quote:

---

Tom Blackwell, National Post
Published: Wednesday, February 22, 2006

A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance.

Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week.

At least two of the scientists teach at Christian universities, while another runs an organization dedicated to the links between Islam and science.

Some of those contacted yesterday acknowledged their doubts about Darwinism coincide with their religious beliefs, and espoused the controversial idea of "intelligent design" -- that some guiding hand was behind life on Earth. But one molecular biologist said he is convinced that science is stuck in an evolutionary "rut" and must seek better explanations for the existence of elaborate biological structures.

"I look at biology as being a very complicated computer code," said Stephen Cheesman, a geophysics PhD and software developer who compares genetic systems to languages created by humans.

"There is no way I could create a code like this..... In the DNA, you have a novel, a long novel, spelled out, which produces us."

The scientists' public positions against evolution mark perhaps the first time the issue has arisen recently in Canada, despite a raging debate in the United States over the teaching of evolution in public schools.

The petition was established by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, an organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design. The document has previously been cited by anti-evolutionists as evidence that the scientific community is not united in its belief in evolution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snuckles:
The petition was established by the Discovery Institute...

---

Right. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

[ 22 February 2006: Message edited by: Transplant ]

quote:

---

Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution.

---

What the hell does an engineering degree have to do with biology or biochemistry?

Synergy!

Edit:

A comical thing about "Cascadia": whenever the late unlamented Alberta Report did a story about it, the map always seemed to include Alberta.

[ 22 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

What the hell does an engineering degree have to do with biology or biochemistry?

They should have tried to get someone with a PhD in languages to sign the petition too, for extra gravitas.

---

Well, a lot of us spent a good deal of our undergraduate degrees studying the biochemistry of the yeast Kreb's cycle, especially the anaerobic stages ... generally as part of fluid mechanics

More interestingly, most of the creationists ideas also do unspeakably horrible things to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which we engineers are supposed to know something about). They also do nasty things to general relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology, though its possible to graduate from some engineering disciplines without knowing anything about those.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
A comical thing about "Cascadia": whenever the late unlamented Alberta Report did a story about it, the map always seemed to include Alberta.

---

quote:

---

No way. We'll defend Cascadia to the end (using smuggled American guns!)

---

Dude. The point of Cascadia is that the guns, by definition, won't be smuggled.

I wonder if it ever occurred to those over-caffeineted Seattle types that by extension, the BC bud wouldn't be either.

quote:

---

Even so, to only be able to get nine signatures is strange ... people with PhD's are just as likely to be unbalanced as anyone else.

---

"Just as likely"? You're very kind to those with docto)(7-

0-1297

I think we'll leave the borders as they are. I don't want to be on the hook for paying for rebuilding Seattle after THE BIG ONE.

quote:

---

And we'll keep our cheap hydro (and water) to ourselves, thanks very much (although capacity issues rear their ugly head here too).

---

Well, yes. To begin with, as you probably know, BC is a net importer of electrical power. From Alberta and Washington State, meaning thermal. Meaning -- in Alberta, at least -- coal.

... it's situation normal, I suppose.

I am not a believer in creationism or "ID" myself, I just happen to think that darwinism does have some flaws, and that these flaws (and any other theories that might hold *some* validity) should be discussed in a proper scientific - that is to say in an open-minded and investigative - manner. In my opinion, this would be the optimal strategy for finding the best theory to fit the available evidence on this subject, even if it does entail borrowing from a number of different sources.

Some resources:
(note: not all of these are great, but should be enough here to shed some light on possible flaws in Darwinism.)

An interesting article from one-third down.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html is a listing of (now) vindicated scientists, and how they were ridiculed or ignored for many years before their ideas were accepted. Some of the other articles on the site http://www.amasci.com/weird/wclose.html like this http://amasci.com/weird/skepquot.html (a collection of quotes on excessive skepticism) are interesting as well.

Here is one of those quotes:
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."
-Tolstoy

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton
An interesting fellow, more of his ideas are found at
http://alternativescience.com/

Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing
One of the intellectuals (not a professor, but he does have an IQ of 195) in the book is Chris Langan, whose website can be found at http://www.ctmu.org/
An excerpt of his chapter in the book, as well as his alternative theory to Darwinism can be downloaded from the site for free.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe00cont.html
(A free online book with a massive bibliography)

The Case Against Darwin: Why the Evidence Should Be Examined by James Perloff

(I like the first customer review here:
"For someone who didn't know there were any arguments against Darwinism, this book is small, easy to read and to the point. It summarizes a number of important arguments against Darwinism. It is a good "starter" book and has some references to some other books that the reader can follow up with if they are interested in pursuing this topic further.

