The premise of creationism is that you either believe in evolution or you believe in God. I went to school in Kansas. Kansas hasn't gotten over the Scopes Trial. Fortunately, I went to a parochial school. At Catholic school, I was taught science in science class and religion in religion class. I was not taught that you could believe one and not the other. Ironic that I was taught evolution in a religious school while my friends in public school got a taste of creationsism. I also went to a Catholic college in Kansas. A professor, who was a priest, told the class that our ancestors were amoebas and we better get used to it. Evolution questions would be on the test and creationist answers would be graded as wrong. So much for the notion that evolution is an atheistic plot. Then again, Catholics aren't real christians, so either way, I am going to hell.

Posted by: bob at April 28, 2008 7:03 AM

The notion that ID somehow should be treated as science is absurd. Science is about testing and explaining; ID is about quitting without finding answers. I recently added this link to my del.icio.us after coming across in a comment thread elsewhere:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u27/Guysmiley777/Evolution2.jpg

Posted by: justin case at April 28, 2008 7:15 AM

A PARAGON OF SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT!

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

The text begins simply enough, tracing the history of Darwin from an impressionable youth influenced by atheists and agnostics on every hand to a full-fledged agnostic in his own right. The matter may be summed up by the inclusion of Darwin’s sentiment regarding the Creator. In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he "could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." Darwin charged his original belief in God to the "constant inculcation" (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God" during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as "for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake…. Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge. And the scientific illiterate upstart sought to entrap the innocents in the classroom in his web of deceit.

Once past the history of the Darwinist movement, the architecture of the quantum atom is explored in great detail. This is breathtakingly new!

The atom has been compared to a miniature sun-earth system with one or more electrons darting about everywhere at once weaving an electronic shell around the nucleus. In order for this to occur, “Bohr calculated that the electron must move at a speed of no less than seven million billion rotations per second.” Ummmm, "numerous electrons darting about, dodging one another at breakneck speeds would necessarily require the supernatural. The Quest for Right will prove to your complete satisfaction that the electron is directly adhered to the perimeter of the nucleus. “How could it have been otherwise?” The exciting text is remarkably easy to follow even for a lay person. Read a review:

"I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

The book is a virtual smorgasbord of good things to taste: a few of the entertaining subjects include: the earth was created from a watery nebula, the mechanism of gravity which was used to form the earth, the failed photoelectric effect, theory of antimatter, quantum creation (big bang theory), disappearing color, magical application of mathematics to explain certain rudimentary principles, Rayleigh scattering (sunsets), electricity, lightning, electrolyte, the browning of fruit, the mystery of fire, and the role of oxygen in the ignition of hydrocarbons. Then, there’s the desserts which are far too numerous to mention in this limited space; for example, the origin and dimise of the great dinosaurs. Moreover, you will marvel at the comprehensive law of fixed choice.

This is not your parent’s science book filled with distortions of the truth, called “quantum mysticism.” The comprehensive investigation--like none other you will read--quickly escapes into realism by underscoring the numerous experiments and errors responsible for the debasement of scientific theories based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

The Quest for Right is not only an academic resource designed for the public schools, but also contains a wealth of information on pertinent subjects that seminarians, and Christians in general, need to know to be effective: geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and in-depth Biblical studies. The nuggets from the pages of Biblical history alone will give seminarians literally hundreds of fresh ideas for sermons and teachings. The ministry resources contained in The Quest for Right serve as invaluable aids that will enrich graduates beyond their highest expectations.

Visit the official website for additional information: http://questforright.com

Posted by: C. David Parsons at April 28, 2008 7:39 AM

all that happened to Egnor was that some people criticized him on the internet.

Apparently many modern Feminists share a lot in common with Egnor. They love banning people that critique them, and then they turn around and claim they are victims of "cyber-stalking" making sure to use a word loaded with real world overtones of violence and sexual violence.

They share other ideas too, which is that for some reason they dislike actual debate with people that disagree with them. They want to force their form of junk science into schools. They want society to believe in their conspiracy theory: mythical intelligent designer, or mythical conspiracy of men and society known as "patriarchy". They hate science, evolution on the one hand an evolutionary psychology on the other....

Sorry for the potential threadjack....

Posted by: jerry at April 28, 2008 7:41 AM

Bob - Catholics aren't real christians What?! I've been doing it wrong all these years. Seriously, aren't Catholics the only real ones? Somebody must know. I mean, they've got the omnipotent creator etc batting for them, so it should be easy to tell, right?

Are you just teasing and I fell for it?

Justin - Science is about testing and explaining; ID is about quitting without finding answers. Nicely put; must remember that.

How about requiring people to put their money where their mouths are. If you advocate faith schools, creationism etc then you should only be allowed to engage lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc who share your kooky views. Ah, if only!

