, it's about energy levels. Too little energy, components move too little for the results of interaction to spread. Too much energy, components tend to be too far apart and moving too quickly to interact much in the first place. The "compromise state" between the two is liquid.
2) Yes, tectonic or other forces could accomplish the same thing. However, tidal forces are the only ones so far observable that would radically change conditions *daily and cyclicly*, rather than once every several years, every several centuries, or every several millenia. Again, the changes are possible, even certain, without it, but the difference in *rate* of change is significant.
3)No, background radiation isn't *necessary*. You are correct, anything that causes miscopies will do. But in order to have a stable, yet changing, system, there needs to be a consistent cause of small changes, yet not so common as to cause the system to dissolve into chaos. Feel free to suggest another such cause that is commonly observed and can be proven to exist.
4) See #3. In order for a system, ANY system of any type, to be constantly changing and yet continue to persist, change has to be a consistent factor, *yet must not be the DOMINANT factor*, no? You made my point for me. The existing, observable system does not dissolve into nonexistence, yet does not stabilize to the point where change ceases to occur, even after billions of years.
You are again correct, being uncomfortable with something doesn't affect whether or not it is true. Which was exactly my point. When the question is boiled down to its fundamentals, ANY answer to the genesis of the universe involves assumptions which, from the point of view of current knowledge, are so challenging to the existing paradigm as to be ridiculous. Therefore all one can do is choose *which* ridiculous assumptions one wishes to accept as true. Nor does it matter a whit whether one accepts the Big Bang as absolute truth, utter nonsense, or anything in between. ANY concept of "the universe *began*" generates the same problems, and must rest on the acceptance of *some* assumption as true that is completely at odds with what we have *observed* to be true.
The only thing that allows religion to survive is the shared assumption that you and I both consider you, me, my son, and total strangers, to be of greater significance than the fire ant beds on my mother's front lawn. I consider that a safe assumption based on the fact that you can buy enough ant poison to kill them by the millions nearly anywhere and no one so much as raises an eyebrow, yet WMDs are, even with all the controls put on their existence and use, pretty universally feared. That doesn't mean we ARE more significant. It only means that we humans pretty consistently *believe* ourselves to be so. Since we are unable to make any observations about what the fire ants believe, their opinions (if they have such) are not germane to the discussion, are they?
It may turn out that fire ant "civilization" is THE important aspect of the universe. But once again, the fact that we can make no useful observations to prove, disprove, or even support or diminish such a hypothesis renders it moot, and moves it out of the realm of science and into philosophy (which I am defining as "speculation which can be supported by logic, but only rarely if at all supported by observation of *provable* data.")
NOTE: In response to "Apparently it's 100% likely." Just because someone wins the lottery in _____ week's drawing doesn't mean it was 100% likely that someone would. Nor does it mean the odds were any less ludicrous than the buyer of the ticket knew them to be. Million to one chances do come up, but the odds of it happening in any given instance are still a million to one against.
1) Liquids are nothing more than low-energy gases. A gas could be described as a low-energy plasma. (Well, not quite, but you get the idea.)
It's another argument founded in the assumption that the conditions we thrive in happen to be the only conditions life is capable of thriving in, which isn't necessary valid.
2) The rate of change for several thousand years would be just about perfect. A sea turning to a lake turning to a swamp turning to land.
3) A miscopy is a miscopy. All that is required is a slightly higher level of energy than is ideal for the copying mechanism - we've evolved in a system wherein we carefully regulate our internal mechanisms. What would happen if we had evolved this way in a system without background radiation? We'd go extinct in short order being unable to adapt to changing circumstances, and those organisms with no short-term path to self-regulation; say, cold-blooded organisms; would continue to evolve.
4) It's incapable of devolving to a static situation - the size of animals is a good comparison. Size goes up as a function of time, as a general rule. And every few million years, all or most of the organisms over a certain size go extinct - because they're incapable (having longer reproductive cycles) of adapting quickly enough to changing circumstances.
"ANY concept of "the universe *began*" generates the same problems, and must rest on the acceptance of *some* assumption as true that is completely at odds with what we have *observed* to be true."
- I agree. Which is why I generally follow the idea that the universe didn't begin, but simply has always been, and will always be.
"The only thing that allows religion to survive is the shared assumption that you and I both consider you, me, my son, and total strangers, to be of greater significance than the fire ant beds on my mother's front lawn."
- A generally held belief, but not universal. *Grins* Of course, the rest of us think the exceptions are insane.
"It may turn out that fire ant "civilization" is THE important aspect of the universe. But once again, the fact that we can make no useful observations to prove, disprove, or even support or diminish such a hypothesis renders it moot, and moves it out of the realm of science and into philosophy (which I am defining as "speculation which can be supported by logic, but only rarely if at all supported by observation of *provable* data.")"
- I generally classify anything that can only be described in philosophical terms as an abstract with no objective meaning.
"It's another argument founded in the assumption that the conditions we thrive in happen to be the only conditions life is capable of thriving in, which isn't necessary valid."
Not the only conditions life is capable of, not at all. The assumption is that a medium whose components are 1) in close enough contact to interact *often*, and 2) mobile enough for that interaction to spread easily, will see changes spread over the entire medium IN LESS TIME than a medium not posessing both of those qualities. Thus, whatever drives changes in the nature of those components will proceed at a faster rate. Over billions or hundreds of billions of years, the difference in the rate of "evolution" would be appreciable.
2) The rate of change for several thousand years would be just about perfect. A sea turning to a lake turning to a swamp turning to land.