However, don't expect this book to present you with "irrefutable evidence". If you don't have an open mind about the subject, this book will probably not force it open. But if you do have an open mind, it will point out some areas of the Darwinian theory that don't stand up against serious scrutiny. And given today's scientific bias, this may surprise you and awaken a desire to understand the issues in greater depth.")

Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism - James Perloff

Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution - Dr. Lee Spetner

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe

Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute) by Michael J. Behe
An article of his can be found here.

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis - Dr. Michael Denton

A New Science of Life - Rupert Sheldrake

http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html is a collection of quotes by scientists and other intellectuals on evolution, albeit on a religious site.

Along these lines, http://www.rae.org/ is another religious site with some fairly scientific articles. http://www.rae.org/dendar.html is one of these articles.

[ 23 February 2006: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]

quote:

---

Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813
posted 23 February 2006 02:10 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, a lot of smart people (scientists included) have problems with Dawinism as it is currently presented. This is *not* to say they are believers in Creationism, "Intelligent Design" or other dogmatic religious viewpoints, nor is it to say that they find no value in Darwin's ideas.

Rather, it is to say that they see flaws in Darwinism and would like to explore the topic, preferably honestly and without ridicule.

---

Problem is, they all have a real hard time pointing out the supposed 'difficulties' with Darwinian evolution.

In fact, the better the science gets, the more Darwin is shown to be correct.

DNA is one such bit of science that wasn't around in Darwin's day, but has become a very powerful tool for showing how, and why, evolution works.

Yes, one should keep an open mind, but not so open one's brain falls out.

Speaking of brains falling out, here's a quote from Chris Langan from the posted website:

quote:

---

In the CTMU, reality is viewed as a profoundly self-contained, self-referential kind of "language", and languages have syntaxes. Because self-reference is an abstract generalization of consciousness - consciousness is the attribute by virtue of which we possess self-awareness - conscious agents are "sublanguages" possessing their own cognitive syntaxes.

Now, global consciousness is based on a complete cognitive syntax in which our own incomplete syntax can be embedded, and this makes human consciousness transparent to it; in contrast, our ability to access the global level is restricted due to our syntactic limitations.

Thus, while we are transparent to the global syntax of the global conscious agency "God", we cannot see everything that God can see. Whereas God perceives one total act of creation in a parallel distributed fashion, with everything in perfect superposition, we are localized in spacetime and perceive reality only in a succession of locally creative moments.

This parallelism has powerful implications. When a human being dies, his entire history remains embedded in the timeless level of consciousness...the Deic level.

In that sense, he or she is preserved by virtue of his or her "soul". And since the universe is a self-refining entity, that which is teleologically valid in the informational construct called "you" may be locally re-injected or redistributed in spacetime.

In principle, this could be a recombinative process, with the essences of many people combining in a set of local injections or "reincarnations" (this could lead to strange effects...e.g., a single person remembering simultaneous "past lifetimes").

---

I've never read this guy before, but I've read many of the creation scientists, intelligent designers, and various other crackpots and hucksters.

I've also read Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould, two of the best presenters of evolutionary theory in the world.

For anyone who wants to make some argument around evolution I suggest you read both Dawkins and Gould, and you should read Darwin as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
They should have tried to get someone with a PhD in languages to sign the petition too, for extra gravitas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:

I'm pretty sure I could round up 9 science and engineering PhD's who would sign a petition swearing the moon landings were faked, the earth is flat, and the Toronto Maple Leafs have a non-zero chance of winning a Stanley Cup before the sun goes Nova (well, maybe not the last )

---

The fact is, no intelligent person who has studied the biology has any doubts about evolution and its genetic basis.

Referring to people like Michael Behe (see above) without mentioning how his testimony became a laughingstock by everyone including the judge at the recent Pennsylvania "Intelligent Design Trial", is a half-truth.

We can find plenty of examples of evolution in action, and there's no doubt that natural selection causes a species to adapt over time. However, there are things that we observe in nature that natural selection doesn't seem adequate.

Any thing we see-- your hand, for example, we should be able to trace back all the way down the line, back to single-celled organism and see a plausible explanation for how it got from one state to the next and how each change was a survival advantage that was favored by natural selection.

For your hand, it is easy to picture the adaptation from fin to flipper to paw to hand, and see why each adaptation would be an advantage in some adaptation. That makes sense, it's something that most people can wrap their heads around when they're considering the issue.