Posted by: Norman at April 28, 2008 7:43 AM

The theory of evolution is a fact. The theory that all of life’s diversity formed using evolutionary processes is a theory. It may be right or it may be wrong. Right now we just don’t have enough data to say so conclusively. One thing is for sure though; religion is a philosophy, not a science.
If there are religious issues inside of the science class, then they should be handled in the following manor; What ever religion that you believe in has a creator creating the world/universe. If the world/universe was created then there must be a method of creation. Science investigates and discovers those methods that were/are used in creation.
Personally I like to think of the study of science as looking in to Gods mind.

Posted by: rusty wilson at April 28, 2008 7:57 AM

David Parsons,
Why dose religion, specifically Christian religion, need to be taught in the science room? All because you can’t understand the Atom? Or for that matter, because the modern explanation doesn’t satisfy every question that you have? So your solution is to throw up your hands and say we never will figure this out?
Why?

Posted by: rusty wilson at April 28, 2008 8:04 AM

"A PARAGON OF SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT!" Dude what ever your taking please share. There is no science here. It's all the standard crap. We don't know thus it's god. Start using the brain he/she gave you and stop bugging them for inconsequential crap your just too lazy to learn and understand.

The explanation for electron theory is wrong. That part of the Bohr's model was dis proven for that reason. Look up "Quantum Corral", the electron does not circle the nucleolus as would a planet or satellite. The electron spreads out forming a shell (hence the term valence shells) based on Schrodinger's wave equations. Which gets really ugly once you proceed past the first few rows.

Posted by: vlad at April 28, 2008 8:11 AM

Not to mention that the location of the electron at any given point in time is described as a probability of it being located there. (In the valiance shell I mean)

Posted by: rusty wilson at April 28, 2008 8:14 AM

Of course the whole of quantum mechanics reads somewhat like Aquinas Trieste on How Many Angles Can Sit On The Head Of A Pin.

Posted by: rusty wilson at April 28, 2008 8:20 AM

I'm sorry but when I hear the words rejoice in any scientific text book or the description of such I cringe. If you want to attack quantum physics at least make sure you understand the theories before we start. I have a good understanding of how you think the world was created. Do me the common courtesy of learning what science says before attacking it.

You insult me and your creator by not using the brain you believe he gave you.

Posted by: vlad at April 28, 2008 8:20 AM

Are you just teasing and I fell for it?
Bob - what I got taught in church school was that any religion in which you ever prayed to anyone other than god or Christ was a non-Christian religion. Catholicism includes intercessory prayers to Mary or various saints, therefore it isn't truly Christianity.

Of course, the loons running the asylum then went on to tell us that the Pope is the anti-Christ . . . . And for irony, they often relied on the texts of their pet prophetess to tell them what Bible passages meant (or to tell them things that flat out aren't in the bible, but which they take as the Word of God delivered through his last prophet).

But from what I've gathered since, many protestant churches that aren't exactly mainstream (but aren't *quite* as whacked-out as David Khoresh) teach that Catholics aren't truly Christians . . . .

Posted by: TheOtherOne at April 28, 2008 8:29 AM

"The Quest for Right": A Creationist Attack on Quantum Mechanics.

By Stephen L of the newsgroups.derkeiler.com

Here's a different take on creationism/ID: "The Quest for Right," a multi-volume series on science, attacks Darwinism indirectly, by attacking quantum mechanics:

"American Atheists base their reasoning on Quantum Interpretation, hand in hand with Quantum Mathematics. Summoning the dark forces of quantum mysticism, with mathematical incantations, possesses the power to bewilder, and thus con, the average persons seemingly at will, into believing the bizarre and surreal: Z Particles, Neutrinos, Leptons, Quarks, Weak Bosons, etc. Mystics attempt to pass off quantum abuses as legitimate science, by expressing the theories in symbolic fashion. These formula represent the greatest hoax ever pulled upon an unsuspecting public....The objective....is to expedite the return to classical physics, by exposing quantum dirty tricks. That is, unethical behavior or acts,...to undermine and destroy the credibility of Biblical histories. These dirty tricks include: Absolute dating systems, Big Bang Theory, Antimatter, and Oort Cloud. These...have no further station in Science."

http://www.questforright.com

A more sophisticated way to argue against Darwin is certainly to argue against modern physics. Without modern physics, you lose astrophysics too, which enables the author to make the case for YEC [young earth creationism]. The author goes on to "prove" that things like red supergiant stars and X-ray pulsars don't really exist, except in the imagination of scientists.”

Posted by: C. David Parsons at April 28, 2008 8:34 AM

C. David Parsons apparently spends his days hunched over his computer waiting for his Google Alerts to come in so he can post the same silly blather everywhere.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22represents+the+ultimate+marriage+between+an+in-depth+knowledge+of+biblical+phenomena%22&btnG=Search

David, all it would take for me to believe in god is evidence god exists. Got any?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 28, 2008 8:43 AM

"The Quest for Right": A Creationist Attack on Quantum Mechanics. By Stephen L of the newsgroups.derkeiler.com Here's a different take on creationism/ID: "The Quest for Right," a multi-volume series on science, attacks Darwinism indirectly, by attacking quantum mechanics: "American Atheists base their reasoning on

David, this is a discussion, not a forum for cut-and-paste jobs. I realize that rational thought can't be a big part of your life, but please try to dip into a little and respond to comments of those here rather than simply hitting "copy" and "paste."

