“Buck - When you post it renews my faith in California as part of the union.”

“Phaedrus - How do you know a "higher power" is not observeable? How do you know that signs of a "higher power" are not observeable?

Gravity is invisible, so obviously scientists are ok with secondary proof of things to qualify as science.

Why discard the opportunity to look for proof in the first place?”

“Why is it lately that whenever I read the word "California", it's in a really bad Austrian accent? ... so annoying!”

“Sarge, my prof never did get back to me as he has promised. Sorry to leave ya hanging all this time. :-(


Gravity is invisible? The gravitational field is invisible, but the actual force b/w two objects (if they are massive enough) is not.”

“tara - The "force" is the "gravity". You don't witness the gravity directly, only indirectly and make a deduction that it is there ... a "leap of faith", so to speak.”

“where were we before Mutt tried to further obfuscate his true identity

Nice copout on the points I made, Phaedrus. Another cheap liberal debate trick!”

“Sarge, then how does one measure the creator?

If we can observe the effects of the creator's existence, and they are aside from the laws of nature, please give me an example of an observation that gives evidence of said creator.”

“Phaedrus - Back up. The effects of the creator's existence are not aside from the laws of nature. Please restate your question.”

“So you're saying that the laws of nature are caused by the will of the creator?”

“I didn't say anything about will. I said the effects of the creator's existence are not aside from the laws of nature. I'll add, the effects are the laws of nature.”

“Please explain how that works.”

“1. creator creates

2. creation exists

3. creatures exist

4. creatures observe creation and try to explain

5. explanation named "laws of nature"”

“The expression 'unfailing' or 'never erring' comes to mind.

Appears to apply to 'natural laws' like gravity, in certain contexts.

And is said to be an attribute of the 'Supreme Creator'.”

“Sarge, how does your evidence rule out chance as the creator and rule in intelligence?”

“Phaedrus - statistical probability
last edited: 4/14/05 8:21:52 AM”

“Show me.”

“brb”

“I could try to summarize this, but I thought about it and it's best if you just read this when you have time in response to your question.

One thing this physisist has measured is that gravity has to be fine tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion in order to sustain life. This has been "laymonized" into the following analogy: If the increments of gravity are divided into one inch measurements and stretched the entire length of the known universe, gravity would have to be fine-tuned to within a one inch span in order for us to exist. This is the kind of "random chance" you are talking about. Can you comprehend dividing the galaxy into one inch increments? let alone the local cluster? let alone our super-cluster? let alone the entire known universe? Chance just ain't gonna happen on that scale ...

There are other good examples in this paper.

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/finetune/anth.htm.htm”

“Just to refute the one specific point you mentioned, my take on that would be that life has evolved according to the very specific laws of physics that exist in our universe by chance. It seems that the overriding assumption by most ID'ers is that a creator exists, and therefore the evidence must prove that, rather than allowing the evidence to dictate the conclusion.

There are plenty of alternative models of universal physics that dictate life could exist in other universes with different laws of physics, as well. For instance:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

If we properly compute, according to statistical theory, the probability for the universe existing with the properties it has, the result is unity! The universe exists with one hundred percent probability (unless you are an idealist who believes everything exists only in your own mind). On the other hand, the probability for one of a random set of universes being our particular universe is a different question. And the probability that one of a random set of universes is a universe that supports some form of life is a third question. I submit it is this last question that is the important one and that we have no reason to be sure that this probability is small.

Creationists used to argue the statistical improbabilty of our current universe's ability to evolve life, but that particular mathematical model has been refuted to the point of absurdity, and now Id'ers have moved to this improbability of universal physics assertation. If this is a valid mathematical model, I would hope that the physiscists asserting it would publish and go through the rigorous peer review process. I sincerely doubt they will - or can. In fact, it would seem to me, a layperson with only BS mathematical background, that the argument fails on a false premise: that the universe must exist exclusively as it is to sustain any form of life.”

“Phaedrus has got the tools, he's got the talent!!”

