Defending Andy McIntosh
More correspondence concerning Andy McIntosh in the page of , including a letter from his colleague Stuart Burgess. Dr Burgess is also a member of . I interviewed him in Belfast while he was visiting to talk about his book .
Burgess's leter reads:
Professor McIntosh makes a valid point. The second law states that every system always decays from a relatively ordered state to a disordered state. I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of how naturalistic evolution overcomes this fundamental law of science. As someone who believes in a creator, Andy McIntosh stands shoulder to shoulder with great scientists such as Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Kelvin. Professor McIntosh is in good company.
Professor Stuart Burgess
Department of mechanical engineering, Bristol University
There's also a letter published by Steve Fuller, another of our Creation Wars participants. Steve describes himself as a secular humanist, but he challenges Dawkins's approach to both science and atheism:
Richard Dawkins complains (Letters, December 19) that Leeds University has not done enough to silence Professor McIntosh's creationist views. He should take a lesson from his own university, Oxford, which has done nothing to silence his open promotion of atheism.
Professor Steve Fuller
Professor of sociology, Warwick University
Comments
hear hear Mr Fuller.
Nor has Oxford university questioned why a leading biologist like Dawkins can promote the idea of aliens either.
No harm in him doing it, but is is serious doubles standards then to have a go at others for believing in God.
PB
Reading the 鈥榙efence鈥 of Andy McIntosh I am reminded of Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales (1707-1751) who was the eldest son of George II and father of George III. On notoriously bad terms with his parents, he died in 1751 before he could succeed to the throne leaving his son to be crowned George III in 1760.
On his death one wit wrote:
鈥淧oor Fred, he鈥檚 dead. That鈥檚 all need be said鈥.
Maureen
Have you a thoughtful comment on Dr Burgess' view of TSLOT?
Or a sensible comment on Dawkins' double standards in what he wants to freedom to discuss but would deny McIntosh?
Perhaps a stand up comedy blog would be of more interest to you. I mean, nobody had every discovered parthenogenesis until this month had they, or is was this just the first time you ever read about it? ;-)
WOuld be interested to see a bit more substance from you there...
PB
PB: You asked: "Have you a thoughtful comment on Dr Burgess' view of TSLOT?
Why yes!
Burgess wrote: "I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of how naturalistic evolution OVERCOMES this fundamental law of science."
PB: I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of how naturalistic evolution VIOLATES this fundamental law of science.
Burgess 1 McNeill 1
PB: You are a loveable character but regrettably I'm not interested in hearing YOUR defence of McIntosh. I am waiting patiently, with my knitting, for MCINTOSH's defence of MCINTOSH and I am getting very tired with having to move from blog to blog looking for it.
Peace,
Maureen
PB:
Since "Fred is Dead" and there is little hope of his resurrection, can we get back to creationism for a moment?
Have you a thoughtful comment on Dr Borg's view of creationism in Genesis 1 that it is based on an ancient Israelite hymn of creation?
Regards,
Michael
....and Maureen how do your scientific credentials stack up against Dr Burgess' one wonders?
They would surely need to be pretty close for your view to count as one goal equal to Burgess...
Otherwise I could just say, well I have never seen an example of how natural science overcomes TSLOT and then the creationists would be 2-1 up...
so what is your Phd in Maureen???
PB
PB:
re your comment: "how do your scientific credentials stack up against Dr Burgess' one wonders?"
Well I am not in the least intimidated by either Burgess' or McIntosh's scientific credentials. When it comes to their claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution they are simply wrong. The reasons have already been mentioned before by several commentators at the other site, but if you鈥檙e still confused see here:
Also, Dawkins is not guilty of double standards and Steve Fuller is being typically disingenuous to suggest so. The issue is NOT McIntosh鈥檚 Christian beliefs. Rather, the concern is that McIntosh has made statements about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (and indeed about the age of the Earth), that are jaw-dropping nonsense. Given that he's supposed to be a Professor of Thermodynamics, this must raise awkward questions about his teaching competence. I鈥檓 afraid there really is no wriggle room here.
ps: I can鈥檛 speak for Maureen, but my PhD is in Biochemistry.
My PhD is in biology, not that this matters. A scientific theory is not evaluated on the basis of the "credentials" of those stating that theory. Science doesn't work like that.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is clearly not violated by biological evolution. Anyone suggesting otherwise must fail to understand the second law or the theory of evolution. I think it's fair to assume that Burgess and McIntosh fully understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics - this is their professional specialism. It is equally fair, I think, to assume from their recent comments that they fail to understand the theory of evolution in respect of entropy. This does not surprise me. Science is an extremely specialised business these days, and most professional scientists are so busy keeping abreast of developments in their own fields that they can't be expected to keep up to date with other disciplines as well.
It is, of course, embarrassing for Leeds and Bristol universities to have academics making these kinds of public statements over bylines mentioning their institutions. I am not in favour of witchhunts, and I believe McIntosh and Burgess are entitled to hold and state their views in public. Just as Richard Dawkins is free to state his atheistic views in public as though these views logically follow from a basic scientific education (whih they don't).
Brendan
A very considered contribution from you there, I thought anyway.
Tony
I never for a second suggested that anyone should be intimidated by anyone's credentials. My point is that anybody can write almost anything on this blog, convinced as they may be about their own expertise.
But in reality there are a lot of people pontificating about things they are apparently quite ill informed on. That is my only beef.
I have no science.
r
So Dr Jackson you see no double standards from Dawkins but Dr O'learty clearly sees a parallel between what the two scientists are saying.
I see your point ref Fuller Tony ref, but does Dawkins get a free pass from Oxford University to assert that alien civilisations exist, without evidence?
Lastly Tony, you are very certain McIntosh is wrong on TSLOT but are all these 200 scientists wrong as well, in your eyes?
Who will guide the everyman like me?
PB
I was apparently censored for some reason so I'll repeat so you can hear PB- arguing on the basis of someone's credentials rather than on the merits of their argument is what's known as 'ad hominem'. Since you're so fond of the phrase, I thought you'd benefit from having it applied.
John
My understanding is that ad hominem comments are attacks on the person.
That is quite different to asking someone if they are actually qualified to give an opinion.
quite different.
PB
PB- You aren't very open to learn here, are you? In Latin, 'ad hominem' means "against the man", or, "against the person". Instead of dealing with the arguments of commenters on this blog, you are arguing in a logically fallacious manner against the person on the basis of what credentials they may or may not have.
You are making arguments on an ad hominem basis.
(You may want to read up a little on this if you insist on using this criticism of other people.)
John
please read post 11 again and think about whether my definition of ad hominem was accurate or not.idnt you read it or did you just skip over it?
D
PB
PB- You aren't accepting criticism very well for someone who claims so often to being openminded. You have frequently cited lack of scientific credentials as a relevant factor in arguments of this nature: I'm simply pointing out that such a path of argument is ad hominem, and a logical fallacy.
Maybe I know a way to solve this debate. I guess things would quiet down a lot if Creationists/Young Earth adherents/Intelligent Designers (abbreviated as 'IDiots' hereafter) would act consistently with what they preach. Has anyone of them ever used some medication, anti-biotics, or other treatment? By all means, use the old stuff! Never mind that medics say that viruses have grown resistent to some of it. After all, you wouldn't believe that, because life doesn't change over time, right? With the IDiots etc going the way of the dinosaurs (appropriate given their mental state) the rest of us could then turn our attention back to doing interesting scientific research.
ps: sorry if there is any poor English in there, I'm not a native English speaker
Look John
Science is a very specialised business, much more specialised than you appear to realize.
