Nice.
The Origin of Species
-
I suppose it is mostly agreed here that evolution is seems the most plausible/correct, but whether or not God was involved is the argument. Am I right?
-
I suppose it is mostly agreed here that evolution is seems the most plausible/correct, but whether or not God was involved is the argument. Am I right?
Actually, the evidence to support evolution is pretty faulty as well. However, I’ll buy it has the same amount of factual evidence that you can see, feel, touch, hear, taste, etc as any religion’s version.
-
(SNIP)I think the crucial point that you’re missing is that you have zero evidence for believing in anything other than carbon-based life, yet you believe so to avoid an argument.
That’s BS. I have the same evidence for Si based life and for the existance of a creator.
Your faith in the existence of strange life-forms is no different than that of a theist’s faith in the existence of God.
And i have as much proof.
You argue about silicon-based life, and even if I grant that it’s likely, the likelihood is taking into account conditions in THIS universe, which are very hospitable for life.
Yes, of course it is. It must. This is the only universe i know of. This is the universe i live in.
So, you are arguning for me, using Bayes Theorem:
We life in this universe.
Thus the probability for the universe to have conditions “hospitable for life” is …… 1.
I have to take that into account for everything i calculate.Are you really claiming that life can exist in a universe where atoms can’t form, where stars can’t form, where planets can’t form?
That is utter BS.
Quote me.If that’s the best you can do, the argument is in good shape.
That and your comment on your book on your bookshelf reminds me that i have Joyce’s “Ulysses” still unread on my shelf.
As far as Hawking goes, it doesn’t hurt the argument at all if 98% of possible universes would have had the same constant values.
If the universe had a 98% chance to come out like that, why is it fine tuned then? It is NOT unlikely then. THat is the core of teh fine-tuning argument: our universe is unlikely, someone must have rigged it.But, it is not unlikely.
Even if the constants are “fixed” at the moment of the Big bang, the question would simply become: why are the constants fixed in such a way that the universe supports life?
That is not the question. I look at the humans and Bayes Theorem and know the constants just are.
See, i can ask you the same: Why is god? Why is a creator?
You’d probably say: the uncaused cause.
Hwaking has shown that the universe itself can be uncaused. We don’t need a creator.
So, the answer to your question (which is what i meant that creationists “need to feel special”.):
there is no reason.You seem to forget that even if the constants are fixed or highly probable, we can still generate models of universes where the constants are different (and the fact that drives the argument would still remain: change the constants just a little bit, and the universe would not support life).
No, i don’t forget that. But with the 98% and the fact that we are here … just tells us that we live in a highly likely universe. Sure we can do the models, but we don’t need them anymore.
WE are highly probable.
In fact, it would support the argument if we found out that the universe HAS to be a life-supporting one, that all possible big bangs produce life supporting universes. How strange would THAT be?
98% would. I don’t see the strangeness at all.
-
Yes, of course it is. It must. This is the only universe i know of. This is the universe i live in.
So, you are arguning for me, using Bayes Theorem:
We life in this universe.
Thus the probability for the universe to have conditions “hospitable for life” is …… 1.
I have to take that into account for everything i calculate.I don’t think you understand conditional probablity. What is at stake is NOT “Is the universe life supporting” (we know it is), but “IS the universe designed to support life”. Those are two VERY different questions which you seem to be conflating.
Flip a coin a hundred times. Get heads every time. You don’t think that supports the hypothesis “the coin is loaded for heads”? Wait, but the hundred flips already happened, right? Just like we find ourselves in a universe that supports life. I still don’t think you’re going to get it. You remind me of why casinos put signs by the roulette tables: if black has come up five times in a row, red is due, right? LOL. Dust off your copy of C&C and read up on conditional probablity, esp. since you’re confused about something as simple as a black raven providing confirmation for a hypothesis.
Lastly, you fail to recognize the significance of fixed constants that always generate a life-supporting universe. Something like this: Well, if those constants had ANY other values, the universe would be inhospitable for life. For some bizzare reason, the constants just happen to be fixed in such a way that a universe with stars, planets, heavy elements, atoms, molecules, etc. always comes about. Gee, that wouldn’t cry out for explantion :roll:
But I’m repeating myself now. You either get it or you don’t. This is why materialists are the worst critical thinkers. Once the blinders go up, it must be hard to see past the tunnel vision.
-
I don’t think you understand conditional probablity. What is at stake is NOT “Is the universe life supporting” (we know it is), but “IS the universe designed to support life”. Those are two VERY different questions which you seem to be conflating.
I do understand conditional porbability. I do think that the question you want to raise can’t be answered even by that.
Flip a coin a hundred times. Get heads every time. You don’t think that supports the hypothesis “the coin is loaded for heads”? Wait, but the hundred flips already happened, right? Just like we find ourselves in a universe that supports life.
There is ONE coin flip. Not a hundred.