It's far less easy to apply the same sort of thought process to more complicated biology. Where did muscle fibre come from? Where did the circulatory system come from? Where did the Krebs Cycle come from? I'm not saying these questions aren't answered or couldn't be answered, I'm just suggesting examples of some systems where the evolution isn't-- can't be-- explained by a notion as clear as the fish jumping out of the lake and stampeding around on its fins.

Muscle fibre, for instance, sounds like it would be simple enough, but it's not. It's an extremely complex piece of biological technology. It has two different kinds of protein chains, one with a biochemical "ladder" and one with biochemical "feet" that bond or release from the ladder in response to chemical stimulus. So, here's the question: the first muscle fibre just appear out of nowhere, or were these complex parts developed piece by piece? For a system this complicated to simply appear seems more like magic than science. But for it to be developed piece by piece isn't something that's adequately explained just by Darwinian evolution, because the pieces on their own *aren't* a survival advantage. A muscle fibre without all the pieces simply doesn't work, and would be a burden and not a survival advantage.

It seems to me they used to try that with the eye, but it got promptly shot down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
They should have tried to get someone with a PhD in languages to sign the petition too, for extra gravitas.

---

Or the Swedish Chef, for extra gravlax.

quote:

---

Muppets are the product of intelligent design, not evolution.)

---

Oh, I don't know about that. Scientists have recently unearthed what they believe to be an historic ancestor of modern muppets such as Kermit and Grover:

Note the familiar simple mandible, the lack of a usuable nose, and the primitive fabric "skin" of this early specimen. Eyes with pupils would not appear for another 10,000 shows, and arms-on-sticks another 20,000 more. The wildly coloured hair underwent considerable speciation, with some muppets displaying even wilder, more colourful hair, and others displaying none.

[ 23 February 2006: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Well, if an ID supporter were to do some exhaustive research and be able to authoritatively say "Evolution has no answer for how muscular tissue could have developed" then we'd have a good starting point for debate.

---

Just to be clear, I picked muscle fibre not because I thought it was something evolution can't explain, but because it was something I understand well enough to illustrate that the different functioning components are necessary, and that the whole thing doesn't work without all the parts, and that all the parts just popping into existence at once is not a satisfying scientific explanation.

I believe that there's currently discussion going on over whether the complement system is an example of a system that evolution can't adequately explain. I don't know the status of such a debate, and don't have nearly enough knowledge to even understand the arguments involved.

quote:

---

Just to be clear, I picked muscle fibre not because I thought it was something evolution can't explain, but because it was something I understand well enough to illustrate that the different functioning components are necessary, and that the whole thing doesn't work without all the parts, and that all the parts just popping into existence at once is not a satisfying scientific explanation.

---

Fair enough. I used the example of forelimbs and wings because I personally used to wonder how that could come about. Evolution only rewards change that increases reproductive chances, right? And I can see how being able to fly would increase your reproductive chances, and so could having a forelimb you could run on, or use to grasp a tree, or what have you. But what about the "in between" state where what you have isn't "arm-ish" enough to be a useful arm, and isn't "wing-ish" enough to enable you to fly or glide?

Silly sidebar: I used to be really annoyed by the "Mutant" character Angel, from the original "X-Men" (he was the guy with wings). Those wings weren't caused by "a" mutation. They'd have had to be caused by thousands of them, if not millions. Everything from hollow bones to special muscles to the feathers that covered them. Yeesh!

quote:

---

Just to be clear, I picked muscle fibre not because I thought it was something evolution can't explain, but because it was something I understand well enough to illustrate that the different functioning components are necessary, and that the whole thing doesn't work without all the parts, and that all the parts just popping into existence at once is not a satisfying scientific explanation.

---

But this specifically the 'intelligent design' hypothesis. The ID'ers see something in it's present form, and make the claim that each separate part is necessary for the whole to function, and so it couldn't have just 'popped into exisitence'.

This argument has been showm to be false so many times it's hard to believe someone still makes it, but I would suggest a reading of 'Climbing Mount Improbable' by Richard Dawkins to get the best explanation of why the argument is absurd.

[ 23 February 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]

quote:

---

we should be able to trace back all the way down the line, back to single-celled organism and see a plausible explanation for how it got from one state to the next and how each change was a survival advantage that was favored by natural selection.

---

This is a common misconception. Each change does not have to result from a survival advantage; the situation is much more complicated than that.

Although somewhat difficult, Gould and Eldridge's classic article on why this is wrong should be read by everyone who participates in discussions on evolution:

[ 23 February 2006: Message edited by: faith ]

One good example of how this works is familiar to pharmacists. When a new drug is developed, it is discovered that a small proportion of an insect population will be immune to the drug.