Sure, that can drive evolution (I am defining "evolution" in this usage as a continuing process by which chemical interaction *increases* in complexity and specialization, rather than the usual reverse of that). It demonstrably has, as in the brine shrimp of the Great Salt Lake. Once again, I'm not saying it is impossible, nor have I ever said so. I'm saying the difference in the *rate* of change in the effected organisms would be significant, simply because of the difference in the rate of change of the host environment. "A sea turning to a lake turning to a swamp turning to land" is a process a tidal pool goes through twice a day. If evolution (as defined above) is driven by adaptive response to changing environment, then changing the speed of the cycles of the environment will likewise change the speed of adaptation *to* that environment. You'd get similar results, just in a different time frame. Change the rate enough and it will be a VERY different time frame.
3) A miscopy is a miscopy. All that is required is a slightly higher level of energy than is ideal for the copying mechanism
Exactly. The other factors don't make it possible or impossible, they only affect the likelihood of it happening in any given instance, and thus affect the overall *rate of change.* Background radiation is a remarkably stable energy input. Much more stable than sunshine, which earth life quickly used its own waste gases to insulate itself from.
- we've evolved in a system wherein we carefully regulate our internal mechanisms. What would happen if we had evolved this way in a system without background radiation? We'd go extinct in short order being unable to adapt to changing circumstances, and those organisms with no short-term path to self-regulation; say, cold-blooded organisms; would continue to evolve.
You'll have to run this one by me again. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any earth organisms "with no short-term path to self-regulation." Different paths, to be sure. But none with *no* path.
4) It's incapable of devolving to a static situation - the size of animals is a good comparison. Size goes up as a function of time, as a general rule. And every few million years, all or most of the organisms over a certain size go extinct - because they're incapable (having longer reproductive cycles) of adapting quickly enough to changing circumstances.
Not truly *static*, no. But once again, you're telling me the same thing I already said, just in different words. Slow the rate of change enough and the rate of adaptation is so slow as to *seem* static.
To clarify the original point. You'll note that I never said life couldn't exist anywhere but here, nor only under identical or nearly identical conditions. I said there have been a large number of things, each fairly unlikely in themselves, that have each contributed to making conditions *more favorable* to "evolution" as defined above. Fluid media for interaction to take place is one. Strong tides is another. Background radiation is a third. None of that has anything to do with "earth life", just basic chemistry. Reactions are faster and more complete in fluids than in solids or unenclosed gases, in general. Reactions can be speeded by stirring the mixture. They can be speeded further still by heating, but for predictable results consistent application of heat trumps random application of firebombing and nothing.
Which is why I generally follow the idea that the universe didn't begin, but simply has always been, and will always be.
Fine and good. But while that neatly avoids all the paradoxes of "the universe began", it generates a host of paradoxes of its own that leave you with equally ridiculous assumptions. Does linear time or the concept of cause and effect apply to everything *in* the universe, but not to the universe itself? Is entropy an illusion? It doesn't matter which one you pick, they each require ridiculous assumptions because of the paradoxes they create, and yet each neatly avoid the paradoxes of the other.
"- A generally held belief, but not universal. *Grins* Of course, the rest of us think the exceptions are insane."
Well, the exceptions doubtless think the "normal" ones are insane too. Fair's fair. *snicker*
- I generally classify anything that can only be described in philosophical terms as an abstract with no objective meaning.
Exactly. And "objective" means what? That which can be proven, yes? Therefore
moves it out of the realm of science and into philosophy (which I am defining as "speculation which can be supported by logic, but only rarely if at all supported by observation of *provable* data.")"
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/04/ok-whos-telling-truth-here.html (44 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I think that the reparations and anti-discrimination industry has gone way too far. When everyone claims to be discriminated against, it becomes impossible to tell which cases are real.
One thing that is probably under-appreciated by the general public is that the world of science has its share of arrogant posturing, ego-driven disputes, misunderstandings, and small personnel differences blown up into significant disagreements.
In my (short) experience studying at a research university, I didn't see such things every day. But there were people who told stories...
Does this affect Ben Stein's central thesis? I don't know.
I can see both sides of this, I think.
When you boil the idea of creation down to its essentials, you are left with one of two choices. Both ID and "random" design, ultimately either something can spring from nothing or time is not remotely as we think it is. Both of those choices seem equally ridiculous and equally unprovable on their faces, so it matters little from a practical standpoint which you choose.
I, and many people the world over, choose to believe that we are not here through the mechanism of sheer chance. Perhaps that is nothing more than hubris, an unwillingness to accept that the entirety of human civilization is precisely as significant in the big scheme of things, no more and no less, than the pattern of sand grains in an anthill on my lawn. You may believe otherwise, and you are welcome to.
Regardless, there seems to be no way *so far* to even gather evidence to support or disprove EITHER hypothesis. And that, I think, is the kernel of the whole argument and why I have to come down on the side of academia on this subject. As Kevin pointed out, the whole point of the scientific method is to restrict itself to things that can be measured and quantified, as those are the only things that can ultimately be proven or disproven. Sciences require real world facts to hang their logic on. Logic alone, no matter how rigorous, can do nothing to advance it.
In short, the ID vs. Sheer Chance debate belongs in the Philosophy Dept., NOT the Science Dept. And that has nothing to do with which religion you believe in, or whether you believe in one at all. It has to do with the definition of "Science".
In short, the ID vs. Sheer Chance debate belongs in the Philosophy Dept., NOT the Science Dept. And that has nothing to do with which religion you believe in, or whether you believe in one at all.