“Uh, TalkOrigins is not exactly an unbiased "tool", MarkO.

Phaedrus is just regurgitating stuff he barely comprehends in the first place, and ignoring what he can't respond to.”

“It seems that the overriding assumption by most ID'ers is that a creator exists, and therefore the evidence must prove that, rather than allowing the evidence to dictate the conclusion.

That is probably true, but it does not do anything to negate the probablility.

Also, scientists do the same thing all the time. Where do you think research dollars come from? I dare you to find a paid scientific research project that wasn't founded on the principle that, due to a pre-conceived theory that the scientist has, he will seek out evidence to support it.

That is what theories are!

There are plenty of alternative models of universal physics that dictate life could exist in other universes with different laws of physics, as well.

Well ... sure, why not? Does that mean that one theory should not be pursued? Our science is designed to explain our physical world. Nothing else. If there is some other physical world out there operating under a different set of physics, then so be it. In fact, the IDer agrees with that because the "designer" must exist in a physical world different than our own in order to have pre-existed our known universe.

Creationists used to argue ...

I often disagree with creationist arguments because they fall into old traps. That being said, I don't think you want to get into a "well your side used to say X, but now they say Y" type argument, do you? Science is full of this (sometimes by design, often not).”

“No, Talkorigins is not unbiased. The arguments on it are sound, however.

Hey Marko, are you going to Pedxing's party?”

“Again, Sarge, science and ID are very different fields. My only point is that nothing without a good set of evidence that can be tested should be taught as science. The process that a scientist goes through in his own mind to come to hypotheses is a separate issue. I could hypothesize that rabbits eat coal when no one is looking, but I could not teach that as science unless I had some evidence of it, such as a video of a rabbit eating coal, or a repeatable and otherwise unexplainable disappearance of a coal pile in a rabbit cage, etc.

The idea that if it can't be disproven, it must be taught as science is counter to the very nature of the scientific method.”

“Don't Germans eat a lot of rabbit?

Yes, my wife and I plan to drive to Boston.”

“I'm still in negotiation with my boss for the time off. There's a project coming in that weekend that I am trying to convince her can be handled by another person on my team.

So far she hasn't bought it, even a little. We'll see.”

“Keep pitchin', lefty!”

“Err... okey doke.”

“....pitchin' to the boss!”

“My only point is that nothing without a good set of evidence that can be tested should be taught as science.

Again, Id has a lot of evidence (I can provide more than the one example from above). Just because you (scientists) are unwilling to accept that evidence is irrelevant. Statistical probability are evidence. Don't think so? Then why were quarks taught in schools while they were just "statistical probabilities"? Why were black holes taught in schools while they were just "statistical probabilities"? Why is the theory that one cannot travel faster than light taught in school, even though it's just a "statistical probability"?

The process that a scientist goes through in his own mind to come to hypotheses is a separate issue. I could hypothesize that rabbits eat coal when no one is looking, but I could not teach that as science unless I had some evidence of it, such as a video of a rabbit eating coal, or a repeatable and otherwise unexplainable disappearance of a coal pile in a rabbit cage, etc.

Really? Please show me the physical evidence of a black dwarf. We learned about them in science class. Please show me the physical evidence of dark matter. We learned about that in science class as well. Do you believe that these should be taught in science class?

The idea that if it can't be disproven, it must be taught as science is counter to the very nature of the scientific method.

Is that what you'd say about multiple-universe theory? That is just as provable/disprovable as ID theory using the scientific method, yet physisists include it in their "scientific" studies all the time. The use one thing in their theories: Statistical probability.”

“You're repeating refuted arguments without acknowledging or attempting to refine them. Your statistical improbability model has been shown to be flawed in a mathematical and logical sense. Black hole theory, sub-atomic theory and quantum physics are all based on valid mathematical models.

Yes, there are things science has yet to explain. Yes, there may someday be a universal existence theory incorporating ID that holds water, but the one you've shown ain't it.”