See what Dr O'Leary said in post 8 about this?
If you have a professor talking about his field of specialism I would say it is arrogant for the layman to presume his opinion on the subject is equally valid - fair point?
That does not mean the layman is not free to comment - he is. But the layman and the onlookers will be better informed if they appreciate the level of study, qualification and expertise each party brings to the table.
If that really is an ad hominem point to raise I cant see it, but guilty as charged.
PB
Peter- No poor English that I can see, and welcome to the blog. I see from your link that you're one of the minority of cherished Mac users in Northern Ireland. Glad there are still a few of us around!
It seems to me that anyone who has graduated with a degree from Leeds University should be very concerned as should the school administrators. If this debacle isn't cleared up soon, the esteem the University is held in and the value of the degrees it confers would be diminished in the eyes of the world at large. I think Andrew McIntosh should be offered to select from three courses of action. A) He admits he made a mistake in the heat of a debate and retracts his assertion about the second law of thermodynamics as false. B) He proves his assertion to the satisfaction of the technical community of his peers within a reasonable period of time (most unlikely and remarkable if he could.) C) He quit the University and no longer associate himself with it (or get fired.) The longer this issue goes unresolved, the more the suspicion will be confirmed that the University is unwilling enforce its own minimum standards of technical excellence for its instructors.
Sigh...
pb and others:
Consider Bachmann _et al._ in J. Amer. Chem. Soc. (1990) _112_ 8200-8201. In a nutshell: one mixes iso-octane, octanol, octanoic acid (sodium salt), some water, and some lithium hydroxide. The water and the iso-octane are immiscible, but the octanol and octanoic acid are surfactants, and the system orders itself into tiny water droplets ("cores") containing the LiOH surrounded by a surfactant "membrane" swimming in iso-octane. Sounds kind of like a prokaryote, no?
Now the clever bit: feed the system the octanoic acid/octanol ester and a bit of water and more LiOH. The ester resides mostly in the oil phase, but when it comes in contact through the membrane with the LiOH it is hydrolyzed, releasing more of the surfactant/alcohol mixture. So, the "cells" grow in size until they are unstable and split into two separate cells. Looks a lot like mitosis, doesn't it?
As long as you keep "feeding" and "watering" them, they respire, they reproduce...
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is really only an observation, as are all "Laws" of science) does not preclude the formation of DNA; it drives it. With the sun pounding in so much energy and the energetic contribution from subterranean radioactivity, the system *must*, to some degree, build complex molecules to minimize the Gibbs Free Energy. You don't get a lot of nucleic acids forming (and you don't need much to kick off the process), but statistically, you must get *some*.
Moral: complexity arising from simple systems is not precluded by TSLOT. This is not even slightly in debate among scientific circles, as it's been in the literature for decades.
Burgess's letter reads:
鈥淧rofessor McIntosh makes a valid point. The second law states that every system always decays from a relatively ordered state to a disordered state.鈥
.
鈥渆very system鈥 ????
Oh dear, Professor Burgess. To think, that in every physical chemistry subject I studied, I was taught that the application of this law depended on a qualification of the type of system in question. Specifically whether the system was 鈥渃losed鈥 or 鈥渙pen鈥 as well as to whether or not external energy was applied to the said system. Now I see I will have to try and get all of those fees I paid refunded!
Please explain!
PB
鈥淚 see your point ref Fuller Tony ref, but does Dawkins get a free pass from Oxford University to assert that alien civilisations exist, without evidence?鈥
Dawkins is merely pointing out that in so vast a Universe, it is entirely possible that the Earth may not be the only place where life has evolved. This is a reasonable speculation from available evidence. Indeed, the search for extraterrestrial life within our own solar system was a major aim of the Viking Mars lander missions of the 1970s. Whether there are other places in the Universe where 鈥榠ntelligent鈥 life has evolved is even more speculative, but again it is perfectly acceptable to discuss these matters provided one is constrained by the known laws of Science. Note that when speculating about 鈥榓lien civilizations鈥, Dawkins is most certainly not advocating anything that is miraculous.
Brendan (post 8) makes the reasonable assumption that McIntosh understands the Laws of Thermodynamics, but has misunderstood evolution. Initially I thought that too. However, over on:
A bolgger called plastictowel has done the important task of actually contacting McIntosh to explain his views on TSLOT. Surprisingly McIntosh replied. Even more surprisingly this is what he said:
鈥淵our answer is not correct Chris. An open system with energy flowing will not help. As I said on the program to Professor Dawkins you have to have a machine (teleonomy) in order to make use of the energy available. That presupposes intelligence.
A. C. McIntosh
尝别别诲蝉鈥
Look, this is an example of misdirection, more worthy of stage magicians than professors at respectable universities. At its most basic, the science of Thermodynamics describes the relationships between heat and work. Nowhere in any of the Laws of Thermodynamics will you find any reference to a 鈥渕achine in order to make use of the energy available鈥. Whilst it is reasonable to assume such energy conversion mechanisms exist, the mechanistic details of their operation are not the subject of Thermodynamics. Neither does the origin of said 鈥榤achine鈥 necessarily presuppose an 鈥榠ntelligent designer鈥, given the known power of evolutionary mechanisms to generate what Dawkins has called 鈥榓daptive complexity鈥.
Finally, you mention a list of so-called scientists on a website run by the young earth creationist organisation 鈥淎nswers in Genesis鈥. The very name of this organisation should set off your alarm bells. Members of this organisation assume a priori that the Bible is literally true and have to affirm this when they join. They are therefore forced to view all evidence and data - not just in biology but also in physics, astronomy and geology through this distorting prism. Some of these people may indeed have science PhDs, but they are not behaving as scientists because they are not being intellectually honest.
1) I GOT IT three blogs ago that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not violated by evolution.
2) I GOT IT three blogs later that McIntosh is not coming back.
PB: After you respond to Post 5 I'll take myself off and see what Mark has done to the Pope with the breathing tube.
MH: You described yourself as an 'agnostic'. An 'orthodox agnostic' has appeared in this blog apparently enveloped in soap bubbles. May I ask if you are an 'orthodox' or a 'heterodox' agnostic?
Peace,
Maureen
PS to PB: Don't fall into Mark's trap of metaphorizing me as lacking a Ph.D :-)
A relevation from heaven!
For those of you who don't believe in God, please explain why the anagram on
"Richard Dawkins"
is
"Darwin's arch kid"
Peace,
Maureen
ps: Mark that should put the atheistic cats in among the creationist pidgeons!
At 03:29 PM on 27 Dec 2006,
pb wrote:
"but are all these 200 scientists wrong as well, in your eyes?"
My refund is not looking good. I discussed it with a Professor in the Developmental Genetics department here.(many others are still on their holiday break) He informs me that there would be close to 200 scientists there, at his particular university alone, who will argue against any claim stating TSLOT disputes evolution.
He also informs me that any such challenge would contain no testable scientific proposals, but would instead be
based on theological interpretation of the bible, as outlined at the answersingenesis.org website:
Page 1
"Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"
Page 2
Question 3: Did the 2nd Law begin at the Fall?