PRECISELY!
And what don't we (formally) teach in primary or secondary school?
PHILOSOPHY
but it is taught informally.
Thank you, Grumpy. You just gave me the key to an essay I've been working on for over a month and couldn't finish.
Well done, Grumpy. Well done indeed.
You're off the mark, unfortunately. Try claiming you're a scientist who believes in intelligent design, and watch your career suddenly implode.
Cartoons aside, anyone who believes in God (except for Muslims, of course) are met with torches and pitchforks by the American left, the American media, and a good portion of the Republican party, which simply panders to us like a TB patient who keeps coughing near the food.
Regarding the particular fiasco of which you speak, I don't support liars or peddlers of creative hysteria, and neither would anyone I consider a friend.
Anonymous, what's your area of scientific specialty? Does "Intelligent Design" provide you any tools to advance your understanding of it?
"Does "Intelligent Design" provide you any tools to advance your understanding of it?"
Oooh, you're next essay's gonna be a doozy, ain't it?
My one anecdote on the subject is interesting. My labmate, who is a gifted researcher (the bastard proved my own theorem that I had struggled with for a couple months) and also a typical left of center democrat who is not anti-business exactly, but who does hop on the "big oil is evil" bandwagon behaved interestingly one time. His parents are both professors at the University of Wisconsin, and his wife who was an EE student at UW (Washington, not Wisconsin, where we all go to school) once told me that handguns are only for killing people.
There's the background, here's the incident: some department at UW (Washington) announced a talk about ID. My lab mate was absolutely up in arms about it, almost frothing at the mouth. The day of the event came, we all sat down, and my buddy was highly on edge. Cards were handed out on which we could write down questions. My labmate was immediately and furiously scribbling down hostile questions on his card. I told him to settle down, and to wait to see what this guy had to say before he went ballistic. Didn't help.
Then the man came out and was very reasonable, describing himself as a friendly critic of ID. Turns out all he was here to do was to give a history of the ID movement and to talk about what exactly is meant by ID. Totally took the wind out of my labmate's sails, but left his indelible initial reaction on me for all time.
How 'bout them apples? I suspect that this is not uncommon in academia.
You're off the mark, unfortunately. Try claiming you're a scientist who believes in intelligent design, and watch your career suddenly implode.
Try claiming you're a priest who doesn't believe in a Divine Being, and watch your career implode faster.
If you're a scientist, and religious, that's one thing. I know many who are.
But "Intelligent Design" was started as a way to get Creationism into schools - as was demonstrated in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District lawsuit - where the textbook company admitted that originally they merely "seached and replaced" "creationism" with "Intelligent Design".
ID is not science, and any scientist who professes a belief in it, either doesn't understand ID, or more dangerously, doesn't understand science.
That's not to claim that scientists are perfect, but to fail something basic to the job, say, the root-word of their job description?
They should be rather imploded, career-wise.
Try claiming you're a priest who doesn't believe in a Divine Being, and watch your career implode faster.
Really? Can you explain Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury to me, then? ;)
Can you explain Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury to me, then?
No, no I can't.
No more than I could explain to you what happened that day... over.. Macho Grande.
"I suspect that this is not uncommon in academia."
It is common everywhere. It is called "jumping to conclusions".
Your labmate knew the subject, but not the content. He jumped to conclusions about what the content would be and reacted to his conclusions. He should have known better.
You learned a valuable lesson from it. Did he?
>>No, no I can't.
>>No more than I could explain to you what happened that day... over.. Macho Grande.
I have so TOTALLY GOT to remember that one. Thx!
Over Macho Grande? No, I don't think I'll ever get over Macho Grande...
Sorry, couldn't resist it!
No, I'll never be over Macho Grande.
OK, I don't get that reference...
UPDATE: While Google is evil, it can still be your friend.
I don't think I ever saw that one, thus my ignorance.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nCl6RCGkPuo
Why doesn't anybody tell me these things?!?
I'm hoping it refers to NAS Macho Grande and not the IMDB version...
KEVIN: "Anonymous, what's your area of scientific specialty?"
If I implied I'm a scientist, I'm not sure how.
On this specific issue, I think you understood my salient points. I read your blog daily, and enjoy it.
I understood the point you were making, but I (somewhat) disagree with it.
First, there's a lot of "anonymous" commenters - telling you apart is difficult! From the tone of your first paragraph, it appeared implicit that you were a scientist with leanings towards ID.
The statement "anyone who believes in God (except for Muslims, of course) are met with torches and pitchforks by the American left, the American media, and a good portion of the Republican party, which simply panders to us like a TB patient who keeps coughing near the food." added to that implication.
Where I disagree with you is in the blanket coverage of your condemnation. A lot of people on the Left are (or believe themselves to be - there's a question of semantics here I won't go into) Christian. The American media only goes after the ones outside what they consider "the mainstream." You know - the ones who don't actually try to practice the tenets of their religion.
And the Republicans are much the same.
If you are a fundamentalist of any stripe, however (excluding Muslim, as noted) you are definitely viewed by the Left and by the Media much as proud gun owners are - as some strange and dangerous alien creature.
Regardless, this is a discussion (well, before it turned into an "Airplane II" retrospective) of "intelligent design" and science, and the fact remains, GrumpyOldFart is correct: ID is philosophy, not science.
You are a very decent person, Kevin, and your comment reminds me of that.
In examining what science brings to the table, one can conclude that God exists (theism), that God does not exist (atheism), or that the evidence is inconclusive (agnosticism).