“Your statistical improbability model has been shown to be flawed in a mathematical and logical sense.

First of all, be specific. Show me the proof that it is mathematically incorrect and logically incorrect. (I've read attempts, by the way)

Black hole theory, sub-atomic theory and quantum physics are all based on valid mathematical models.

So is ID probability.

Yes, there are things science has yet to explain.

I knew you weren't going to respond to my black dwarf and dark matter examples. I almost edited my response to emphasize I'd like you to respond to that charge. It's key to your argument of what a scientific hypothesis is as defined by your rabbit/coal example. Please respond to this. Why do you not protest these being taught in science class?”

“Your statistical improbability model has been shown to be flawed in a mathematical and logical sense.

First of all, be specific. Show me the proof that it is mathematically incorrect and logically incorrect. (I've read attempts, by the way)

I thought I already did. The logical argument is a rejection of your premise that the universe must exist in its exact current state for life to exist. The mathematical model is discussed below:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

If we properly compute, according to statistical theory, the probability for the universe existing with the properties it has, the result is unity! The universe exists with one hundred percent probability (unless you are an idealist who believes everything exists only in your own mind). On the other hand, the probability for one of a random set of universes being our particular universe is a different question. And the probability that one of a random set of universes is a universe that supports some form of life is a third question. I submit it is this last question that is the important one and that we have no reason to be sure that this probability is small.


Dark matter, for instance, is in its infancy, but is fairly intriguing in that it explains a number of things. The consequences of its existence is observable, even it it, itself, is not. It explains a series of observable facts that have no other current explanation (for instance, why the universe hasn't flown apart).

Intelligent design does not have such directly attributable observable evidence without other explanation. Some like to attribute biological diversity to ID, but there are other observable processes that better explain it without resorting to supernatural postulation.”

“The logical argument is a rejection of your premise that the universe must exist in its exact current state for life to exist.

I think you need to read the premise more precisely. The premise I proposed to you does not argue that, but instead argues that for life of the kind we are familiar with (intelligent, 6' tall carbon life forms) can only exist with specific parameters.

Regarding the mathematical disproof(s), you may have to be more specific. Regarding the one you quoted, his logic is incorrect for the same reason I mentioned above. This is not about "some (any) form of life". This is about a specific form of life. That is key to the argument. He disregarded that entirely.

Dark matter, for instance, is in its infancy, but is fairly intriguing in that it explains a number of things. The consequences of its existence is observable, even it it, itself, is not. It explains a series of observable facts that have no other current explanation (for instance, why the universe hasn't flown apart).

Bingo! Sound familiar? Intelligent design theory, for instance, is in its infancy, but is fairly intriguing in that it explains a number of things. The consequences of its existence is observable, even it it, itself, is not. It explains a series of observable facts that have no other current explanation (for instance, why the universe is so finely tuned).

Intelligent design does not have such directly attributable observable evidence without other explanation.

Same can be said of dark matter.

Some like to attribute biological diversity to ID, but there are other observable processes that better explain it without resorting to supernatural postulation.

Some do, but I don't. You're debating me, not them. :)

Please explain why dark matter should be taught in science class, but ID should not.”

“I think you need to read the premise more precisely. The premise I proposed to you does not argue that, but instead argues that for life of the kind we are familiar with (intelligent, 6' tall carbon life forms) can only exist with specific parameters.

Regarding the mathematical disproof(s), you may have to be more specific. Regarding the one you quoted, his logic is incorrect for the same reason I mentioned above. This is not about "some (any) form of life". This is about a specific form of life. That is key to the argument. He disregarded that entirely.

Post hoc. If I shuffle a deck of cards and after doing so, calculate the odds of that specific order of cards coming from my shuffle, can I therefore assume that divine intervention has taken place because the odds are so small against it? This is a lark of an argument, which invalidates the rest of your assertions on the validity of the comparison between dark matter and ID.”

“ID is a theory. Not a scientific fact.