He goes on to say, that this would negate, any scientific basis of my intended challenge.
Any advice from any of the YEC scientists how I might get around these problems?
Peter, Tony
Peter ref post 15 - is the development of resistence in an organism actually evolution - come on now....
I have developed lots of resistence to many things but I doubt I have ever evolved ;-)
Tony, sorry but you are way over my head on TSLOT there and I have to bow out.
But to dismiss the 200 phds and above on AIG because they believe the bible is not rational. You come to science with your own contrasting values or "distorting prism" so who is the arbiter of "truth" here? You?
Come on now, you are a bit naive if you think that scientists without faith come to the lab without prejudice because of that.
As I understand the giants whose shoulders science now stands were either mainly Christians or with a predominantly Christian worldview. And as evolution is such a new theory, surely a significant number of them would have believd in God as their creator.
eg Should all Mendel's work on genetics and on the work that was based on it (including your professors) now be burnt and banned as heresy because Mendel was a monk?
His work is the foundation of the whole discipline of genetics and although he is understood to have read some of Darwin's work I understand there nobody suggests he was an evolutionist.
How would your professor of genetics answer that I wonder?
And lastly I wonder if you might be getting a bit fast and lose with your sampling techniques good doctor. Do you seriously believe that AIG's 200 phds and above are all the creationists in science?
Truth in Science website homepage currently leads with opinion polls by Mori/大象传媒 Horizon/The Guardian which puts belief in creationism/ID in the UK as between 30-41 per cent, from memory.
Do you honestly think you might work with many scientists in your university who could range from creationists to those without faith but sceptical of evolution? Considering the hostility of your attitude to the matter, they are not stupid and are unlikely to invite criticism which could harm their careers? So they are unlikely to confide in you. Fair point?
SO scientists who do not believe in evolution may be in the majority, but perhaps that may not be that out of step with the belief systems of the population in general. What does all that prove? nothing except it challenges your attempt to marginalise creationism.
BY the way, why has there never been found a partially evolved feather? Not trying to be awkward with you personally but has anyone out there got an answer on this?
cheers
PB
Dear Confused
You are saying that the assertion that TSLOT disputes evolution is not testable in a lab.
But isnt the opposite therefore also true also; The assertion that TSLOT supports evolution is not testable in a lab either.
This is because you cannot see evolution happening, it is about intreptating very old data.
You also quote from AIG (which is not infallible by the way) where it asserts that TSLOT was not the curse which began at the fall.
But that is not the same thing as saying that AIG says the TSLOT supports the theory of evolution.
Have you read all they have said on this;
Let me know if this answers your questions please.
Sincerely
PB
(No doctorate or BSC)
Michael
ref post 5
Have finally got onto broadband but dont know how to open this file form Borg.
However on the same theme here is a respected creationist Rabbi...
PN
Pb is citing a rabbi from the 11th century in favour of creationism? This thing just gets weirder and weirder. The rabbi was born nearly a thousand years before Darwin.
Re Post 27 pb wrote:
"Michael ref post 5. Have finally got onto broadband but dont know how to open this file form Borg."
PB do you have Real Audio player. It's a quick download. The link should open though it may take about 1 minute as it is a video file.
Here is another route to the file:
On left hand side click 鈥淪earch explorefaith.org鈥
Click on Document #7 "One on One Interview with Marcus Borg"
Then choose video clip Number 3.
Regards,
Michael
The second law of thermodynamics has been dubbed "time's arrow鈥. I鈥檓 not an expert in thermodynamics so someone help me out here.
Since entropy is always increasing it will at some time become infinite and the universe will presumably come to a 鈥榖ig stop鈥. Am I right therefore that at some time in the past entropy was infinitely small (zero?) and that was the time when the universe started with the 鈥榖ig bang鈥?
If all of this is so then what is the scientists鈥 position on how entropy got to zero in the first place?
Once we come to the 鈥榖ig stop鈥 does that mean we have reached THE END. Or will gravity pull everything back into another 鈥榖ig bang鈥? But then how can gravity do that if the entropy has maxed out? Is there going to be AN END and if so has there been A BEGINNING?
Does entropy tell us that we only will have one BEGINNING and one END?
PB: I don鈥檛 need you to reply to me about God 鈥 I鈥檝e got that side of the picture nailed down with one of my knitting needles 鈥 what I am trying to get at is the explanation from the scientists. If you keep quiet both of us might learn something! You could, however, pray that Mark doesn鈥檛 reply with a song and dance routine. ;-)
Peace,
Maureen
25. At 09:38 AM on 28 Dec 2006,
pb wrote:
鈥淭ruth in Science website homepage currently leads with opinion polls by Mori/大象传媒 Horizon/The Guardian which puts belief in creationism/ID in the UK as between 30-41 per cent, from memory.鈥
.
Here is an update from the latest religion poll in the UK
.
The Guardian
Saturday December 23, 2006
Religion does more harm than good 鈥 poll (Julian Glover and Alexandra Topping)
鈥82% say faith causes tension in country where two thirds are not religious鈥
鈥淭he poll also reveals that non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one. It paints a picture of a sceptical nation with massive doubts about the effect religion has on society: 82% of those questioned say they see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Only 16% disagree. The findings are at odds with attempts by some religious leaders to define the country as one made up of many faith communities.鈥
Maureen wrote somne pretty heady questions:
"The second law of thermodynamics has been dubbed 'time's arrow'."
This one is interesting. All of the other fundamental laws (conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, uncertainty...) are reversible in time. An ice cube left out in a warm room will melt into a puddle and the room will cool, but there's no First Law violation if a puddle assembles into an ice cube and the room warms up. Yet that's not what we observe. A (very inadequate) statement of the Second Law would be that "effect follows cause", or that heat flows from warmer bodies to cooler bodies and not the other way 'round.
TSLOT says that time moves forward in one direction for all things. If not, it would be possible for the ice cube to assemble while our memories and observations moved in the opposite "direction"; i.e., we could observe such an odd event. We cannot "step out of time", so to speak, to observe time passing differently for other objects or people than it does for us.
"Since entropy is always increasing it will at some time become infinite and the universe will presumably come to a 鈥榖ig stop鈥. Am I right therefore that at some time in the past entropy was infinitely small (zero?) and that was the time when the universe started with the 鈥榖ig bang鈥?"
Be careful with the term "infinity." It's not a "really, really large number", it's a concept: without end." So no, entropy will not become infinite at some point.
Secondly, entropy is basically the most successful fudge factor ever invented. Early thermodynamicists, attempting to quantify the changes in a postulated "Internal Energy" (U) in a gas recognized that by doing a small amount of work by the gas would lower U a measurable amount, and adding a small amount of heat would raise U by a determined amount. dU=dQ-DW, where the "d" indicates a small change, Q is heat, and W is work. The work part was easy, the pressure (P) times a small change in volume (V). The heat part was not so simple; they knew it had something to do with temperature, so they postulated a thermal potential, called "entropy" (S).
Thus, dU=TdS-PdV.
Entropy is a sort of mathematical place holder; we can specify absolute zero values for entropy and therefore assign absolute values to it, but we can't measure it. There is no such thing as an "entropy meter."