If I'm not making myself totally clear: No more cut and paste jobs from you in this comments section.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 28, 2008 8:47 AM

ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences

Well, I'm glad at least that it's ultimate. So when science moves on, perhaps changing its mind (no Big Bang! It was a sort of gloopy purple song) or making new discoveries (missing 90% of the universe's matter found in janitor's cupboard) then we'll be able to leave this ultimate volume along with all the previous ultimate volumes.

The sad fact is I took C. David Parsons' post for a parody.

What has "tracing the history of Darwin from an impressionable youth influenced by atheists and agnostics on every hand to a full-fledged agnostic in his own right" got to do with evolution? Darwin started off as a believer; it was his experience of life, especially the cruel death of his daughter Annie, that changed his mind. Changing your mind in the light of evidence is not easy. What would you do, C. David Parsons?

Posted by: Norman at April 28, 2008 8:47 AM

Personally I like to think of the study of science as looking in to Gods mind.

Newton felt the same, I believe.

I like this bit from the Expelled Exposed website:

Intelligent Design” fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.

Posted by: justin case at April 28, 2008 8:52 AM

Just had a quick squint at http://questforright.com/. It's weird - almost as if written by a machine. The sentences don't make sense. for example,

There is a new discipline on the scene: physical science, the old science of cause and effect.

Huh? The old science is the new discipline? Cause and effect is the new black?

Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim.

I have no idea what this means. It's a hodge-podge of unconnected concepts (cause-and-effect, sustainability, irresponsibility, whim). Like I said, it looks like it's been written by a bot stringing random words together.

Parsons: can you explain either of these two excerpts? Feel free to add as much context as it takes, but then you have to explain the context as well.

Posted by: Norman at April 28, 2008 9:02 AM

OMG! C David Parsons is the author of "The Quest For Right". (Perhaps everyone else already knew this?

Details at http://questforright.com/quest3.htm.

That's fantastic - if Mr Parsons can stand the heat, it would be wonderful to have a poster here who can at least speak with authority on some topic, in this case the book in question.

The wait for a textbook based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, is over.

Actually there were already several science text books available. I suspect that yours is new only inasmuch as it is not about science.

Posted by: Norman at April 28, 2008 9:10 AM

The guy appears to believe that use of multi-syllabic words is a substitute for writing something that actually makes sense.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 28, 2008 9:18 AM

Personally, I'm waiting for the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Once that happens, maybe we can get on with the business of finding God's mobile number.

Anyone who wants to disprove quantum theory is going to get nothing but laughs from me.

Posted by: brian at April 28, 2008 9:37 AM

"Mystics attempt to pass off quantum abuses as legitimate science, by expressing the theories in symbolic fashion." Ok so not only is quantum theory bad but now Algebra is the language of the devil? That's a new one for me. The reason most theories are in mystical symbolic fashion is that moving around big numbers with exponents on paper sucks.

What Mr. Parsons fails to realize or accept is the much of quantum physics has been observed. There is still lots of crap out there about it, like quantum faith healing. However most PhD candidates (never mind the rest of us) do not get to run quantum experiments for one reason. Supper colliders are really freaking expensive to setup and run.

Posted by: vlad at April 28, 2008 9:38 AM

What has "tracing the history of Darwin from an impressionable youth influenced by atheists and agnostics on every hand to a full-fledged agnostic in his own right" got to do with evolution?

MORE ON SCIENTIFIC ILLITERATE DARWIN:

The following dissertation on Darwin is lifted from Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, a series of seven books on origins based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect.

On the outset, the reader should be aware that Darwin was a self-proclaimed agnostic; he did not deny the possibility that God exists but believed it was beyond one's mental ability to decide if there is, indeed, any divine force. Darwin, in response to an invitation to become a Patron of the Cat Show (September 18, 1872), lightheartedly referred to himself and cronies as "atheistical cats." By definition, an atheist either does not believe in, or denies the existence of God. Regardless of the profile, agnostics and atheists alike believe that all questions concerning origins, being, and the like may be explained fully by material phenomena and logic; scientists have since added a third dimension, the orderly application of mathematics, called electronic interpretation—read the matter in detail in Volume 1.

A cultural note: a marked distinction separates men who profess to be disciples (followers) of Christ and adherents of the Bible and those who profess to be outside Christianity (called unbelievers). Regarding the current definitions of agnostic and atheist, the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God or else believes it is beyond one's mental ability to decide if there is a God. Countering the claim, the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, penned, "For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they [men who 'hold the truth in unrighteousness'] are without excuse" (Romans 1:20-22). The things God created are aptly referred to as “the glory of God.”

In deference to the biblical precept, the eternal power and Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are clearly evidenced (seen and understood) by the things that God created and made. One only has to observe his or her surroundings; for instance, a wilderness setting with stately trees reaching skyward, colorful wildflowers dotting the meadows, wood ducks by a pool, and animals scurrying about in the underbrush, to realize the knowledge of the existence of God. There are, however, men who do "not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28), and cast down every thought of God. Regrettably, the course of action is not without due penalty: "Because when they knew God [everyone has known God at one time in his or her life], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:21, 22).