Clearly, the variation did not arise BECAUSE OF the new drug, it is simply there, and has a fortuitous consequence in the new circumstances.

More scientifically:

quote:

---

In short, pharmacogenetic variation operates for the benefit of a population, but not necessarily for the overall benefit of the variant individual. Whether or not a given pharmacogenetic variant will ever be used cannot be known in advance. The "ultra-orthodox" Darwinian view, as Professor Gould has argued, is therefore a marked oversimplification, and ignores the importance of temporary or localized environmental factors in determining whether a given mutation is or is not a survival advantage, independently of its effect on general reproductive fitness.

---

I personally think that even the idea that some analysis of evolutionary theory could render an opinion on such an issue demonstrates a failure to see the limits of natural science.

It is not a question of 'things that are'. It is a question of 'that things are'.

Scientism, the indefensible doctrine that only the natural sciences can hope to shed light on the fact, nature and putative purpose of existence is absurd. Scientism is as rife with fundamentalism, irrational and unwarranted dogmatism as the biblical fundamentalism that literalizes selectively and irrationally.

"Possible" universes is for instance, an idea generated by scientists who have lost touch with reality.

None of this, by the way is meant to be an argument in favor of "intelligent design".

On the other hand, I am certain that the existence of an Intelligent Designer is a demonstrable fact. But not one that can be determined or not determined by ecolutionary theories.

That question must be addressed in the discipline of philosophy, and indeed complex issues in neuroscience for example, lead there for hopes of resolution. Since Descartes whose "I think therefore I am." reduces to denying the truth or soundness of the senses, (e.g prone to mirages, hallucianions etc.) many in this world have been comletely senseless and naively seff-contradictory in their beliefs upon reality.

How about Hume. Nuts. Do we really believe with the empiricists that you are wrong to say that you "caused" the steak to be cut when you saw your hand move a knfe through it.

Madness. If guys like Hegel were right, idealists who gave us the curious notion that we don't experience reality but only our ideas about reality, then how do we know that there is a reality "out there."

I find such philosophical premises of atheism to be really, really dumb, something the common sense of a ten-year-old knows is too silly for words, all sophistries aside.

If there are no absolute truths, an absolute statement by the way, isn't knowing that the knowledge of an absolute truth. Is that belief not just absolute utterable nonsense?

One helpful item in considering such profound questions was an article I read quite recently and I apologise for not having it at this moment as a link, but only my rendering as follows.

Much confusion on a complex issue, that of "randomness" in evolutionary theory stems from a very significant error in the philosophical or ontological content of the term. What it really means.

An illustration.

Standing at an intersection in the middle of nowhere with Carey Grant, surrounded by farmer's feilds, and watching cars pass by whose license plates read DYU- 345, HEY-568, 567-5Y6, ETC, with various colours, white, blue and green and states and provinces, you could never predict the number of the next plate, no matter how long you gathered data. The numbers would appear to you as "random".

They were not.

"Chance" is not some magical monkey that generates effects and does stuff. Chance is the scientific way to say "I don't know."

Please don't misconstrue this leisurely bit as disrespectful of science. It is not. Construe it as respectful of sound philosphical principles missing for a few hundred years, resulting in the naive materialism, the view thta only the material realm exists, which leads to nonsensical ideas like using evolutionary stuff to posit a God or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul 2057:
It is my understanding that evolutionary theories, of which Darwinism is but one, have nothing whatever to say about the putative existence or putative non existence of God.

---

quote:

---

I personally think that even the idea that some analysis of evolutionary theory could render an opinion on such an issue demonstrates a failure to see the limits of natural science.

---

quote:

---

"Possible" universes is for instance, an idea generated by scientists who have lost touch with reality.

---

quote:

---

None of this, by the way is meant to be an argument in favor of "intelligent design".

On the other hand, I am certain that the existence of an Intelligent Designer is a demonstrable fact.

---

quote:

---

I find such philosophical premises of atheism to be really, really dumb, something the common sense of a ten-year-old knows is too silly for words, all sophistries aside.

---

quote:

---

Incidentally, I think that the general reality of life's evolution from the inert and simple, to the living and complex and conscious with intelligence lends for more probability to the likelihood of their being an Intelligent Designer, but this is not an argument from biology or against a reasonable view of the very significant limits of scientific "randomness".