You remind me of why casinos put signs by the roulette tables: if black has come up five times in a row, red is due, right? LOL. Dust off your copy of C&C and read up on conditional probablity, esp. since you’re confused about something as simple as a black raven providing confirmation for a hypothesis.
No, i am more of the kind of the second in this little joke:
Three people travel by train through a strange land. They see a herd of sheep. They are black. Says the first: “In this country, all sheep are black”. Says the second: “No, in this country at least one herd of sheep are black”. Says the third: “No, in this country at least one herd of sheep is black at one side.”You seem to be of the first kind. We have ONE sample. ONE !
You want to do statistics over ONE sample. Even MDs don’t do so in their thesis works, and they are not famous for statistics.Lastly, you fail to recognize the significance of fixed constants that always generate a life-supporting universe. Something like this: Well, if those constants had ANY other values, the universe would be inhospitable for life. For some bizzare reason, the constants just happen to be fixed in such a way that a universe with stars, planets, heavy elements, atoms, molecules, etc. always comes about. Gee, that wouldn’t cry out for explantion :roll:
See, you fail to understand Bayes theorem. The universe is not inhospitable. The bizarre “reason” that you need is called maths and quantum mechanics i would think. I trust Hawking in his calculations there (although they are not yet past peer review). If a universe is likely to be like ours, then it is so because of a few logic principles.
That is the explanation.If you need a creator, you still need to answer who created the creator. You need to know why the creator would have an interested in creating such a universe where so limited creatures like us humans?
But I’m repeating myself now. You either get it or you don’t. This is why materialists are the worst critical thinkers. Once the blinders go up, it must be hard to see past the tunnel vision.
and vice versa.
-
Interesting, it seems like this thread was began to ask about what origins theory people here believe in and why, but it has turned into predominately discussing what should be taught in public schools.
These are not at all the same issue!
In my first post on this thread I outlined how and why I stopped believing in evolution and became a creationist. Did anyone actually read it by the way? I’ve been reading through this thread on a daily basis and I get the feeling I was pretty much ignored. Anyway, I only touched on the issue of teaching briefly to say that I did not support the teaching of creationism in public schools. Yet I still firmly believe that creationism is true.
When you come to the question of what is taught in schools, the issue is not a question of science or religion at all, which is where I think many people get sidetracked in. Both of these, science and religion, are modern categories of ideas. They are not the only categories: history, sociopolitical theory, philosophy, and formal constructs (such as rules of systems like grammar, writing, etc) are others. There are two purposes for the things that are taught in school: to teach students how to think, and to teach students certain facts. In general, a parent should teach their child what they believe to be true, regardless of what category of knowledge any purpoted fact falls into, be it any of the above. A public school is a service provided by the government that is supposed to aid parents in this endeavor. As such, it should at minimum teach children what is universally agreed on to be true. When America was founded, Christianity was considered universally agreed on even though denominations were not, so it was not uncommon to educate students in ideas that were common to all Christian denominations. However this is no longer the case, so we do not do so any longer. When you have a difference of opinion regarding whether an idea is true or not, it matters little what the source of the idea is; the issue of whether it is taught or not becomes a concern for POLITICS not science or religion. You can use science or use religion to lend support for your view all you like, but that does not change the fundamental fact that X people think one thing is true and Y people think another, and the politics between them decides what gets taught and what does not. So for instance, statistics say that a large number of Americans believe in some form of creation, yet this is not taught in schools because politically creationism is not viable.
I do not advocate teaching creationism in public schools because I recognize that there are a large number of people who do not desire for it to be taught, and I do not seek to change their opinion by force. I would like to change their opinion by convincing them of it if possible, but not by making a law about it. I hope that proponents of opposing theories would be equally open minded that people like me exist that do not think that evolution explains the origins of living things (although I have no problem with the scientific concept of evolution happening today, and indeed I intend on teaching my own kids this) and that I desire for it not to be taught as such, but if they don’t, I’ll deal with it with my own kids and leave it at that.
-
Avin,
Yes, I read your entire post - I thought it was excellent. I just didn’t respond because I really didn’t have anything to add. Also, as you say, the thread seemed to morph into a debate about teaching this in school which is something I don’t have a strong opinion about either way. Whether or not ID is taught in the public schools is less important to me than whether or not the teacher is willing to be objective and respectful regarding the opinions of the students (i.e. allow for disagreement and perhaps even have a useful debate on this subject). I would rather our students learn to think for themselves than simply regurgitate their lessons. This is something that no law can really address, nor should our politicians try to do so IMO.
-
Wow, whole lot of thoughts to respond to.