In light of the foregoing scriptures, the current definitions of agnostic and atheist are wholly inept: men who hold the biblical precept to be patently false, professing either not to believe or know that there is an eternal power, are neither agnostic nor atheist, but willfully disobedient—willful, "done on purpose; deliberate." The comprehensive assessment will be fully justified; please read on.

Concurring with the biblical principle, Darwin may be charged with being willfully disobedient, as observed in his criticism of the tenets of Christianity. Of one certainty the reader may be assured, Darwin did not speak objectively when it came to Christianity—objectively, "uninfluenced by personal feelings, prejudices or agendas." In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he "could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." Why was Darwin so embittered? Read Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.

In order to access an online, audible Bible, and to read the biblical verses in context, go here: http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html
You may wish to bookmark the site. RealPlayer is required to listen to the Audio Bible.

Darwin once confessed to being a theist, the belief in the existence of a god or gods, in particular the belief that God both created and rules all earthly phenomena. After the publication of the Origin, Darwin charged his original belief in God to the "constant inculcation" (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God" during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as "for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake." With self-assurance, Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge, resolving instead to become an "agnostic." The reader is, therefore, cautioned that, whenever reading books and articles about Darwin, most, if not all, biographical authors are predisposed to depict him in a favorable light, oftentimes allowing pro-evolutionist sentiment to prejudice their work.

The Old Testament did not escape Darwin's inflamed rhetoric; concerning the validity of biblical histories (in particular, the Genesis account of creation), Darwin pointedly declared that "the manifestly false history of the earth....was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos (sic), or the beliefs of any barbarian." Thus, Darwin likened the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 2:7-25), to a mere fairy tale. As an alternative to the counterfactual history, he summarily disposed of both creationism and God by declaring in the Origin that, once the reader entertains the "volumne (sic) on the origin of species...light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history," meaning that man and apes diverged from a common ancestor through the agency of evolution without the aid or influence of God—there is no God.

Posted by: C. David Parsons at April 28, 2008 9:42 AM

I have a completely different take, and I've not encountered anyone else with my view on ID. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure I'm correct. I fully expect to be flamed, so I will number my points for easy reference.

1. Intelligent Design is a mathematical theory. It has axioms, theorems, and conjectures. Most ID critics are unaware of this fact. Almost all of them have failed to even read the maths.
2. Philosophical arguments do not work against a mathematical theory. We can't just say, "there can't be an imaginary number!" To counter a mathematical theory, we must demonstrate a contradiction or counter-example.
3. To date, I can find no counter-example nor any proof of a contradiction in ID.
4. Some ID critics think ID is false because it is Creationism. But that is an instance of using a philosophical argument against a mathematical theory. It doesn't work, as a logical matter.
5. Other ID critics assume without proof that science is closed over the set of all possible naturalistic observations. There is no reason to believe this. Naturalistic observations may lead to non-naturalistic conclusions. To scientists, this is probably the most controversial of my views.
6. Not all mathematical theories are useful. To be useful, a theory must exhibit a model. (I'm uing the term 'model' as it is used in mathematical logic.) Mathematical models are of two kinds, absolute and relative. An absolute model has a physical system as an interpretation of the theory. ID advocates have not demonstrated that an absolute model exists.
7. This notion of absolute model is well-known by scientists, yet many continue to use philosophical arguments against ID. In this regard, "Expelled" is correct. Scientists are confusing the motives of the mathematicians with the mathematics itself. By that standard, we would have thrown out Newton's work. To me, that's a reductio ad absurdum on the question of motive.
8. Since ID is a consistent mathematical theory, it is scientific. Otherwise, we'd toss out large swathes of abstract mathematics for which we have yet to find an absolute model.
9. The failure of ID advocates to exhibit an absolute model, shows that ID is likely an incorrect interpretation of physical systems. I've encouraged ID advocates to start smaller than cosmogony. Instead, ID advocates should try to create a maths that can predict whether, say a rock formation, is natural or intelligently designed. Such a theory would be of inestimable value to archaeologists.
10. Thus, ID is scientific but probably incorrect. ID advocates haven't found a physical model of their maths, and I don't think they ever will. ID critics frequently use illogical arguments that set a dangerous rhetorical precedent for open inquiry in science; in this regard, "Expelled" is correct.

Posted by: Jeff at April 28, 2008 9:44 AM

My big problem with YEC or any of the other faith based groups is they will jump on inconsequential evidence that may (if seen after very heavy drinking and LSD use) support their claim. Orac has a great post in his archives of the women who's leg is growing back by faith healing, which it isn't. Then they get swamped with a mountain of evidance to the contrary and dismiss it out of hand. It's either mis interpreted, which might be argued but never really is. My favorite response is that the devil himself is making it happen to disprove god and rule humanity, Illuminati etc.