Therefore, I would argue that intelligent design is less a philosophy than it is just one in three conclusions one can draw from science.
Allow me to anticipate claims that science does not attempt to answer those questions by yielding the floor to the many, many scientists who use their scientific findings to claim emphatically that there is no God. If they use science to claim there is no God, I likewise must be allowed to use science to proclaim God's existence.
Thank you again for allowing me to comment.
"Allow me to anticipate claims that science does not attempt to answer those questions by yielding the floor to the many, many scientists who use their scientific findings to claim emphatically that there is no God. If they use science to claim there is no God, I likewise must be allowed to use science to proclaim God's existence."
And THAT has no place in a science classroom either, for precisely the same reasons. 'Scientists' who "use science to proclaim that there is no God" are quite correct in the place they typically start from, which is "there can be found no objective, verifiable evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, and a huge mass of evidence that things occur due to the interplay of natural forces, with no Gods required." That is absolutely 100% true. But as has been noted many times before, absence of proof does not equal proof of absence. Therefore the lack of direct, verifiable, objective evidence does precisely ZILCH-POINT-SQUAT to advance the proving or disproving of the existence of a creator/supreme being/what have you.
And it works exactly the same in reverse, which was my original point. Science is unable to find a single piece of evidence to refute the existence of a superior entity capable of creating a universe, which contributes precisely zero to the debate on whether or not such exists. And THAT is why neither belongs in a science class. It has nothing at all to do with religion, pro or con. It has to do with the *verifiable fact* that neither argument contributes (or indeed CAN contribute) a single thing to *actually resolving the question*.
THAT's why it's not science. Even things that are on the fringe edges, the "crazy theories" of science, have provision for the *POSSIBILITY* of the theory being tested to discern the truth. The "Sheer Chance vs. ID" debate does not, nor does it show any prospect of having possible testing methods in the future. When and if it DOES, *then* will be the time for it to take its place among the nutball theories at the cutting edge of science.
On a final note, lest the "nutball theories" comment offend or confuse anyone, I would like to point out that Alfred Wegener's theory of plate tectonics was one of those "nutball theories" for right around half a century before it was found to, in fact, be remarkably accurate. "Nutball" is a measure of the *perception* of a theory's merits, not a measure of those merits themselves.
Oh and by the way.... yer welcome, Kevin.
*grin*
Grumpy, you are absolutely 100% spot-on. You wrote:
"...there can be found no objective, verifiable evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, and a huge mass of evidence that things occur due to the interplay of natural forces, with no Gods required."
When science responds with, "Religion? That's not our department," I find that both credible and honorable. What they cannot do is use science as an arm of the ACLU to remove all mention of God from the marketplace of ideas, and then prohibit those who believe in God from mentioning science and God in the same breath, because that's "not fair" somehow.
Both you and Kevin are quite right, if I understand you saying that it's frankly not the business of science to be mucking around with religion.
Both you and Kevin are quite right, if I understand you saying that it's frankly not the business of science to be mucking around with religion.
And vice-versa.
To quote LabRat from the previous comment thread on this topic:
You know, PZ Meyers drives me NUTS, the same way that Dawkins does. The guy has an intellect like a diamond-edged buzzsaw, but he allows a few idiots to reinforce his entire bigoted, ill-thought position on religion.
So I'm forced to side with him, against Ben Stein, who I used to like a lot.
The anti-theists irritate me every bit as much as the anti-Darwinists.
Dawkins and his band of windmill lancers are every bit as in error when they claim to have used science to dispose of God as any IDer is when he claims his "intelligent design" is a scientific theory. It's not a matter of who invoked it first, they're both equally just-flat-wrong and for the same reasons.
They (the Dawkins Light Brigade) are also guilty of reinforcing the popular fundamentalist perception that scientists have replaced God with a "religion" of science. It's not true, as it can't be done- science is morally and metaphysically sterile- but the same fundamental error is being made. On the flip side of the issue, you could also note that the rock-ribbed creationists are doing rather a disservice to God in essentially drawing the position that either God's inscrutable creation must be the end point of all understanding of the natural world, or God has no relevance to mankind at all.
"The anti-theists irritate me every bit as much as the anti-Darwinists."
The more I read you, Kevin, the better I like you.
"On the flip side of the issue, you could also note that the rock-ribbed creationists are doing rather a disservice to God in essentially drawing the position that either God's inscrutable creation must be the end point of all understanding of the natural world, or God has no relevance to mankind at all."
LabRat, you're absolutely right. Not only are they doing a disservice to God, they apparently don't pay careful attention to Scripture. My copy reads, "The fear of the Lord is the *beginning* of wisdom." I know many here don't believe in Scripture, but I think it's pretty telling when your statement and the Bible match up quite nicely! It sounds like we're all on the same side of this Ben Stein issue.
The more I read you, Kevin, the better I like you.
Glad to hear it!
It will make my eventual betrayal of your trust and crushing your image of me all the sweeter! :lol:
That's something I've always had trouble with, when dealing with religious zealots. They don't seem to understand the idea that "The fear of the Lord is the *beginning* of wisdom" is NOT equivalent to "The fear of the Lord is the SUM OF ALL wisdom."
But to be fair, I must agree with you that the "there is no objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of God, therefore Occam's Razor *proves* there is no such thing as God." BS. Occam's Razor cannot *prove* anything, nor can be counted as *actual evidence* for or against anything. Occam's Razor is a rough, often useful, guide to critical thinking on a subject, and is not capable of ever becoming any more than that.