Thus, your next question:
"If all of this is so then what is the scientists鈥 position on how entropy got to zero in the first place?"
is pretty hard to address. Yes, the Big Bang may be viewed as an entropic hiccup of sorts, but the concept of a "total entropy" for the universe is not well defined. (The total energy for the universe is zero, by the way, so there is no First Law violation at the Big Bang either.)
As for the bit about "one beginning, and one end", that's probably fundamentally unanswerable. If it happened another "time" but that universe could not support intelligent life, there'd be nobody there to ponder the question. This is the Anthropic Principle: we cannot step outside the universe even as a thought experiment, because we are part of it. We can draw no conclusions, therefore, about the universe being "special" or that there must be an intelligent designer. If it weren't as it it, we wouldn't be here blogging about it.
It comes down to "It Just Is."
I hope this helps, rather than muddying the waters.
REF: POST 32
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
The unanswerable answered and you heard it here first.
In post 32 Orthodox Agnostic wrote:
"I hope this helps, rather than muddying the waters."
OA: Thank you for what is obviously a very carefully prepared response. I am very appreciative for the time you took with this response.
My honest reaction is that science will never be able to sell this to the majority of the non-scientific population. So Dawkins should quit with his 'crusade' against religion and go on about his business. (Unless, of course, his business is simply selling his own books.)
You wrote: "It comes down to "It Just Is.""
Now what if I substitute "It just Is" with "God just Is"?
I imagine this would be PB's probable response to your explication. And then I bet Hull would say that since one doesn't know the answer to these BEGINNING and END questions one should study them with both science (IT) and philosophy (GOD) until one or both approaches come up with a better understanding of where 'It' came from and where 'It' is going.
By the way Hull states he is an "agnostic Christian" and an "agnostic scientist". He probably means that he is a 'skeptical' Christian and a 'skeptical' scientist given the proper meaning of the word 'skeptical' which to me means keeping one's mind open at all times.
You appear to have in-depth scientific knowledge. May I ask if you are in his camp or does 'orthodox agnostic' spell out something different of which I should be aware?
I'm learning from all of this and the main message that I have been seeing lately is that both science and philosophy (religion) suffer once fundamentalist thought is brought into the discussion.
My fundamentalist camp includes both Dawkins and McIntosh.
Peace,
Maureen
Brendan
wind your neck in ;-)
We are not in your phd area now.
If had noticed Dr Hull was discussing hebrew creation hymns with me - did you miss that?
And did science begin with Darwin any way? Of course it didnt. I reckon your methodology is showing a bit of bias here Dr Brendan. ;-)
* Religion poll update;-
Thats quite interesting - it suggests that around 20% of the population believe in creationism or ID but also think religion adds tension to society.
Can you discuss this?
My memory was not 100 per cent correct, here are the actual polls i mentioned;-
In an Ipsos MORI Poll carried out in January 2006 for 大象传媒 Horizon , 41% of the respondents thought that Intelligent Design Theory should be taught in school science classes, and...
...44% believed that Creationism Theory should be taught!!!
The Guardian says "Evolution is on the way out";-
An Opinionpanel Research Survey in July 2006 found that 30% of University Students in the UK believe in creation or intelligent design.
Maureen: Isnt that a bit sneaky, putting in words in my mouth so you can think from my corner without taking any flak?
Actually I think I would have said "how do you know God just isnt?"
OA: If you cant test outside the universe how can you conclude that it is not special. Surely you cannot prejudge the conclusion to this matter and have to conclude it is equally possible God is there as is not? Isnt anything else non-scientific presumption?
Also very interesting that you describe entropy as "the most successful fudge facter every invented". I wonder how this factors into evolutionists' certainty on TSLOT, entropy and DNA self-creation?
PB
PS Anyone tell me why we have never found a half evolved feather?
pb, if science is on the way out, the world can go back to dying of tuberculosis, scarlet fever, and bubonic plague. The germs don't care what we think, they just go on evolving inventing new ways to survive old medicines. If those don't survive, others like them just as effective will.
Before science when the earth was flat and the center of the universe, human life was short and painful. Your morality is a carryover from a time when human extinction was a real possibility due to a paucity of numbers. Now that same morality which places a high velue on life and scientific advances to extend life threatens our extinction by having created a surfeit of numbers. If religion manages to kill off most of mankind, its edicts will be back in synchrony with its needs again.
Mark
Your English is stariing to cave in The Guardian said "Evolution [not science] is on the way out".
So your beef is with that well known Christian publication, not me.
Of course many if not most of the people who laid the foundations for cures to these diseases would have believed in a creator Mark...
WHy can a virus/germ not develop resistence to a drug etc like I can???
why does that have to be evolution???
found any half evolved feathers yet anyone??
PB
pb, you were right in your other blog entry about ignorance of science. Strains of germs in successive generations evolve which are immune to the effects of medications designed to destroy them. Humans develop a tolerence for drugs because of accumulation of metabolic byproducts of them. There is no chance of you evolving so you can sleep soundly over it.
I don't take issue with the Guardian, I'm just pointing out that if evolution is on the way out, so is the rest of science with it.
Whether or not those who discovered effective medications believed in a creator or not is not relevant to their scientific discoveries, is it? Besides, the debate here is over creationism and ID. From what I've seen, the overwhelming majority of people who believe in a creator don't belive in so called "Creation Science" they believe in evolution. That was the official position of all of the theologians representing major religions interviewed on the subject near the end of the radio broadcast as I recall.
By the way, my English should not expected to be very good. After all, I was educated in a country where according to Professor Higgins "they havn't used it for years."
Mark
You know, I like you in blog 38.
Its like we are having a real conversation about real subjects but without the alley fight...
:-)
By the way, if evolution is really the bedrock of science you say it is, how come so many founding father scientists didnt believe in it. eg Mendel, father of modern genetics.
He was a contemporary of Darwin and had read his works, but he was also a Monk. Darwinism was just taking off and there is no evidence I know of that Mendel bought it.
PB
Maureen McNeill #30;
since your questions here are the first sign of intelligent life I've noticed on planet Maureen, I will make a one time exception to my promise to myself not to reply to you (like total ecipses of the sun, this may be a rare event.)
When I learned thermodynamics (more years ago than I care to think about) the professor mentioned exactly what you said. The notion was termed "the heat death of the universe" where all matter and energy became so uniform that no further interactions were possible. How is this reconciled with an ever expanding universe? I don't know.
IMO, Orthodox Agnostic in #32 is right, the net directed energy of the universe is zero because the initial explosion sent matter into all directions with such velocity that their center of energy (vector sum of their momentum) is still exactly at the original point in space of the explosion. This is classical Newtonian physics.
As for whether or not the exploding universe will ultimately fly apart forever or collapse back in on itself, I'll offer my own opinion without any proof or support. The last time I read an informed article on the subject, it was believed that the galaxies have enough energy to escape the gravitational pull which would draw them back together. However, knowing that we live in a universe where the most observed phenomenon is oscillation and that it is known to exist in at least four dimensions, I believe it will one day collapse in on itself. How can that be? Imagine a universe of two dimensional objects flying apart as the result of an explosion on a closed three dimensional surface, a globe. Eventually, they will come together again on the opposite side. I think this is the ultimate fate of the universe, it will eventually mysteriously appear to implode as the galaxies collide on the opposite side of the four dimensional sphere it exists on. Then it will explode again in a perpetual cycle which has no beginning or end. In such a universe, the notion of original creation has no meaning and questions about the beginning and end of time are absurd. How this could come about is beyond human knowledge.