---

quote:

---

Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. One stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the "randomness" of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection. It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance. Source

---

[ 23 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[QB][/QB]It is my understanding that evolutionary theories, of which Darwinism is but one, have nothing whatever to say about the putative existence or putative non existence of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...other than demolishing any notion that the existence of a god is necessary in order for evolution to have occurred.

quote:

---

When I use the quote function, your input doesn't
register...no rudeness intended. This will be a test reply to your reply.

You seem to have missed the idea I had hoped to express. Point number one must be (at least for me), that nature is forever opaque, ultimately unknowable to natural scientific investigation. (Copenhagen in the 1960's after Heisenberg's uncertanty principle). (Goddels's theorem opf the late 1920's )

It is my futher observation, that the study of biology cannot prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of an ultimate creative agency and could have knowledge of same only if fortuante enough to be able to make observations of same.This bilogical entity, the casue of all subsequent biological life?

But that cannot be because no biological entity can be its own cause or pre-exist itself. Rabbits don't really pop out of hats.

I have no problem with some form of evolutionary theory and will, certainly accept that the general mechanisms can be certainly adequate to explain biological entities, without invoking a deity to "do the eye" or what not. I am fully content with the idea that some form of evolutionary means is at work.

quote:

---

It is my understanding that evolutionary theories, of which Darwinism is but one, have nothing whatever to say about the putative existence or putative non existence of God.

---

Can you describe other evolutionary theories, Paul 2057? Or even name them?

quote:

---

Point number one must be (at least for me), that nature is forever opaque, ultimately unknowable to natural scientific investigation. (Copenhagen in the 1960's after Heisenberg's uncertanty principle).

---

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle made Copenhagen unknowable? Well. Funny old world.

As the saying goes: who knew?

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[QB][/QB]I personally think that even the idea that some analysis of evolutionary theory could render an opinion on such an issue demonstrates a failure to see the limits of natural science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I personally think that the idea that someone could render an opinion on the existence of god without considering science demonstrates a failure to see the limits of blind faith.

---

As this second notioin of yours would seem to be relevant only if your earlier attempt at criticism was sound, which I will wait to hear more form you about.

Having said that, As I wrote of science and have a small, generealist interest in same, accept the commonly held view (though no expert in all aspects)then unless I am lying in these words, then I have indeed considered science.

Blind or otherwise, I have questionned how judgements of ultimate causality can be made on the basis of an evolutionary theory. This is argument, not faith. I believe St. Paul said that faith is a proof of things not seen, but all I'm not seeing at this point is the above question which is thusfar not addressed.

quote:

---

"Possible" universes is for instance, an idea generated by scientists who have lost touch with reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unlike much more sensible ideas such as virgin birth and resurrection from the dead, which demonstrate a firm grasp of reality.

---

Precisely. Good example. You surprise me with your open-minedness. Good for you.

A couple of caveats however. Here you are indeed in the realm of religious faith, hence my surprise, and while it is true that it is a religious philosophical tenet of Catholicism called the "principle of the unity of truth" which in complete confidence in God' honesty or Truth, and as the author of the mind and it's principles of identity and contradiction, along with the observable order of the universe God created, that there can never be that there for this reason never be an authentic contradiction between something God reveals, and the proper use of our reasoning powers.

It is a further axiom of some thousands of years that grace can perfect nature or bring it to fruition, but never contradict nature. It would be like asking God to square a circle...a dumb request. Accordingly in nature, parthenogenesis (biological conception) with out intersexual coitus (in my rough understanding) does in fact occur and is not contrary ot reason. I have no prejudice whatever aginst such a possibility.

The idea of a resurrection of the dead, though again off topic (I was looking for a defense of the curious notion of "possible "universes, which I frankly know to be nonsense.)Perhaps you can respond with an explanation to the question.

As I was saying however, the idea of some sort of resurrection is definitely in harmony with every scientific, philosophical and theological fact that I know.

For instance, the data of human experience shows that all people's the world over treat others as if they were free-willed creatures. They even have legal systems and hold people responisble for their actions.

That would be pretty stupid if the behaviour of the supposed malefactors was seen to be determined, wouldn't it? They don't usually put cats on trial however.

Now free will means the people on trial could have done otherwise; that they were free.

If something is free of bilogical and pohysical determinsism, or "spiritual", an active principle that does not reduce, like intellectual acts, to the physical, and therefore "free",

Then how can a faculty like free will that is not material but spiritual disintegrate or decompose along with our poor little bods.

The idea that some dumb god would go to all the trouble of a 20 billion year creation and then take all this interesting and astounding stuff and consign it to the dirt of entropy (except for the free will and intellect of course) would seem really stupid to me.

And I have seen no reason in all of human thought that confirms such nonsense.