The ideology behind Occam's Razor's application to religion is basically that, substantively, any creator must be at least as or more complicated than its creation. Complexity here refers to explanatory background, not existentialism (since we could just well argue that God is incredibly simple and merely builds complex things). God does not offer, by way of explanation, a solution to the "where everything began" problem that is any less complex or convoluted as simply supposing that all of "creation" was there to begin with.
It simply goes back to "well, then where did God come from?" I have to agree with the simple assertion that if you state God created himself or was always there that you accomplish nothing - you can simply just state that the universe was always here or brought itself into existence.
This should not be misread as the search for the simplest solution, however. For this case, it simply states that offering God as an explanation does not, in fact, serve any purpose AS an explanation. I do find that Dawkins is absolutely batshit-crazy fanatical in his misapplication of the scientific method - let's call it the difference between the scientific method and Science.
Honestly, as a lifelong atheist, the concept of believing in a God really is alien and a bit confusing to me. What I'm seeing is a lot of amalgamations behind well-evidenced scientific theory and prior religious beliefs on here, which seems a bit strange when you consider the domain of scientific theory is expanding and the one of religion seems to be shrinking. Personally, I'd find this indicative of something - it looks a hell of a lot like the usual, "Well, science can't explain THAT, therefore it's God!" The only issue there is that eventually it does seem to explain it. So far it appears to have only stopped short of the metaphysical and philosophical, where a lot of the discussion has no pragmatic value and asks questions without meaning (being able to put a "why" into a grammatically correct sentence does not make it a logistically valid question).
Shrug.
"Honestly, as a lifelong atheist, the concept of believing in a God really is alien and a bit confusing to me."
I think you're saying you understand the concept of God, but why people choose to believe is somewhat foreign. Did I understand correctly?
*If I'm misinterpreting a rhetorical statement as an invitation to talk, I apologize. I also respect and value Kevin too much to turn this thread into a pulpit, so I assume someone will tell me to go away if that happens.
[anonymous christian]
Occam's razor is appropriate for a philosophical quest to power over the natural world. It is not appropriate for a philosophical exploration into ultimate meaning, standards of right and wrong, or purpose.
That's how I can be both a Christian and a scientist.
See my most recent blog entry for more detail on this point.
"I think you're saying you understand the concept of God, but why people choose to believe is somewhat foreign. Did I understand correctly?"
No, I mean that I do not understand the concept. It is an application that has no bearing and makes no sense practically, logistically, or in any other form of interpretation I can take. Believing is actually very simple to understand, however. I have principles I believe in, and I have reached my belief in these by analysis and determination that these are valid and sound principles. These are principles that make me happy and which I and I believe others can live by. Some of them embody thousands of years of human wisdom, some of which was reached religiously, most of which was not. On the other hand, as I stated, this belief comes from analysis.
I believe in capitalism and I believe in the right to arm myself. I believe in reciprocity in kindness. I believe in many of the same things you believe in, and this is not, I hope, the only reason we get along. I believe that, as a programmer, navigation of a linked list data structure is faster by forward pointer than it is by index.
All of these "beliefs," however, I am willing to change, given new information and evidence. I became disenfranchised with philosophy (and liberalism, for that matter) when I realized that the things I was arguing were hypothetical and founded more on the concept that they could be debated and NOT disproved rather than being based on something tangible and which could be given evidence for.
The creator does not solve any problems I have encountered. Scientific inquiry hasn't solved many, either, but it's the one of the two which has an expanding field of "things explained," while religion and belief has the shrinking one. When the only things the creator apparently solves fall under that philosophical bearing - that bearing under the hypothetical where debaters can simply state, "well, science can't touch here," - then I simply disregard the creator as a credible theory. I feel that we've reached that point.
--
"Occam's razor is appropriate for a philosophical quest to power over the natural world. It is not appropriate for a philosophical exploration into ultimate meaning, standards of right and wrong, or purpose.
That's how I can be both a Christian and a scientist."
And yet you seem to completely and totally miss the application thereof for this topic. I have stated the issues with philosophical bearings and they are well-known. Advancing the idea of a creator does not offer explanation into creation. Advancing the idea that you are a computer simulation does not offer explanation, either. Neither even addresses the scope of the problem, which is simply an explanation of what's around you to begin with. To advance the idea of a creator or a simulator entirely requires that you THEN EXPLAIN THE CREATOR. This is how Occam's Razor applies. Advancing the general sterility of the scientific method as a faltering point of this simple failure in a creator as an explanation does not serve your point.
The fact that you must constantly push back the boundary of what realm of explanation a creator supposedly solves should tell you that this is indicative of an issue inherent to that idea (damn, was that alliterative?). I am not advancing Occam's Razor as a hard-and-fast rule and you will never see anyone doing it as such, so let me put this in terms that can be viewed that way. Throw out Occam and his sharp things.
If the question is, "Where did this come from?"
And the answer requires the same explanation...
...the answer does not address the question.
It adds an unnecessary layer of no pragmatic value. It has only philosophical value, and I want to make it very clear that that, in and of itself, is not something on which you wish to rationally argue. Philosophical discussion is largely semantical and - this is the crux - HYPOTHETICAL.
"Duuuude, what if what I see as blue is really green?"
That is your philosophical basis. It's the average amateur philosopher's ideological advancement (and the fact that the field considers itself rigorous in its labeling and study of these ideas should also be indicative of something) of a rational question. It isn't one.