BTW Orthodox Agnostic, when I went to school, the notion that heat always flows from the hotter temperature to the colder temperature was known as "the zeroth law of thermodynmics." My mechanical engineering friends and I have reviewed more elaborate engineering proposals for energy savings schemes than I could count where violation this principle was the ultimate fatal flaw. In complex systems evidently it can be easily overlooked.
Maureen: Thanks for your kind words. "Orthodox Agnostic" is a silliness I fancy, but descriptive nevertheless. I might have added "Apathetic" in there as well, but I didn't want to steal someone else's _bon mot_ nor make an uncomfortably long moniker. I am firmly convinced that I do not and cannot know the answer(s) to the God question, and am equally as convinced that nobody else does or can either. So why bother including it at all? If one wants to believe, let 'em. If one would rather not, more power to 'em. Just keep it out of the laws governing our behavior, please.
You might want to check out the musings at the Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (motto: "We don't know and we don't care.") Google it; it's easy to find.
PB: how do I know God just isn't? I don't. But I can observe that there is a universe I inhabit. I can't do the same with God. So no, it's not "equally likely", it's just not something I can categorically deny. But I find the question pointless; there are probably countless inobservable things I cannot prove to be nonexistent. I choose not to worry about them.
On entropy: yes, it's a fudge factor, but one which seems to hold up mathematically and observably. We can (and do) assign absolute entropies to chemical species and use those values to accurately calculate chemical reaction rates and chemical equilibria. Whether there are hidden variables or not is irrelevant for the most part, as long as one remembers that it's a mathematical tool. Do imaginary components of electrical signals really exist? Who knows. But acting as if they do leads to correct mathematical calculations that allow the computer you're typing on to be designed. It works. (And please don't insult me with a similar "God works too" claim. He's not inferentially observable in the same sense. See below.)
[Out of science mode, into metaphysical mode]
But consider: If God does exist, would it not be blasphemy to claim to be able to demonstrate it? "That God is a clever fellow, but He can't hide from me and my high tech scanning electron microscope. I'm way too smart for Him to escape my probing mind."
You've got your faith; how nice for you. It's not something I share. Please don't bother me about it, and do ask your buddies to stop abusing thermodynamics to try to bolster it, please. I grow weary of having to explain why those arguments are fallacious. One cannot know (and no, that doesn't imply a 50-50 split of likelihood.) So enjoy your faith, but you'd be well advised to cease claiming objective certainty; it's *that* which makes the fundamentalists look silly.
In post 40 Mark wrote:
"Maureen McNeill #30; since your questions here are the first sign of intelligent life I've noticed on planet Maureen, I will make a one time exception to my promise to myself not to reply to you (like total ecipses of the sun, this may be a rare event.)"
Mark: I knew you would never desert me! After all as a determinist you have no free will to overcome my many charms ;-). And I metaphorize you much better when you leave your top hat at home!
Everyone: This discussion on the BEGINNING and END of the universe has been very enlightening and I have read the additional comments from Mark and OA with much interest.
I understand the models (as Hull would describe them) which you have posited but I am further confirmed in my opinion which I expressed in Post 34 ("My honest reaction is that science will never be able to sell this to the majority of the non-scientific population.") and I think that as scientists we should refrain from knocking down the spiritual element until we have got our own house in better order.
So let's keep our minds open on all sides of the debate - that is the way forward if we are to follow 'the arrow of truth'. Fundamentalism corrupts both science and theology.
Peace,
Maureen
Maureen #42
"I think as scientists we should refrain..."
You seriously expect me to believe you are a scientist? It took me ten minutes to pick myself up off the floor when I read that as I almost died laughing. Don't get carried away with yourself, I only said "signs of intelligent life" not educated or rational.
OA
As an objective and detached scientist so concerned with facts and observable data, it would appear that your bias/prejudice has tripped you up in post 41.
1) I never claimed the "objective certainity" you claim I did. In fact on evolution and creationism I am on record numerous times on this website as saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. I opnely admit I could not prove the arugment to myself one way or the other, as I have said many times. I think creationism is credible and am sceptical of evolution but have no science.
2) Again, I never suggested you might demonstrate God, just examine whether he existed or not. Misreding the data again?
3) The contemptous tone of yours guarantees you will go into every test of God (in or out of a laboratory) with a severe chip on your shoulder and guarantees you will reject any viable data in his favour. So much for scientific objectivity.
4)Lastly, another false assumption; I am most certainly not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination, and they will not have me, I can guarantee you that.
I wonder how many assumptions like these you carry into your science and how reliable that makes you on TSLOT???
Or do you immediately drop all your sneering the moment you put a lab coat on?
A little more humility might take you further...
No doubt there are many much better qualifed people than you who agree with McIntosh (over 200 phds and professors on Answers in Genesis website for example)
- so now who is claiming objective certainty here? certainly not me.
PB
In post 43 Mark wrote:
"You seriously expect me to believe you are a scientist? It took me ten minutes to pick myself up off the floor when I read that as I almost died laughing. Don't get carried away with yourself, I only said "signs of intelligent life" not educated or rational."
Ah, Mark. You continue to try to frame a picture of me which is to your own liking. Instead of reading what I write objectively you continue to read subjectively through the lens of 'who' the person is that is doing the writing.
Now what does this say about your scientific objectivity? I thought Hull was doing a good job of explaining this to you but he apparently gave up.
However, I learned his lesson .... I will have more surprises for you.
Stay tuned!
Peace,
Maureen
Don't kid yourself Maureen, I've written Michael Hull off also as pleasant to converse with but confused. He seems to me to be of two minds, one which reflects his scientific education, and another which is controlled by his earlier indoctrination into religion. He seems unable to choose between them when they come into conflict. Remember my quote from Saint Thomas Aquinas where he says that if he's given a child at age five, he'll turn him into a Christian for life? That's the kind of thing that happens to a lot of people including those who become scientists. I am so grateful to my parents that such a curse was never visited upon me. I don't worry about my eternal soul because I know I don't have one. Do you?
Hi Mark:
The Zeroth Law is that if object A is at the same temperature as object B, and object B is at the same temperature as object C, then objects A and C are also at the same temperature. Seems pretty obvious, but it is necessary to close the logical loop. And, were it to be violated, it would allow violations of the Second Law as well.
Also, I think you misunderstood my statement about the total energy of the universe. It's not merely that it is flying off in equal proportions; that would be conservation of momentum. (That's one of the problems with the Big Bang theory, by the way. We can't identify a "center" of the universe where it all took off.)
What I was getting at is that the sum total "positive" energy (kinetic, rotational, radiative, and the energy bound up as matter by e=mc^2) is exactly accounted for by the negative gravitational potential energy. I'm no astrophysicist, though, so I may have to eat some crow on that one if I am mistaken.
PB: I am sorry you read my last post in such an aggressive tone of voice. I assure you I did not write it with hostile intent. You are right, you did not assert objective certainty; I apologise for implying that you did.
As for Prof. McIntosh and the 200 PhDs at AIG: _argumentum ad numerum_ does not impress me. They are wrong, and astoundingly so. That sort of behavior is what I meant when I said claiming objective certainty makes them appear silly.