Maybe you'd like to take a stab at the issue of "possible" universes and other failures to remember that scientific measurement is not to be confused with ontological reality, but only provides increasingly elaborate (and useful) descriptions. It an neither see nor obviously "explain", anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle made Copenhagen unknowable? Well. Funny old world.

As the saying goes: who knew?

Now I grant you, many places seemed unknowable in the 1960s. Leastways, if you could believe those squares, man.

---

He heh heh. I never found Copenhagen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
[QB]

As to naming them, I couldn't off hand though I will try to source descriptors. It is my understanding that there is work that whle accepting the mechanisms, they thinks that there is a case to be made for a more cooperative or less antagonistic consideration of the evidence. That's what I had in mind and if you like I'll try to get more exact details. That's certainly fair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
"Ultimately" is always a good weasel-word, as well.

What does it mean to say that something is "ultimately unknowable"? Just about nothing.

---

I agree. A single word seldom conveys much.

What is meant is that science has hit a wall, and I believe (though I may be wrong in the important exact wording ) that the meaning expressed in Copenhagen was that the science of physics cannot know or aprehend ontological reality. Certainty of a particle's position negatively impacts the measurement of reality.

My whole post is about this.

Ultimately can ultimately intimate the ultimate or not. Godel's Theorem, which is as far as a non-mathematician like me can know has been fully accepted as valid, holds that in any sophisticated or higher level mathematical formula there must always (ultimately?)be at least one indeterminable variable.

quote:

---

What is meant is that science has hit a wall, and I believe (though I may be wrong in the important exact wording ) that the meaning expressed in Copenhagen was that the science of physics cannot know or aprehend ontological reality.

---

Forgive me, but you're wrong not only in the exact wording, but in the fundamental concept. It's been decades, so I'm arm-waving a bit, but the Uncertainty Principle says that both the position and the momentum of a sub-atomic particle -- an electron, in the usual model -- can't be known at the same time, not without great uncertainty. (It's to do with the energy imparted to an electron by observing it, i.e. by bouncing a photon off it). It's one or the other.

But it also says that this uncertainty is quantifiable (we know either the position or the momentum within a certain range); and it further says that, because of the very very small value of something called Planck's Constant (and the very very small mass of the electron), this principle is really only significant at the sub-atomic level. At any larger scale, the uncertainty is completely negligible for any practical purposes, meaning for any scientific purposes.

Apparently there's a funny little short story, written by a physicist, about what everyday life might be like were Planck's Constant umpty-ump times larger (many orders of magnitude, I believe). Unfortunately I've never read it (and have lost the reference to it I once had on my shelf). But it's only to illustrate the fundamental concept, as well as to entertain.

Heisenberg, like Einstein, would have been -- what? astounded? offended? amused? all three, possibly -- to be told his work was being interpreted to mean that "the science of physics cannot know or aprehend [sic] ontological reality." No-one who believes that uncertainty is quantifiable would believe such a thing.

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I find it amusing that people who have no trouble being absolutely certain of the existence of supernatural entities, without any evidence, manage to be very agnostic about the nature of material reality despite the abundant evidence that science has brought to light.

They seem all too aware of the "limits" of science (if uncertainty at the quantum level is in fact a limit of science), yet blithely unconcerned with the obvious limitations of blind faith as a means of knowing about the universe.

---

Perhaps when you finish chuckling you'll take a stab at answering the point then. I could use a good laugh. Is there an error in my post or do you just want to vent more of your anti-catholic bigotry.

To stick to the topic, though I know this is not comfortable for you, please point out where I am in error.

You, as do we all presumably like to think of yourself as one at least somewhat interested in truth. Are you suggesting I am not giving an honest portrayal of the nature of science?

Or is it rather, that if what I am pointing out is quite simply and inescapably true, then your affected fundanentalist materialistic dogmatism and the pseudo-philosophical poses assumed are seen to be just that: completely unsubstantiated dogma. Irrational dogmatic fundamentalism. Scientism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:

Forgive me, but you're wrong not only in the exact wording, but in the fundamental concept. It's been decades, so I'm arm-waving a bit, but the Uncertainty Principle says that both the position and the momentum of a sub-atomic particle -- an electron, in the usual model -- can't be known at the same time, not without great uncertainty. (It's to do with the energy imparted to an electron by observing it, i.e. by bouncing a photon off it). It's one or the other.

But it also says that this uncertainty is quantifiable (we know either the position or the momentum within a certain range); and it further says that, because of the very very small value of something called Planck's Constant (and the very very small mass of the electron), this principle is really only significant at the sub-atomic level. At any larger scale, the uncertainty is completely negligible for any practical purposes, meaning for any scientific purposes.