Posted by: vlad at April 28, 2008 9:45 AM

My favorite response is that the devil himself is making it happen to disprove god and rule humanity, Illuminati etc.

Taking into consideration, of course, Vlad, that we are the Illuminati, the "enlighteded ones".

Posted by: Flynne at April 28, 2008 9:54 AM

vlad said "However most PhD candidates (never mind the rest of us) do not get to run quantum experiments for one reason. Supper colliders are really freaking expensive to setup and run."

Actually there are quantum experiments at almost every university. It doesn't take much to run quantum them at all. e.g. Many people work with atom traps, which are fairly contained and inexpensve.

Posted by: maria at April 28, 2008 9:59 AM

Justin -

That's a terrific summary of Evolution on the jpeg! What's the source of the text?

Posted by: DaveG at April 28, 2008 10:00 AM

"Intelligent Design is a mathematical theory. It has axioms, theorems, and conjectures." Where can these be found? I'm bored and got the new version of Matlab. I need some mathematical models to test, particularly convergence issues that have been bugging me in real time circuit behavior.

"Thus, ID is scientific but probably incorrect." I can see the argument that ID is properly stated as a theory. I don't agree but I see the argument. I still don't see it as scientific. Science as opposed to pure mathematics require observed fact on which to make deductions, assign and evaluate model parameters. While calculus allows for N dimensional space and can model interaction in N dimensional space there is no evidence of extra planner dimensions. Mathematical models can be made of almost everything but unless the physical observations match the model it should be discarded.

Posted by: vlad at April 28, 2008 10:01 AM

Sorry Jeff, but you conflate mathematics with science. All science requires mathematics, but not all mathematics are science. Until something makes testable predictions about the real world, it is simply not science regardless of its mathematical foundation. This does not mean we currently possess the means to test the predictions, it just means that the predictions could be tested. As far as I know, ID never gets there.

Posted by: justin case at April 28, 2008 10:03 AM

That's a terrific summary of Evolution on the jpeg! What's the source of the text?

I have no idea - sorry. I just found it linked on a BB comment thread, had the same reaction you did, and saved it for future reference.

Posted by: justin case at April 28, 2008 10:16 AM

Jeff,
You are clearly too reasonable, intelligent and level headed to contribute the ID vs. evolution discussion. You must take a dogmatic stance and hurl invectives at others to participate. Someone will be along shortly to unplug your Ethernet cable.

Posted by: Dale at April 28, 2008 11:46 AM

"Many people work with atom traps, which are fairly contained and inexpensve." Wasn't aware of this.

Posted by: vlad at April 28, 2008 11:47 AM

C. David Parsons - you do realize, don't you, that you pasted a long section of text that didn't *begin* to answer the question you pasted at the top?

How about a simple answer to the question "what does Darwin's religious history have to do with the accuracy of the theory of evolution?" Or did you think we'd miss the fact that you don't seem to have an answer?

By the way, do you seriously think that the claim that "the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God" has ANY RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER to whether or not I believe in God? Okay, so you've got some (unattributed) author claiming that the folks who wrote/translated/copied the New Testament think that it's impossible for me to not believe in God. Well, guess what? I personally believe that it's impossible for you to not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Have you converted to worshipping FSM yet? Hmm. I haven't started believing in your god, either . . . .

Posted by: TheOtherOne at April 28, 2008 11:55 AM

TheOtherOne...

You do realize that most likely ole' Dave "Fun to be a Fundie" Parsons is probably using a 'bot to post these messages on any forum that matches search criteria - or is manually cuting/pasting the long monologues manually based on google searches? It's unlikely he's read the article Amy posted - nor ANY of the comments that people post in repsonse. Nothing he posted was in RESPONSE to anything here.
He's just spamming his website/book. Might as well try to start a verbal conversation up with his book.

Posted by: Jamie at April 28, 2008 12:19 PM

"Might as well try to start a verbal conversation up with his book."

The posts are in response to posts on advicegoddess. Please know that it is impossible to answer every question in this forum because each question generates a new string. That is why the 7-book series was written. Continue your education by reading Volume 1 of The Quest for Right. http://questforright.com

Posted by: C. David Parsons at April 28, 2008 12:26 PM

I have a lot of respect for Ben Stein, and I've got to say that I'm disappointed at him right now. Of all the things he could have chosen to lend his considerable talents to, why this? There are a lot of conservative/libertarian film makers, Evan Coyle Maloney to name one, who are doing far more worthwhile work on the subject of academic freedom. Imagine what Maloney could do with "Indoctorinate U" with Stein's participation.

vlad, my favorite bit from the young-earthers was their explanation/excuse concerning all of the geological and anthropological evidence for the Earth being billions of years old: "Well, the dinosaurs never existed. God created the Earth with dinosaur skeletons buried in it, to fool scientists." Besides the anti-scientific overtone, and the fact that it makes the Almighty look rather ridiculous (God as some kind of cosmic practical joker?), there's the fact that their theory opens a nilhist can of worms. If God could/would create the Earth with pre-installed evidence of a past that never actually occurred, then who is to say that this occurred four thousand years ago? Why not two thousand years ago? Why not one thousand years ago (Jesus, Paul, John, etc., never existed, and God hid the Dead Sea Scrolls Himself)? Why not five hundred years ago? Heck, who is to say that the universe wasn't created...