For the record, I am not a strong supporter of Dawkins, although I do like much of what he says. He's a tad too strident about it for my tastes, I am more convinced by the position of the late Steven Jay Gould, who described science and religion as "Dual Overlapping Magisteria" (if memory serves.) Creationism and it's stealth incarnation "Intelligent Design", are (in my opinion) deeply insulting to and abusive of both science *and* religion.
Rats. The man's name was "Stephen Jay Gould", not "Steven", and the description was of "NON-Overlapping Magisteria" not "Dual Overlapping Magisteria." Boy, did I ever get that last one wrong!
OA
I agree the number of people holding a view does not actually make it any more or less correct.
But I could easily challenge you on the facts and ask you how you can dismiss the views of so many scientists who are no doubt at least as well qualified as you, without having heard their personal takes on the matter.
It still seems to be you are far to certain about what you think you know.
I am honest in saying I have no science but I never said I had no intellect; science is being updated all the time and I think if you were having this discussion in a paper for peer review you would not be so strident in your assertions on what you have actually researached - never mind the views of 200 scientists whom you have never read!
Correct?
For example, you are still holding forth on religion in a startlingly Dawkinseque manner when you say creationism is insulting to religion.
On what authority exactly are you making such an assertion? Well?
Lets take our 200 aig phds and professors and just add me to that. I am an everyman bible student with a brain who thinks creationism sounds plausible. I mean, recorded history only goes back 6000 years and human civilisation only began roughly in that time scale in the locale of Eden as described by Gensis in the vicinity of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.
And let's remember nobody as yet to find a half evolved feather,
nor can evolution (or creationism) be demonstrated in a lab. It is all about interpreting ancient data.
So I dont feel insulted in the slightest by creationism and neither do these other 200 chaps.
You are out your depth and out of your field now, and you need to wind your neck back in a bit and review your intellectual approach to this matter if you want to remain honest and retain respect.
At least, that is my subjective opinion on the matter...
PB
Orthodox Agnositc, I'm puzzled by your statement that "the sum total "positive" energy(kinetic, rotational, radiative, and the energy bound up as matter by e=mc^2) is exactly accounted for by negative gravitational potential energy", since 90% of the mass in the universe can't be accounted for. Physicists call it "dark matter" (It seems to me they always invent words for things they don't understand as though putting a label on it means they do, isn't it wonderful how they do that?) Any ideas about how that is reconciled by what you said? I'm not an astro physicist either. I also don't see that this would agree with a constantly and forever expanding universe, would it? From what I read (admittedly a decade or two ago) the galaxies have achieved escape velocity and the expansion is a one time event which will not ultimately lead to a gravitational contraction and collapse (and assuming it is not on a closed surface as I hypothesized.) Any thoughts there?
by the way OA
If you want to keep religion out of the laws governing our behaviour you are in trouble.post 41.
Where did you think all our laws originated from?
The British legal system was based on Magna Carter which was based on the ten commandments. The US legal system was based on the british system and created in large part by puritans and secularists with judeo christian values.
Did you think our legal and political forbears just dreamed up the terms blasphemy, murder, adultery, and theft independently of the bible and then inserted them into the legal systems?
If you want to find an historical perspective on this try and find a country today that never used judeo christian values as its legal and cultural foundation and see if you would like to live there today.
Now look at the countries that used judeo cultural values for their legal and cultural foundations and see if that is where you would prefer to live today.
It is not 100 per cent watertight but it is a pretty useful rule of thumb. Most countries fit into this well, I would argue.
I am amazed at the number of people who are so ignorant of this. Everyone wants the modern cultural benefits of judeo christian civilisation without acknowledging its roots or facing up to the sociological implications of cutting out the judeo christian roots.
Bottom line is, if you like apples dont cut out the root of the apple tree. Look after the root and the better the fruit.
If anyone wants to contest this, note you can only really do it by giving historical examples of states which fly in the face of the argument.
PB
Greeting, PB. Thanks for your responses. I hadn't wanted to get into a dogfight about this, but I'll try to answer your questions.
I can dismiss the AIG blokes opinions on TSLOT because I find those opinions absurd. I could get into a discussion about statistical mechanics, the actual formulation of the laws of thermo, the problems of linking Shannon's Information Theory with thermodynamic entropy, but that would get pretty tangled quite quickly. Feel free to dismiss me as cavalierly; I think they probably would as well.
[creationism is insulting to religion]
"On what authority exactly are you making such an assertion? Well?"
Well, I did say that was just my opinion. But how about Kirkegaard's assertion that the truly faithful abhors the miracle, as it reduces God to a card sharp of physics and all His followers to drones? Such a miracle obviates faith.
Claiming to have evidence of a deity reduces that deity to behaving in a fashion understandable by humans. Why cannot an omnipotent entity both exist and not exist at the same time? How is it not the height of hubris to claim knowledge of the mind, nature, or actions of such a deity? Anyway, as I've already said, I think such matters are fundamentally unknowable. _c.f._ Kurt Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.
Creationism isn't merely "interpreting very old data", it's shutting down the inquiry with the pronouncement "God did it." It is extremely crucial in science and in religion to say "I don't know, let's find out." Creationism starts instead from "We already know because it says so in Genesis. Quit looking already, as it might upset our applecart." I find that insulting to religion as well as to science.
I don't have it to hand, but Thomas Aquinas also had some pretty strong warnings about making pronouncements about the natural world to non-believers, as it opens the faith up to mockery. (Might have been Augustine who said it. I'd have to search.)
I might also point out the lesson of the Book of Job. You know, the bit at the end where God appears in a whirlwind and rebukes Job for daring to demand satisfaction/understanding of Him? (The prose bits at the beginning and end of the book are later additions. The core of the story is the much older middle parts, which are in verse.)
Those are just some of the reasons I consider creationism to be an insult to religion. Again, those are just my opinions.
If you would like to discuss some of the evidence that is counter to the creationist model, we can do that. But I'd rather not abuse Mr. Crawley's blog.
As for keeping it out of our laws, I would prefer not to live in a theocracy. Yes, historically the laws derive from religious edicts, but I think we can take responsibility for our own laws without invoking divine authority. Anyway, isn't there a commandment about not taking the Lord's name in vain? I hope we can agree that murder is wrong without having to rely on "because God says so."
In post 43 Mark wrote: "You seriously expect me to believe you are a SCIENTIST? It took me ten minutes to pick myself up off the floor when I read that as I almost died laughing. Don't get carried away with yourself, I only said "signs of intelligent life" not educated or rational."
In post 46 Mark wrote: 鈥淒on't kid yourself Maureen, I've written Michael Hull off also as pleasant to converse with but CONFUSED.鈥
In post 50 Mark wrote: 鈥淥rthodox Agnositc, I'm PUZZLED by your statement that "the sum total "positive" energy(kinetic, rotational, radiative, and the energy bound up as matter by e=mc^2) is exactly accounted for by negative gravitational potential energy".
Orthodox Agnostic:
SCIENTIST is sure that both CONFUSED and PUZZLED might be interested in hearing your thoughts on a universe being 鈥渄ominated by a kind of energy we鈥檝e never directly observed鈥 and how the 鈥渦niverse is dominated by this type of energy we do not understand鈥.