Apparently there's a funny little short story, written by a physicist, about what everyday life might be like were Planck's Constant umpty-ump times larger (many orders of magnitude, I believe). Unfortunately I've never read it (and have lost the reference to it I once had on my shelf). But it's only to illustrate the fundamental concept, as well as to entertain.

Heisenberg, like Einstein, would have been -- what? astounded? offended? amused? all three, possibly -- to be told his work was being interpreted to mean that "the science of physics cannot know or aprehend [sic] ontological reality." No-one who believes that uncertainty is quantifiable would believe such a thing.

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

---

Thank you very much for the response. I will further research what I have somewhat casually written about the agreement in Copenhagen.

It is certainly my view that physics (which incidentally I view as a a staggeringly fruitful enterprise) is great at the functional relationships of mobile entities, but that it cannot in principle deliver ontological reality, though pretty close in some areas.

Again, with absolutely no intended slight to the
discipline of physics, quantam mechanics is a statistical science. Statistics are only used when by choice or in fact, the details of a particular pohenomenon are not known.

Like a coin toss, to state the probabilities of a head at one in two tells us very little about ontological reality, the actual coin toss. It is valuable and useful information about or referring to coin tosses, but it is no coin toss.

Another illustration (I hope) Statistical information is useful. A man drowns in a lake with an average depth of two inches. The statistical information is useful, but of no solace to the ontological widow,

I'll stop now and seek to respond better to your information. I really do have no desire to overstate my case beyond its' oen proper limits, so thanks very much for taking the time to offer your points for consideration. I'll do my best with them.

quote:

---

Again, with absolutely no intended slight to the
discipline of physics, quantam mechanics is a statistical science. Statistics are only used when by choice or in fact, the details of a particular pohenomenon are not known.

---

Again, I'm not certain what this means, but you seem to be saying that statistical sciences are somehow less valid than others, or that scientists resort to statistics out of desperation, or both. Neither is true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:

Again, I'm not certain what this means, but you seem to be saying that statistical sciences are somehow less valid than others, or that scientists resort to statistics out of desperation, or both. Neither is true.

A statistic is only just a fact or datum derived from the analysis of numerical data. All sciences use numerical data, to a greater or lesser extent, which they have to analyze. Therefore, all sciences are statistical, to a greater or lesser extent. You can't do science without statistics.

---

Agreed and again thatnks for the response. It is not my contention that the use of statistics in invalid, or not absolutely necessary and completely useful and good.

It does provide useful and true information.

The drowned man in the 2" deep lake points to a limitation of stats sowever.

My beef is scientism, and the fundamentalist positions in epistemology and philosophy that emerge with it. I do not in the least seek to deride quantum physics (or my limited ideas of it) qua physics. How could I.

Out of respect (I hope) for what is true and acheivable by me, and with particular respect, lance, for your taking the time to disabuse me as required, I intend to shut up for a little bit, and regather my conceptual and linguistic base, with a view to expressing accurately and faithfully, my point.

My point is that (particularly re Godel's theorem) physics is incapable of arriving at the nature of reality, in principle. This is not to deny or dismiss or denigrate the astounding utility and thoretical validity of the endeavor.

I'll shut up now and try to express it less casually in my next post.

Agin thanks for the extra light you put on the matter.

Chicken embryo induced to grow teeth

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
Intelligent design has real problems explaining things like this, while evolution allows them to make sense:

Chicken embryo induced to grow teeth

That a designed chicken should have the instructions in it to make teeth under any circumstances makes no sense. An evolved chicken, on the other hand, that has ancestors that had teeth should perhaps retain those instructions - and it looks like they do. Even better, the teeth that form look like reptilian teeth, which is consistent with the idea that birds evolved from a reptile ancestor.

---

For my part, as I perhaps somewhat feebly and occasionally too enthusiasticly attempt to articulate, I am not a defender of Intelligent Design as a "How" of evolution. I'm frankly, like most of us, not competent to make informed criticisms of the proffered scince.

My point (in all its ragged apparel) is that the failure of Intelligent Design proponents is something I (in an unscholarly way) might characterize as them saying "random mutation can't explain this stuff because of irreducible complexity, mathematical improbability and time constraints, so one must posit the existence of a God-like entity to make sense of it all".

That's how I see their case.

My point is that even if the standard evolutionary story did have significant failings and holes, their infill, in a God of the Gaps approach, would still not demonstrate the existence - OR nonexistence of God.