How does a creator approach the issues of "ultimate meaning, standards of right and wrong, or purpose?" The Greeks had a philosophical idea of "essence," and what you list are hypothetical manifestations thereof. You encompass "Right" and you encompass "Wrong," but your definition thereof depends entirely on the concept of the creator, which is the very point you're trying to address. This is the very question.
By all means, I would love for someone to argue how a creator actually ADDRESSES these issues, or that of the entire universe (or creation, what have you), for that matter. Then tell me how that is any less complex or requires any less explanation than the very thing we already have evidence of.
Grumpy, I'm confused. Why do you keep presenting the option of chance vs. ID? It isn't chance; the opposition to ID is a very powerful feedback engine. It doesn't defy entropy, because entropy is a law of thermodynamics and not of biology - but it is, indeed, a Maxwell's Demon.
Evolution does have a scientific basis - it is testable, it has been tested. Insofar as everything else in the universe behaves as we expect it - i/e, God didn't plant fossils to trick us - then evolution is as heavily tested and proven as gravity.
And that is the whole of science. The act and art of testing. That is the reason ID isn't science; it can't be tested. There isn't a single piece of hypothetical evidence which could disprove it. (Actually, that's incorrect; if God showed up and said, "Hey, I didn't create you guys, you just sort of showed up one day," that would do a pretty good job of disproving ID, at least insofar as we could take Him on His word.)
And that is what makes it unscientific, and what makes it utterly worthless as an idea; indeed, you'd be hard pressed to generate a definition of "nonsense" which doesn't describe "Intelligent Design," or at least any version which doesn't allow aliens from Alpha Centauri to go unexplained.
The reason I keep saying "sheer chance" is because once you get back to fundamentals, that's what operates, no? Yes, NOW everything is the result of a complex feedback engine. But so far as I can tell, that complex feedback engine is the result of "This happened to occur; it marginally improved the chances of that occuring", and so forth. Correct me if I am wrong, but the existence of Earth itself, much less the existence of life, especially sentient life, on its surface, is the result of a series of coincidences that make winning the lottery a near statistical certainty by comparison. Just as an example, how likely is it for a given planet to 1) be at a distance from its parent star for surface temperatures to be between the boiling point and freezing point of water for much of its orbit, AND 2) have a satellite of such exceptional size as to create tidal forces sufficient to effectively push evolution from water to land, AND 3) have a high enough background radiation to create an ongoing crop of mutations, AND 4) have that background radiation level be low enough to *not* threaten the stability of the system it is constantly adding small changes to?
My reasons for believing that magnificent feedback engine didn't build itself through essentially random actions is because I am just insecure enough to be uncomfortable with the idea of purposelessness. If the universe was created, presumably it was done with some sort of object in view. If not, then there is no purpose to anything we do beyond our own individual purposes that we choose to assign importance to. In other words if my entire family and all my loved ones are raped, tortured and killed, that is precisely as important and significant, no more and no less, than whether or not I scatter and destroy an antbed while moving the lawn. That is, in the overall scheme of things.
I *CHOOSE* to believe that isn't so. I realize that the only rational, provable reason I can give for that belief is an unwillingness to give the same attention and consideration to every ant, mosquito, etc. that I give to my son, for example. Nonetheless, that is my choice.
But at bottom, I stand by my original point: The reason that whole debate doesn't belong with the sciences is because science consists only of those things that have a prospect of gathering verifiable evidence to prove, disprove or refine a given hypothesis. There is no such prospect for speculation regarding the events *preceeding* the Big Bang, therefore it can only remain speculation, not science.
"How likely is it ..."
Apparently, it's 100% likely.
Apparently, it's 100% likely.
Given the billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars...
"Given the billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars..."
Well, yes, there is that. Douglas Adams likened it to a puddle looking around and determining that the hole it was in must have been made for it because it fit it so well. Not surprisingly, life that evolves on a planet is going to find that the planet is incredibly well-suited for said life.
The argument that "if the planet were even one mile closer or farther away, then it wouldn't have been possible" is sort of a pointless one - it assumes the very thing it's trying to argue. If life evolved to suit the conditions, then we can expect the conditions to be suitable. If it were 50 degrees hotter across the surface of the planet, you might find life that is suited for being in 50 degree hotter weather.
It's a misapplication of the classical philosophical point, but Descartes put it best - "I think therefore I am."
Rarity and statistical unlikelihood are not explained by mythical circumstances. Evolution is believed in mainstream science to be largely adaptive and random only at the most base, biological level (and there is some evidence to suggest that this is entirely influenced at higher genetic levels BY the environment). I say by mainstream science because evolutionary researchers are at each others' necks over the smallest, most minute details. It's difficult to generalize across an entire field. There are perfectly valid and even testable ideas explaining human life and, to some extent, sentience. Religion doesn't advance or offer anything that requires any less explanation.
You're here and you're arguing it. Now which explanations make more sense - the ones you can test, verify, and which have wider scope and application, or the ones which you must throw into the metaphysical and philosophical realm of bullshit where it can be just as validly discussed on drugs as it can be soberly?
- 1.) You start with the presumption that water is necessary to life. Who says this is the case? There's plenty of it on Earth, we should EXPECT to see lifeforms evolved in it to take heavy advantage of it.
2.) You presume secondarily that tidal forces are necessary to push life once established in water to land. Tectonic forces could accomplish this just as easily, by first isolating, and then shrinking, a pool of water.
3.) Background radiation isn't necessary to mutation, at least of the genetic variety. All you need is a miscopy of genetic data, in the case of genetic life.