I am quoting from the January 3, 2003 issue of Science and the work of Brian Chaboyer, Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Dartmouth, with his collaborator Lawrence Krauss, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Case Western Reserve University.
Combining their calculations of the ages of the oldest stars with measurements of the expansion rate and geometry of the universe led them to conclude that dark energy dominates the energy density of the universe. "This finding provides strong support for a universe which is dominated by a kind of energy we've never directly observed," says Chaboyer. "Observations of distant supernova have suggested for a few years that dark energy dominates the universe, and our finding provides independent evidence that the universe is dominated by this type of energy we do not understand."
The researchers came to this conclusion as they were refining their calculations for the age of globular clusters, which are groups of about 100,000 or more stars found in the outskirts of the Milky Way, our galaxy. Because this age (about 12 billion years old) is inconsistent with the expansion age for a flat universe (only about 9 billion years old), Krauss and Chaboyer came to the conclusion that the universe is expanding more quickly now than it did in the past. The only explanation, according to Chaboyer and Krauss, for an accelerating universe is that the energy content of a vacuum is non-zero with a negative pressure, in other words, dark energy. This negative pressure of the vacuum grows in importance as the universe expands and causes the expansion to accelerate.
No wonder Mark is so certain that he does not have a soul. I think it probably is somewhere to be found in the 鈥渘egative pressure of the vacuum鈥.
"Dark Energy!". Smells a lot like one of those Hull metaphors has crept into physics!
PB would say it is a 'Dark Force"!
Sorry, PB but you will forgive me, won't you? After all I didn't conclude that the 'Dark Force' is actually 'Satan'. Hull would not allow me to do that as one can not mix metaphor (Satan) with model (Dark Energy) according to his thesis.
Maybe I should give up knitting and borrow Mark鈥檚 top hat?
No, on second thought everytime I poke Mark with one of my knitting needles he pops out of the top hat like a startled jack rabbit. He says he won't talk to me again, then he says he will, then he won't, then he will ... Mark you make my poor little head spin - do all strong men toy with a women's emotions? You admit to having no free will so I have decided to take control of your responses.
Poke, poke.
Peace,
Maureen
* 53.
* At 02:13 AM on 30 Dec 2006,
* Maureen McNeill wrote:
"SCIENTIST is sure that both CONFUSED and PUZZLED might be interested in hearing your thoughts on a universe being 鈥渄ominated by a kind of energy we鈥檝e never directly observed鈥 and how the 鈥渦niverse is dominated by this type of energy we do not understand鈥."
.
Not at all Maureen :)
I'll leave those Q&As to the astro-physicists.
However, Confused would like someone to explain those damn homologous, so called "junk" DNA seguences, (laymans term) that are present in both primates and humans.
Did the creator forget to remove them or did he put them there with plans for the future in mind ?
Oh, and the transposons. How about those possibly pesky little entities.
Seems the primates also have some of those in common with humans. No doubt this creator does work in mysterious ways!
Please don't link the answersingenesis site again for me, pb! I'm on a diet (Holiday food..you understand) and that food is getting pretty monotonous,bland and unstisfying.
I'm beginning to feel this forum is no place for the answers I need to the questions I have.
Professor McIntosh is in an unenviable position! His Christian principles mean he will turn the other cheek, and not resort to personal insults and inuendo as others have in their assaults on him.
However, I would urge him to maintain the right of Christians who are senior scientists to affirm the option of there being an intelligence behind creation.
Especially in the light of attacks on Faith Academies atheists inscience need some countering.
After all, if Prof Dawkins and others get their way excluding the discussion of this proposition in discussions on origins, every school, college and university will become by default atheistic academies.
Apart from any other goals, this would be a major achievement for them.
Some of us would therefore desire Prof McIntosh to maintain his right to have an opinion, which, in any case, no atheist can actually disprove. After all, what evidence can they produce that God does not exist? They can say "If there is a god, why does he allow this?", or "why doesn't he do that?" These are moral arguments.
If they cannot prove there is no god, why is it irrational to believe there is one?
In Prof Dawkins case I recently wrote asking him a simple question:
I am trying to understand why, if we are an accidental arrangement of atoms, it really matters what we believe, and therefore why you consider it worth making such a fuss?
So far, there has been no answer.
David Harding
David Harding
David Harding wrote:
"I am trying to understand why, if we are an accidental arrangement of atoms, it really matters what we believe, and therefore why you consider it worth making such a fuss?"
.
I can answer for Professor Dawkins. However, for myself and many others, the fuss started with the intention to teach religion as science in schools.
I also recall the YEC/IDists starting the fuss by proposing that the plethora of peer reviewed scientic findings are wrong because they don't support a holy book written 2000 years ago.
David Harding wrote:
"I am trying to understand why, if we are an accidental arrangement of atoms, it really matters what we believe, and therefore why you consider it worth making such a fuss?"
.
I can answer for Professor Dawkins. However, for myself and many others, the fuss started with the intention to teach religion as science in schools.
I also recall the YEC/IDists starting the fuss by proposing that the plethora of peer reviewed scientic findings are wrong because they don't support a holy book written 2000 years ago.
I note in the replies to my earlier blog that the issue of fuss is a cause of concern to the respondents, but why does it matter what is taught anywhere if we are an accidental arrangement of atoms? Surely if that is the case we have come from nowehere, exist for no purpose and are going nowhere!
Why do atheists waste their moments of futile consciousness arguing what they cannot prove? It is certainly easier to assert there is no god than to prove it!
And I ask again, are all educational establishments therefore to become atheistic academies? Excluding any discussion of outside intelligence would result in this state of affairs.
David Harding
David Harding #58
"are all educational establishments therefore to become athiestic acadamies?" In the United States of America, that is the law for all public schools. It is embedded and enshrined in the first amendment of our constitution. It is illegal to teach religion in them. They can teach about religion as cultural or historical artifacts but they cannot in any way promote any theology which hypothesizes a supernatural being or explanation of existance. That is how Ameica avoided becoming Northern Ireland for over 200 years. That is why America has been a refuge from religious persecution many other nations have fallen prey to. In private schools they can teach whatever they like as long as they don't advocate the violent overthrow of the government. That's illegal in any American school.
As for Andrew McIntosh's rights you specified in #55, I am much more concerned about Leeds University's duty to uphold its minimum standards of academic excellence. At this point, I might consider not hiring one of their graduates on the strength of the question of their laxity in this area alone. Who knows what other skeletons lurk in their closet which have not caught the public eye.
Interesting thought just occured from comments above.
If we compare homosexuality and creationism both are involved with origins in some respect, the origin of man and the origin of sexuality.
With homosexuality a common argument now is that it doesnt matter what causes it, even if that could be harmful to the person concerned; we should not ask too many deep questions, just accept the people who hold that belief about their sexuality.
But when it comes to creationism I doubt this same argument would gain common currency; dont ask too many deep questions about what they belief just accept them anyway.
I am talking about valid scientific enquiry into both questions here, so there is common ground; what is the origins of homosexuality, what is the origin of man.
Of course in a secular dominated society, the interpretation of data is likely to be skewed against judeo christian worldview in both cases.
PB
OA
Fair point, you did say it was your opinion, which I missed.
Christ also rebuked as an evil hgeneration those who only sought after miracles but would not follow him. But it does not follow that Christ would find creationism or creationist scientists evil or in error. Having said that, there were those that became believers after miraculous cures; my own sister became a Christian last summer because her brain tumour disappeared after prayer. The consultant said: "Miracles do happen".