The multiple-universe theory is an explanation created after the fact as well. What evidence do you have for the multiple-universe theory? (which is taught in science class)

Scientists said "the explanation that the universe is tuned the way it is is because the universe has been recreated billions of times until it got it right" (so to speak).

That's the exact same argument! Post hoc.

Why can multiple-universe theory (which I learned right along side the Big-Bang theory, which is now often refuted by scientists) can be categorized as science but ID cannot?”

“Reminds me of a story about Richard Feynman. He came rushing into the a class he was teaching, out of breath and very very excited. He told his class that he had just seen the most amazing thing. "While walking into the buildin you won't believe what I just saw! Driving down the street was a car and it had the a license tag # of 456-AB3. Just imagine, what are the odds?"”

“This isn't just about odds. It's also about explaining odds. The Feynman parable ignores that.”

“You may have a need to put a reason to happenings, but that doesn't mean the odds change or are influenced by a greater force than chance.

As for your multiple universe theory attempted parallel: I agree that multiple universe theory, though mathematically possible, is an unsupportable theory and should not be taught in science classes (at least at the high school level which is the context of this debate). The Big bang, on the other hand has plenty more observable evidence, and is a valid working scientific theory.”

“What about black dwarfs?”

“I prefer to call them African American small people.”

“LOL! Ok, seriously, what about black dwarfs?”

“What about them? It's a postulation of what will happen at a time in the future when processes we know are occuring reach their logical end point. I don't see the parallel, honestly.”

“It's taught as science in science class.

It's a postulation of the future, while ID is a postulation of the past.”

“The key phrase is: "processes we know are occuring reach their logical end point"

It's like predicting the erosion of the pyramids, versus saying that they were created by aliens. They are not parallel.”

“It was you who argued that alternative theories necessarily negate theories.

You could argue that there are alternative fates of stars, but let's move on ... I've got more. I'll give you black dwarfs. You gave me multiple universes.

Another:

What about M-theory? Is that science? Should we continue teach that in school?
last edited: 4/14/05 12:01:30 PM”

“I'd rather not argue the relative merits of each and every theory taught in science classes. It'll never end and it's fruitless.

ID doesn't stand as a supportable theory at this point which indicates neither the existence or the non-existence of a supreme being. It's a good lesson to discuss in the context of what it is, and perhaps in a class such as metaphysical philosophy, it would be a good fit, but in any kind of hard science, it falls short in that it can only point to holes in other scientific theories rather than support itself.

In other words, even if statistical improbability or irreducible complexity were a good model - which they aren't - there are other avenues of exploration into the reason behind such than ID. Because of this, in a purely scientific realm, ID is a failed hypothesis - not a theory.”

“I'd rather not argue the relative merits of each and every theory taught in science classes. It'll never end and it's fruitless.

But you're willing to discount the merits of ID.

ID doesn't stand as a supportable theory at this point ...

The same could be said of multiple-universes, M-theory, quantums, gravitons, quantum gravity ... Yet science teachers teach these is science as well. Where's the outrage?

In other words, even if ...

The same could be said of Big Bang theory. You went back to the 'ole "my theory is more probable than your theory" argument. That's not science! In no way, shape or form is that science.

You are restating the argument and claiming victory. That's obscene. And we were having such a good argument until then. "Your theory is wrong, therefore it's failed" is not an argument. Mind if I do the same? Let's not revert back to the beginning of this argument just because you can't explain why science teachers allow multiple-universes, M-theory, quantums, gravitons and quantum gravity to be taught in science class. Many of these theories are defined as unproveable, yet they're taught as science.

Why are they taught as science? They are pure unproven theory, they could be disproven by other theories, yet they're still taught as science.

The field of "science" is biased.

The field of "science" is hypocritical.”

“Each of those theories has evidence for it that has not been disproven, although I will grant that a number of them are relatively new and unrefined as of yet. ID cannot say the same.”

“"The idea that if it can't be disproven, it must be taught as science is counter to the very nature of the scientific method." --Phaedrus, 9:29:38 AM”