Well, personally, I don’t think intelligent design makes for a compelling scientific theory. Taken as a whole, it provides some interesting criticisms, but nothing I’ve read has really produced a coherent, alternative, testable, and falsifiable set of hypotheses. Of course, the immediate response is that neither has evolution, but I think that arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. ID, pseudo-religious thought, and religious ideas derive from a premise that there exists a basis for objective reality and it is known. Certain dimensions may not be known, of course, but nevertheless, ID, for example, posits that there is a creator. Why? Because complexity cannot arise spontaneously. However, it is difficult to see how this can at all be falsifiable or tested. Is the simple existence of complexity sufficient to say that there is a guiding hand? I would say no, and (to start) for two reasons. First, because many complex systems spontaneously emerge. For example, ecosystems (which can be man-made), markets (see Smith and Hayek on spontaneous order), and emergence theories applied to cities and other complex entities. Second, and this is the key difference between evolutionary science and ideas like ID, because beginning from this premise is a fundamental methodological error. Avin, to my mind, gets close to this point in his original post, but not quite. ID is a purely logical deduction without necessarily referencing anything in reality, which is why the falsifiability criteria is so important. With evolutionary hypotheses, the fossil record acts as a reference point of objective events. But the mistake many people make is assuming that evolutionary biology is complete. It is not. It is constantly being added to and changed, and its fundamental premises can be challenged. However, ID inherently contains an untestable, unfalsifiable baseline assumption of a guiding hand, and my primary concern is that cannot be contested. It is not a scientific theory: rather, it is a series of interesting criticisms which, however, don’t strike the heart of what evolution is.
One final point before having to get back to work. The gaps in evolutionary theory: I believe most people point to this because they expect the theory to be complete. Evolutionary biology is necessarily a partly historical science. We can understand the processes, mechanisms, and chemistry undergirding population change, but developing a picture of how it actually happened in the past requires comparatively softer methods than physics or chemistry. This is not to say that these “softer” procedures are methodologically suspect. I think far too many people talk about faults in the fossil record as if they could actually show that the procedures for dating and analyzing the record are suspect. This to my mind hasn’t at all been shown, at least not from sources without inherent and methodological biases and without invalidating pretty concrete chemical and physical principles. This does make proving evolutionary hypotheses more difficult, but it is not guesswork as some have suggested, and it is far from faulty in the crippling way that others have remarked.
I think above all, everyone must be extremely careful methodologically. Thus far, I have read numerous statements for or against ID which to my mind are simply unprovable assertions. Problems with evolution exist, certainly: but (if they are specified, and I notice most people don’t bother to specify what exactly is in contention) they can be met with testing and reasoned debate. But, I would be very interested in reading thoughts on how these methodologies can be applied to ID.
-
Soo, everyone…what have we learned? Oh right. It seems to me this is no debate but just one big pissing contest. IDers, Creationists, and Empiricists will get no where unless you stop slinging mud at each other and decide to find some common ground. I think this is what you were going for CC. How about this: you’re all wrong. The real answers you all seek lie in compromise, corroboration, and honestly listening to each other, not by staunchly holding onto your views just to spite the other person, however deeply held they may be, and regardless of whether they were learned in lecture or Sunday school. No one seems to be willing to actually have any kind of dialectic discussion here. We’re all too concerned to prove who is smarter and do each other one better. Until your egos go out the door, this conversation is about as productive as banging your head on the wall. But, alas, maybe I’m being too harsh. Maybe you guys are getting something out of this. As for me, I’ve got nothing to prove, and I wish you guys the best of luck in finding whatever it is you’re searching for. Remember, it’s not about you, it’s about us.
No offense to anyone, and all due respect to your collective ethos’. I won’t post on this topic again, but go ahead and knock yourselves out (the whole wall thing); hope you get something out of it (besides a headache that is). Adios–and I’m out
-
Maybe the Heaven’s Gate cult was right. :)
Okay, maybe Scientology is…(I use that one a lot cause it’s so different then all the other religions I know of…mainly because they think we are gods enslaved in physical form instead of there ARE gods we should worship or that we came from nothing, we live by some unknown scientific law and we return to nothing.)
-
For your interest:
Dr. R. Lenski’s project on E.Coli
http://www.msu.edu/user/lenski/a 1999 article (mind you, the experiment has gone on since then!)
http://www.msu.edu/~lenski/sciencearticle.htmlHe is mentioned in a NYT article
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,370856,00.htmlLenski says there
“We have recently discovered a pretty dramatic exception, one where a new and surprising function has evolved,” he said.
Dr. Lenski declined to give any details until the research is published. But, he said, “If anyone is resting his or her faith in God on the outcome that our experiment will not produce some major biological innovation, then I humbly suggest they should rethink the distinction between science and religion.”
Let’s see what comes out. That is also the stance of Dr. M.J. Behe -the one who invented the moustrap analogy to support ID:
“If anything cool came out of that,” Dr. Behe said, “that would be one way to convince me.”
Dr. Behe said that if he was correct, then the E. coli in Dr. Lenski’s lab would evolve in small ways but never change in such a way that the bacteria would develop entirely new abilities.
And that is exactly what is going through the peer review at the moment.
Interesting times ! -
Some people have decided on another way to deal with ID :)
another funny - openly satire though:
http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
“Intelligent Falling” …. as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don’t go well together, there must be a new theory on gravity :)
Suggested Topics