4.) "Threaten the stability of"? You may want to look at the Daisy simulation. First, unstable systems don't persist - i/e, they're rare. And second, life itself has a habit of stabilizing its environment. (Not out of interest to the environment, but because any "unstable" situation represents an opportunity. Too much methane encourages organisms which utilize it to utilize it in greater quantities.)
"My reasons for believing that magnificent feedback engine didn't build itself through essentially random actions is because I am just insecure enough to be uncomfortable with the idea of purposelessness."
- And being uncomfortable with an idea doesn't make it any more or less true.
"I *CHOOSE* to believe that isn't so. I realize that the only rational, provable reason I can give for that belief is an unwillingness to give the same attention and consideration to every ant, mosquito, etc. that I give to my son, for example. Nonetheless, that is my choice."
- Alternatively, you could accept the idea that importance is a personal, rather than a universal, ideal. Your son is a hell of a lot less important to me than, say, me. Doesn't say anything about your son, only about me.
"But at bottom, I stand by my original point: The reason that whole debate doesn't belong with the sciences is because science consists only of those things that have a prospect of gathering verifiable evidence to prove, disprove or refine a given hypothesis. There is no such prospect for speculation regarding the events *preceeding* the Big Bang, therefore it can only remain speculation, not science."
- And I don't disagree with that at all, if one starts with the assumption of the Big Bang. (Personally, I regard the idea as nonsense.)
Well done to all.
1) I start with the assumption that life, or any ongoing increase in complexity, is much more likely in a fluid medium than either a solid or gaseous one. This is based on the premise that in a solid the various parts of the mixture move too little or too slowly to change things much, and that in a gaseous mixture the parts of the mixture are typically too far apart for a lot of interaction. Both will appreciably slow the process of change. I presume water simply because it is the only substance made up of elements that are abundant in the observable universe and that is also liquid at appreciable energy levels. It's not really about solid/liquid/gas, it's about energy levels. Too little energy, components move too little for the results of interaction to spread. Too much energy, components tend to be too far apart and moving too quickly to interact much in the first place. The "compromise state" between the two is liquid.
2) Yes, tectonic or other forces could accomplish the same thing. However, tidal forces are the only ones so far observable that would radically change conditions *daily and cyclicly*, rather than once every several years, every several centuries, or every several millenia. Again, the changes are possible, even certain, without it, but the difference in *rate* of change is significant.
3)No, background radiation isn't *necessary*. You are correct, anything that causes miscopies will do. But in order to have a stable, yet changing, system, there needs to be a consistent cause of small changes, yet not so common as to cause the system to dissolve into chaos. Feel free to suggest another such cause that is commonly observed and can be proven to exist.
4) See #3. In order for a system, ANY system of any type, to be constantly changing and yet continue to persist, change has to be a consistent factor, *yet must not be the DOMINANT factor*, no? You made my point for me. The existing, observable system does not dissolve into nonexistence, yet does not stabilize to the point where change ceases to occur, even after billions of years.
You are again correct, being uncomfortable with something doesn't affect whether or not it is true. Which was exactly my point. When the question is boiled down to its fundamentals, ANY answer to the genesis of the universe involves assumptions which, from the point of view of current knowledge, are so challenging to the existing paradigm as to be ridiculous. Therefore all one can do is choose *which* ridiculous assumptions one wishes to accept as true. Nor does it matter a whit whether one accepts the Big Bang as absolute truth, utter nonsense, or anything in between. ANY concept of "the universe *began*" generates the same problems, and must rest on the acceptance of *some* assumption as true that is completely at odds with what we have *observed* to be true.
The only thing that allows religion to survive is the shared assumption that you and I both consider you, me, my son, and total strangers, to be of greater significance than the fire ant beds on my mother's front lawn. I consider that a safe assumption based on the fact that you can buy enough ant poison to kill them by the millions nearly anywhere and no one so much as raises an eyebrow, yet WMDs are, even with all the controls put on their existence and use, pretty universally feared. That doesn't mean we ARE more significant. It only means that we humans pretty consistently *believe* ourselves to be so. Since we are unable to make any observations about what the fire ants believe, their opinions (if they have such) are not germane to the discussion, are they?
It may turn out that fire ant "civilization" is THE important aspect of the universe. But once again, the fact that we can make no useful observations to prove, disprove, or even support or diminish such a hypothesis renders it moot, and moves it out of the realm of science and into philosophy (which I am defining as "speculation which can be supported by logic, but only rarely if at all supported by observation of *provable* data.")
NOTE: In response to "Apparently it's 100% likely." Just because someone wins the lottery in _____ week's drawing doesn't mean it was 100% likely that someone would. Nor does it mean the odds were any less ludicrous than the buyer of the ticket knew them to be. Million to one chances do come up, but the odds of it happening in any given instance are still a million to one against.
1) Liquids are nothing more than low-energy gases. A gas could be described as a low-energy plasma. (Well, not quite, but you get the idea.)
It's another argument founded in the assumption that the conditions we thrive in happen to be the only conditions life is capable of thriving in, which isn't necessary valid.
2) The rate of change for several thousand years would be just about perfect. A sea turning to a lake turning to a swamp turning to land.
3) A miscopy is a miscopy. All that is required is a slightly higher level of energy than is ideal for the copying mechanism - we've evolved in a system wherein we carefully regulate our internal mechanisms. What would happen if we had evolved this way in a system without background radiation? We'd go extinct in short order being unable to adapt to changing circumstances, and those organisms with no short-term path to self-regulation; say, cold-blooded organisms; would continue to evolve.