The schemas of biological science can't treat of the existence or non - existence of God. They can say quite appropriately that the current theory can indeed adequately describe life processes.The "How".

The mistake that too many make is to then further conclude that this somehow means that there is no God. The philosophical presupposistions theistic or atheistic one carries with oneself to the study of the evidence or science causes folks on both sides of the debate to make completely unscientific statements flowing from these often unexamined assumptions.

"Random" to scientific observers removed from their ontological entity by observational media and formulae of whatever merit, (Usually pretty darned good I suspect - I haven't done the math)does not mean absolute ontological randomness and only a failure to see the very cinsiderable limits of science, for all its undeniable brilliance, can result in idle metaphysical speculations completely removed from the science.

I trust that sufficiently muddies my waters....

The problem with intelligent design is that it tries to get around the difficulties of the complexity of the universe by postulating an even more complex entity which created it ... and then refusing to answer how that more complex entity came about. As faith that works, as science its a non-starter.

quote:

---

As an attempt to put empirical weight behind that which has been well understood all along, the numbers here are unambiguous. There is no “scientific” controversy regarding “Intelligent Design theory.” It exists as a conceit of personal ideology, and persists as a political strategy. And in the case that the slogan is still employed once the user has been informed of this survey it can be considered a deliberate falsehood.

If “Intelligent Design” proponents and theorists wish to carve out space for their “controversy” they will have to earn it in the traditional fashion. They will have to do the research, submit to peer-reviewed journals, and accumulate enough evidence to be spoken of with respect, not dismissal, in biology departments across the country.

Until then “teach the scientific controversy” will remain a mendacious bit of hucksterism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:
Actually quantum mechanics uses probabilities, not statistics ... if you go through the equations you'll see the probabilities follow deterministic laws. Wierd, but that's the way it works. Einstein, Bohm and others suggested there were hidden variables (hence the appearance of probabilies in outcomes), but things like Bell's inequality have more or less shown that to be extremely problematic (though getting rid of limitations on the speed of information solves the problem, at the cost of introducing other ones).

The problem with intelligent design is that it tries to get around the difficulties of the complexity of the universe by postulating an even more complex entity which created it ... and then refusing to answer how that more complex entity came about. As faith that works, as science its a non-starter.

And yeah, the sun doesn't have the mass (or a companion) necessary to go nova. I got careless ... or maybe just the Leaf jinx applies even to talking about them

---

I am in complete agreement with what you have written. My objection to fundamentalists and rationalists is specifically that neither theism or atheism can be defended from natural sciences.

Physics studies "things" (understood loosely) that move. If God is not a moving object, then don't expect physics to have a competent opinion on the existence of God.

Fundamentalists (In Christianity, the vast majority are NOT fundamentallists, do NOT believe in a "Six day creation" or other fideistic nonsense. Intelligent Design is NOT a position of e.g. Catholicism or other main branches of christianity.

Christians should be and mostly are insistent upon the demands of reason which supports neither fundamentalism or that naive materialism that would reduce all "knowledge" or science to mere eempiricism, rather than respecting the true worth and value of the empirical.

I realize that there is this popular notion out there that it's the bible or Darwinism out there, but that view furthered by whatever interests for whatever private purposes, is ridiculous and false. Ridiculous in that it is so easily researched.

In my unscholarly opinion, to try to use irreducible complexity as the proof of a necessarily 'interventionist God', one would have to do the equivalent of showing that bumble bees can't fly. As Aristotle observed, if one's argument flies in the face of common human experience, then, you're probably worn. ID'ers would have to have shown that things like optic properties could not have developped within normal scientific parameters and within well reasoned timeframes.

Allowing, wihout any particular expertise on my part that ID'ers failed to so this, the ID position seems to be simply bad science, perhaps in defence of fundamentalism.

That does NOT mean that there is no INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, as most of us in the west believe, it just means that sciences like biology, can't prove or disprove the existence of God within the limits of their theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Turn out the lights, the “Teach the controversy” party’s over

---

I would certainly agree with the case, if perhaps not the emotional content. Of course, as may be the case and as is certainly the case with almost everyone on earth, we take out science on fait. I misplaced my electron accelerator when I moved to Toronto.

That said, and obviously cartesian methodologies are the necessary and good methods of the natural sciences. Where I think most go off the shallow end to (to invert a metaphor ) is when they erroneously decide or adopt the self-refuting idea that empirical knowledge is the only kind of knowledge.

That confused instance of misplaced faith generates an awful lot of angry rhetoric, howsoever ironic at fundamentalists of the other, biblical variety.