I am certainly not convinced it is helpful or possible to find scintific evidence for God, but it is relevant because it is one of the big points raised again and again by Dawkins and his ilk on this blog. You yourself have raised this point in different forms already, so you appear to be using it as an excuse when it suits.
But if you are really openminded about this, that should surely leave you in a neutral and open minded position about his existence, which I dont feel you are in. So are you less prejudiced than a creationist?
And I may be repeating myself, but I just fail to see how creationists are any more prejudiced on this than athiests; both will see the data they want to; lies damned lies and stats etc you know how it works...
And I fail to see how creationism is closing down the debate over origins any more or less than evolutionists do.
Quite a number of disinterested parties on this website have made this exact point.
I am no scientist and cant get into the science of evolution.
By the way, I doubt you could stand up the idea that the book of Job was tampered with....now that could be an excercise in prejudicial interpretation of evidence which I could discuss.
And it would seem you may be using Aquinas to set up some straw men. Of course there will be cranks who will make silly creationist assertions but there are many responsible and circumspect people too.
A few more apparent assumptions i would address;-
I would never advocate a theocracy, I like western democracy (the worst possible system except for all the rest).
My point is that if the populace in such a democracy have strong judeo christian values the legal and system will more closely
reflect this. In the UK's track record this obvoiusly had a big impact on improving justice (eg slavery abolition) and economy (biblical or "protestant" work ethic).
Its very easy to say you can responsibility for your own laws without God's say so but that is something akin to you trying to think outside the universe; it is too late it cant be done. Everything is already based on God's laws.
The more they are left behind the more our judicial system is failing the people.
By the way, why has nobody ever found a half evolved feather????
;-)
PB
It's all a matter of integrity isn't it: Science Professor Dawkins is prepared to override fundamental scientific law in an attempt to avoid recognition of his own moral accountability. His position is untenable in the face of modern scientific discovery and ordinary people are now freed from this darwinian hocus pocus which has for generations torn their Society apart. Thank God!!!
ear dstill confused...
ref post 53
Why has nobody ever found a half evolved feather?
As you are on a diet from AIG, try this for a bit of roughage;-
;-)
PB
Just came across this blog, and am shocked by some of the comments by pb and other correspondents. I am surprised that their are links to AIG and "truth" in science(whose main members have links to AIG).
I had a look at AIG and I do believe that it is a clever forgery by some students. My reasons for this are obvious-the site believes that the world scientific community from differing fields and countries and those from all religions and none and involved in the greatest conspiracy the world has ever seen! That evolution by natural selection is not one of the soundest ideas in science that is backed up by insurmountable evidence that is freely and publically available. Their opinion is...(now strap yourself in for this one!)is that the world is 6000 years old(!!!!), was formed in 6 days(!!!!!!), with 2 nudists-who were made from dirt(!!!!!!)who reside in an enchanted garden(!!!!!!!) which has a magic tree(!!!!!!!!!!!) and live with veggie T. Rex's and velocoraptors(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and live with/converse with a talking snake(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).
Complete and utter nonsense as I am sure that everyone will agree!and that is why it must be a wind-up site, as no one in their right mind would believe such guff!
Happy new year!
DD
The evolution of the feather...
By the way has anyone ever found a fossil of a snake with vocal chords?
Isn't it funny that their are no atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Sikh, Buddist, Shinto Biblical creationists?
I mean if their "evidence" was so strong it would be accepted across the board but it is only being pushed by fundamentalist biblicists. Also starnge that creationism is not big in Judaism which is odd since it is their creation myth.
"If we compare homosexuality and creationism both are involved with origins in some respect, the origin of man and the origin of sexuality."
Many things have origins.
"With homosexuality a common argument now is that it doesnt matter what causes it, even if that could be harmful to the person concerned; we should not ask too many deep questions, just accept the people who hold that belief about their sexuality."
It's not really a 'belief', more their sexual taste; in the same way that you may prefer the taste of beef and I, chicken. No-one can really argue against my tastes or yours, that's just the way they are and they account for themselves. The problems raised by explaining a creator go way beyond this. That the two things have origins makes them no more similar than a black hole and a pop record.
If you are, by raising the issue of origins, suggesting that there may be a sinister underlying reason for someones Homosexuality or Religion, say a tumour or psychosis, then I would submit that these would account for a tiny minority of either of these groups; certainly not enough to warrant screening or further exploration of either.
"why does it matter what is taught anywhere if we are an accidental arrangement of atoms?"
Hardly accidental! The outcome of many years of natural selection.
"It is certainly easier to assert there is no god than to prove it!"
Indeed. I think everyone can agree on that.
"And I ask again, are all educational establishments therefore to become atheistic academies?"
I absolutely hope so, outside of a religious education classroom. People can of course hold any beliefs that they care to, their personnal religious beliefs are irrelevant to the teaching of objective University disciplines.
A Pollard
Ian S Critchley
"His position is untenable in the face of modern scientific discovery"
Oh??
And what discovery is this Mr Critchley?? What evidence can you supply that refutes this??
This I would like to see, but I suspect it will be met with silence.
A Pollard
On what basis do you "submit" that a psychosis would account for only a tiny proportion of homosexuality?
Is this an assumption?
While on the topic perhaps you may wish to read up on how and why the APA changed its stance on homosexuality.
It was the first to do so but it was done through lobbying and shock tactics, not new research or evidence.
PB
The massive evidence base on the aetiology of psychosis. This is not a young discipline.
It is pretty much as close as you can get to established fact. Religion is much more closely related to psychosis and much more worthy of your study with regard to abnormal psychology.
Not an assumption. This is a pretty mature field. People like yourself have been trying to demonstrate that homosexuality is some sort of disease for many years and there is a wealth of psychology literature on the subject. It is not closely linked to psychosis.
Interestingly, religion is MUCH more closely associated with schizophrenia. I suggest that this disease process is far more worhty of your interest.
One of the above comments quotes some Opinionpanel research. I wanted to point out that those findings underestimate support for Evolution in general and overestimate support for intelligent design.
For example the actual question on evolution, specifically excludes God. So all those Theistic Evolutionists who regard God as playing a part in evolution, will not be able to choose this option.
By comparison, the question on intelligent design specifically mentions God.
Why nothing on this fascinating blog since 2 March?
People divide into three types:(a)atheists who believe evolution has all the answers; (b)at the other extreme, creationists who believe the Bible explains all; and (c) those (they may be deists or agnostics) who accept evolution has occurred but wonder how a purposeless system like evolution could have produced the amazing human being and conclude that a "Designer" had a hand in matters.
It seems that (c) types have only a dogmatic faith to fall back on and are not susceptible to argument. It ought to go without saying that a million geologists, archaeologists and other scientists cannot be wrong when they date the Earth as hundreds of millions of years old but the creationists won't be budged.
The difficulty for (a) types is that there are things such as instinct which cannot be explained by evolution. Darwin himself said that instinct alone was "sufficient to overthrow my whole theory". Atheists, too, are dogmatic in their inability to accept they may be wrong.
The problem for the others is the impossibility of explaining the who, how and why?
Perhaps these observations help explain why everyone has given up trying to convert the other two groups and the blog has gone silent.