...just now? Al Gore didn't invent the Internet; God created the Earth with the Internet pre-existing. Jon Postel never actually lived; God created all of the Internet standards that Postel supposedly authored, and He implanted memories of Postel in the minds of the thousands of people who think they met or knew Jon in the non-existent past. I was created hunched over the keyboard writing this paragraph; the previous paragraph was pre-written and stored by God when He zapped my computer into existence. It's a game that anyone can play, indefinitely. It's also a neat bit of non-falsifiable propaganda disguised as science. When I turn it on its head and do what I just did, the YEC'ers go nuts!

Posted by: Cousin Dave at April 28, 2008 12:36 PM

For what it's worth, I guess my take is more or less like Rusty Wilson's above. I'm a Christian, but I don't read the Bible as a science book any more than I'd read a physics book for religious guidance. They cover two very different topics!

That said, I haven't seen anything come out of the scientific world that disturbs my belief in the Almighty. On the contrary, discoveries such as the decoding of the human genome or research into the breadth of the universe only increase my wonder at the vastness of the Lord's creation. Recently I saw a picture, taken with a very powerful electron microscope, of individual atoms in a metallic crystal of some kind. And we've all read about astronomers discovering planets outside our solar system. All I can say is, "How Great Thou Art!" I could go on and on, but I'll spare you my further rambling.

Posted by: old rpm daddy at April 28, 2008 12:42 PM

I'll retract my statement that you're not reading the comments, but this seemed to be the first time you've addressed a SPECIFIC comment. The rest of the time you reply with what appears to be a copy/pasted canned response. Especially the first one - which was a blatant spam which is only marginally related to the blog topic.

The post was NOT about the validity of ID vs. Evolution, but about whether or not the "persecution" that "Expelled" is claiming is occurring is at all accurate. Not that we're collectively known to EVER get off-topic, but blatant spam is rare.

I really don't see any reason why I should "continue my education" with anything written by someone whose comments are so poorly written - especially when they're likely written well in advance. Sorry.

Posted by: Jamie at April 28, 2008 12:42 PM

Opps I realized my post was a little mixed. My second sentence should be "it doesn't take much to run quantum experiments at all".

Vlad- most people are not aware of how much quantum mechanics permeates physics research.

Posted by: maria at April 28, 2008 12:45 PM

old rpm daddy wrote:

For what it's worth, I guess my take is more or less like Rusty Wilson's above. I'm a Christian, but I don't read the Bible as a science book any more than I'd read a physics book for religious guidance. They cover two very different topics!

I agree, but the flip side is part of the problem. Scientists like Dawkins and Gould thought that science could disprove God. And, I do not have a problem with Darwinism; actually, in the Origin of Species, I recall that Darwin complimented God for creating evolution.

But, the new scientists will have none of that. While ID can be consistent with evolution and with creationism, scientists say: No! Evolution has to be random and undirected. They take this stance so as to rule out the possibility of God, even though some evolutionary theories are consistent with ID.

But, does anyone find it ironic that the Bible begins with God creating the world out of nothing, and now the scientists insist that nothing existed before the Big Bang, so they can deny God? Basically, they have asserted an effect without a cause. Not very scientific.

Posted by: Tim at April 28, 2008 1:11 PM

"I have a lot of respect for Ben Stein"
Ever read Felix Salmon?
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers?topicChoice=ben+stein+watch

Posted by: smurfy at April 28, 2008 1:20 PM

Also, Dawkins has a parody that's pretty good.
Sexpelled:No Intercourse Allowed

Posted by: smurfy at April 28, 2008 1:25 PM

"most people are not aware of how much quantum mechanics permeates physics research." I was thinking about the more esoteric portions of quantum forgot that spin states were part of quantum theory and not general chemistry. The Bosons and quarks need a collider which is what Mr. Parsons was attacking as mythical.

Posted by: vlad at April 28, 2008 1:30 PM

David - (I'm guessing that is the appropriate form of address here) - your reply to what has Darwin's personal history got to do with evolution goes on at length about Darwin's personal history, but it doesn't answer the question.

Let me try to give an example to illustrate what I mean. Euclid, bless his cotton socks, codified ideas of geometry into his book Elements. I haven't read it, but I know that it introduced abstractions such as points, lines triangles, straightedge-and-compass constructions, and mathematical proof.

Now, what would his personal life have to do with any of these things? Nothing at all. The ideas of the book are what is important, and what has survived. Everyone who has been to school knows these ideas; nobody except specialists know anything about Euclid as a person. In the same way, Darwin's private life has no bearing on natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. Evolution stands or falls on its own merits: it wouldn't matter if Darwin was a Hottentot or an Eskimo or an English vicar.