4) It's incapable of devolving to a static situation - the size of animals is a good comparison. Size goes up as a function of time, as a general rule. And every few million years, all or most of the organisms over a certain size go extinct - because they're incapable (having longer reproductive cycles) of adapting quickly enough to changing circumstances.
"ANY concept of "the universe *began*" generates the same problems, and must rest on the acceptance of *some* assumption as true that is completely at odds with what we have *observed* to be true."
- I agree. Which is why I generally follow the idea that the universe didn't begin, but simply has always been, and will always be.
"The only thing that allows religion to survive is the shared assumption that you and I both consider you, me, my son, and total strangers, to be of greater significance than the fire ant beds on my mother's front lawn."
- A generally held belief, but not universal. *Grins* Of course, the rest of us think the exceptions are insane.
"It may turn out that fire ant "civilization" is THE important aspect of the universe. But once again, the fact that we can make no useful observations to prove, disprove, or even support or diminish such a hypothesis renders it moot, and moves it out of the realm of science and into philosophy (which I am defining as "speculation which can be supported by logic, but only rarely if at all supported by observation of *provable* data.")"
- I generally classify anything that can only be described in philosophical terms as an abstract with no objective meaning.
"It's another argument founded in the assumption that the conditions we thrive in happen to be the only conditions life is capable of thriving in, which isn't necessary valid."
Not the only conditions life is capable of, not at all. The assumption is that a medium whose components are 1) in close enough contact to interact *often*, and 2) mobile enough for that interaction to spread easily, will see changes spread over the entire medium IN LESS TIME than a medium not posessing both of those qualities. Thus, whatever drives changes in the nature of those components will proceed at a faster rate. Over billions or hundreds of billions of years, the difference in the rate of "evolution" would be appreciable.
2) The rate of change for several thousand years would be just about perfect. A sea turning to a lake turning to a swamp turning to land.
Sure, that can drive evolution (I am defining "evolution" in this usage as a continuing process by which chemical interaction *increases* in complexity and specialization, rather than the usual reverse of that). It demonstrably has, as in the brine shrimp of the Great Salt Lake. Once again, I'm not saying it is impossible, nor have I ever said so. I'm saying the difference in the *rate* of change in the effected organisms would be significant, simply because of the difference in the rate of change of the host environment. "A sea turning to a lake turning to a swamp turning to land" is a process a tidal pool goes through twice a day. If evolution (as defined above) is driven by adaptive response to changing environment, then changing the speed of the cycles of the environment will likewise change the speed of adaptation *to* that environment. You'd get similar results, just in a different time frame. Change the rate enough and it will be a VERY different time frame.
3) A miscopy is a miscopy. All that is required is a slightly higher level of energy than is ideal for the copying mechanism
Exactly. The other factors don't make it possible or impossible, they only affect the likelihood of it happening in any given instance, and thus affect the overall *rate of change.* Background radiation is a remarkably stable energy input. Much more stable than sunshine, which earth life quickly used its own waste gases to insulate itself from.
- we've evolved in a system wherein we carefully regulate our internal mechanisms. What would happen if we had evolved this way in a system without background radiation? We'd go extinct in short order being unable to adapt to changing circumstances, and those organisms with no short-term path to self-regulation; say, cold-blooded organisms; would continue to evolve.
You'll have to run this one by me again. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any earth organisms "with no short-term path to self-regulation." Different paths, to be sure. But none with *no* path.
4) It's incapable of devolving to a static situation - the size of animals is a good comparison. Size goes up as a function of time, as a general rule. And every few million years, all or most of the organisms over a certain size go extinct - because they're incapable (having longer reproductive cycles) of adapting quickly enough to changing circumstances.
Not truly *static*, no. But once again, you're telling me the same thing I already said, just in different words. Slow the rate of change enough and the rate of adaptation is so slow as to *seem* static.
To clarify the original point. You'll note that I never said life couldn't exist anywhere but here, nor only under identical or nearly identical conditions. I said there have been a large number of things, each fairly unlikely in themselves, that have each contributed to making conditions *more favorable* to "evolution" as defined above. Fluid media for interaction to take place is one. Strong tides is another. Background radiation is a third. None of that has anything to do with "earth life", just basic chemistry. Reactions are faster and more complete in fluids than in solids or unenclosed gases, in general. Reactions can be speeded by stirring the mixture. They can be speeded further still by heating, but for predictable results consistent application of heat trumps random application of firebombing and nothing.
Which is why I generally follow the idea that the universe didn't begin, but simply has always been, and will always be.
Fine and good. But while that neatly avoids all the paradoxes of "the universe began", it generates a host of paradoxes of its own that leave you with equally ridiculous assumptions. Does linear time or the concept of cause and effect apply to everything *in* the universe, but not to the universe itself? Is entropy an illusion? It doesn't matter which one you pick, they each require ridiculous assumptions because of the paradoxes they create, and yet each neatly avoid the paradoxes of the other.
"- A generally held belief, but not universal. *Grins* Of course, the rest of us think the exceptions are insane."
Well, the exceptions doubtless think the "normal" ones are insane too. Fair's fair. *snicker*
- I generally classify anything that can only be described in philosophical terms as an abstract with no objective meaning.
Exactly. And "objective" means what? That which can be proven, yes? Therefore
moves it out of the realm of science and into philosophy (which I am defining as "speculation which can be supported by logic, but only rarely if at all supported by observation of *provable* data.")"
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>