If you think otherwise, explain why. Try to limit yourself to, say, 200 words. (This post has less than 200 words.)

Posted by: Norman at April 28, 2008 1:40 PM

"Basically, they have asserted an effect without a cause. Not very scientific." True enough there is no known cause for the start of the explosions that birthed the universe. Most scientists will admit that it's all theory and most of it is tenuous at best. Why is it that just cause scientists say we don't know yet is it always proof of divine influence and remains so till a scientific explanation is reached?

ID is a conceptual shield for religion. Now it works for all religions with a creator myth, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, many Pagan beliefs, and others. If ID were proven then it would by default prove that there is a creator and thus by our human standards a god.

BTW if god created the universe what created that being. Did that entity spend eternity in a black nothing of nothing before we were created?

"No! Evolution has to be random and undirected." No that's just plain wrong. Evolution is directed by the environment. This is in addition to random mutation and genetic diversity. Without random mutation and inherent genetic diversity there would be no mechanism for evolution. If there were no environmental stimulus there would be no driving force to stear evolution .

Posted by: vlad at April 28, 2008 1:46 PM

But, does anyone find it ironic that the Bible begins with God creating the world out of nothing, and now the scientists insist that nothing existed before the Big Bang, so they can deny God? Basically, they have asserted an effect without a cause. Not very scientific.

Tim, whether it's intentional or not, you're misrepresenting what scientists say about what came before the big bang to create some kind of conflict with religion that doesn't exist. What scientists actually say is that time is a property of the universe that began with the big bang, so asking what came before it is a nonsensical question. There was no "before" before the big bang.

It's like asking what's north of the North Pole. There's no answer because the question doesn't make any sense. About 1,600 years ago St. Augustine gave the same answer for the question of what God did before creation: Time is a part of God's creation and did not exist until God created it along with everything else, so the concept of "before creation" is a nonsense idea.

Posted by: SeanH at April 28, 2008 2:05 PM

Criminy. Those of you who want to see dedicated Web sites about origins and evolution, try Talkorigins, or Darwiniana.org. The latter has huge amounts of information, the bulk of which religious zealots are totally unaware.

But no mention of this would be complete without mentioning The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ask yourself. WWFSMD?

Posted by: Radwaste at April 28, 2008 2:15 PM

I have to throw a big rock in the water now: The universe is not random. It has laws of physics. Your inability to predict the outcome of a complicated process does not mean it is "random".

Please take a few minutes to think about definitions before you address ideas like "origin", "creation", "random" and the like, because what you have habitually thought about these terms doesn't cut it when you try to understand complex events.

Another big rock: You have no evidence of "creation". No, things in front of you are not that evidence. When we make a "new" car out of ore and petroleum, we violate no law of nature; no material appears from nowhere; the rule of thumb called "the conservation of matter and energy" is not even closely approached. This is a problem with egocentricity in definition. Only to you can a thing be "new". What you see (imperfectly) before you is conversion.

Think some more about definitions. I suspect you can find a dozen or more words people use frequently without knowing what they mean.

Posted by: Radwaste at April 28, 2008 2:30 PM

Sorry Jeff, but you conflate mathematics with science (Justin).

No I don't. I just read the history of science. There are three divisions of the sciences at present: the formal sciences, the empirical sciences, and the social sciences. Math is a formal science.

Much of this is equivocation over the existential verb. I'm not saying math is science in the sense of identity. I'm saying math is in the category of human activities called 'science.' Therefore, if anyone is conflating concepts, it's you by equating 'natural science' with the category 'science.'

Until something makes testable predictions about the real world, it is simply not science regardless of its mathematical foundation (Justin).

Sure it is. It's formal science. Formal sciences, make claims by formal languages. If the axioms are true (under a suitable interpretation of the undefined terms), then the theorems are true. This is a prediction about the "real world." If an absolute model exists of a formal system, then the sytem is consistent and the theorems are guaranteed to be true of the model --- in this case the "real world."

But "real world" models are not the only useful models. Relative models are also very useful. Are we really to discard the Lieontief model just because there is no physical R^n space --- even though it gives us the right answers in "the real world?" Are we really to discard error correcting codes because there is no physically existing, finite, hyperbolic geometry? The users of the Internet might disagree with you.

It's maddening that engineers and physicists will opine about the philosophy of math, having never studied even one whit of mathematical logic. Quite literally, they don't know what they are talking about.

This does not mean we currently possess the means to test the predictions, it just means that the predictions could be tested.

This is precisely why mathematical structures without absolute models must not be "discarded."

Consider that no absolute model of hyperbolic geometry was found for a hundred years after its discovery --- until the notion of space-time arrived. If we are to discard maths lacking absolute models, we're going to lose most of higher order calculus, topology, and even lots of theoretical physics. Indeed, by your view theoretical physicists aren't doing science at all, since much of what they publish has no absolute model --- yet.

If you had your way, we would have discarded imaginary numbers, perspective geometry, limits (!), and many other useful mathematical structures with no demonstrated absolute model. Limits are particularly interesting because as infinite processes they cannot in principle be physically completed, ever. Out they go! Indeed, the whole notion of continuity would probably go out the window too. The physicists notion of "vanishing quantities" goes; there's no physical model for that.

Your's is a Luddite view of science that would stunt it into uselessness. The Intuitionist logicians didn't have much luck with it. Indeed, they produced no progress whatsoever, and lost half of mathematics. May you have better luck. I doubt you will.

As far as I know, ID never gets there (Justin).

Yes, that's the pint of my original comment. ID proponents have not exhibited an absolute model of their theory. I can't even find a relative model of it. ID remains a consistent mathematical system, although there have been some pretty good critiques of the maths, with no application whatsoever. It should be criticized this way, not by resorting to questioning motives or misrepresenting it's mathematical status.

Irrational zeal in the service of science is not a virtue. In the long term, it will do more harm than good. This is my main concern.

Posted by: Jeff at April 28, 2008 2:34 PM

@Jeff:
Are you a mathmatician? I am not, I barely qualifiy as an arithmatician however I have seen several examples of math types who would gladly explain why the ID types are abusing, misusing or misunderstanding the math they claim supports their beliefs. See http://pandasthumb.org/archives/evolution/evomath/
as a place to start.

Posted by: Jim at April 28, 2008 6:05 PM

I propose that anyone who proposes ID as a rational theory must abide by it in his healthcare. Right alongside the Scientologists.

Posted by: Gretz at April 28, 2008 6:46 PM

Ben Stein? As in "Bueller? Bueller?"

Holy crap, I genuinely thought it had been narrated by Ben *Stiller*.

Wow. I think I'll have a drink and mourn a bit. I feel highly betrayed.

Posted by: Gretz at April 28, 2008 7:03 PM

"Irrational zeal in the service of science is not a virtue. In the long term, it will do more harm than good. This is my main concern."

Wouldn't it be feasible to say that "irrational zeal in the service of religion" is FAR more harmful, since it places no value on rational thought, but faith and charismatic leadership?

I'd say that a "scientific zealot" is exceedingly rare, and even THEN would still be willing to have their stance cross-examined by an associate that comes forward with reproduce-able findings. Even the most hard-core pro-science/anti-religious person certainly would be far less willing to be a martyr for those beliefs, or kill for it. Can you say the same for a religious zealot?

Posted by: Jamie at April 28, 2008 8:34 PM

After reading all of these well crafted arguments both for and against ID, I have only one question;

was it the chicken or the egg that was created first?

Posted by: Ari at April 28, 2008 9:05 PM

Obviously it was the T-Rex.

Posted by: Purplepen at April 28, 2008 10:26 PM

There is one good reason to support intelligent design, and one very good reason not to do more than gloss over it in scientific discussion.

The best reason to support it is the lack of evidence on just how a force such as evolution might actually work.

That being said though, the biggest problem with Intelligent Design as a theory, is that like evolution it is NOT a testable theory. Both are theories (or better, hypotheses) based on deductive logic and reaching two different solutions dependent upon the bias of the deducing individual.

But the best reason not to spend much time on Intelligent Design is much much simpler.

There is nothing to be gained from it.

ID may bolster faith, but science is not about bolstering faith. Science is not the search for truth, try philosophy for that one.

Science is a field of study of the physical realm, its application is the betterment of the human condition. Even if ID were proved tomorrow, it would never provide any benefit for humanity as a whole nor even in part.

Evolution, even if it is not true, does provide a useful scientific framework. The last thing we need to hear in a lab is "this works because God wills it to", evolution sidesteps faith, and we need that in a field that requires rigerous testing and concrete results.

Posted by: Robert H. Butler at April 29, 2008 12:54 AM

I'm too tired to make good arguments but two things struck me Robert:

"evolution it is NOT a testable theory"

"Science is not the search for truth"

I guess all that bird/dinosaur links I've been reading, you know where scientists do all those tests....is baloney!

Science is the ultimate search for truth. Anyone can come up with their own view of the world via whatever billions of types of philosophy they'd like to adopt. But you know what? Water will always = H2O.

Posted by: PurplePen at April 29, 2008 1:15 AM

Robert H. Butler - How can you say evolution is not testable? Try googling for "evolution testable" and report back.

Posted by: Norman at April 29, 2008 2:05 AM

Jamie - "scientific zealot[s]" rare??? Read anything on AGW lately? The wikipedia kerfuffle over AGW isn't zealotry? (I'll grant that it's political in nature, but scientists have shown little reluctance to whore themselves out and lie for grant money)

PP, Norman - evolution still hasn't got even the slightest guess how we got both reptiles and mammals out of single-celled organisms. What evolution has "proven" is a very limited set of things.

And as far as our book-spammer goes, I'll take Stephen Hawkings' word for it over yours. Quantum phenomena have been reproduced in laboratories.

Posted by: brian at April 29, 2008 4:37 AM

Brian - The question was whether evolution was testable, not whether it had mapped out the detailed evolutionary pathway of every species on the planet beyond any doubt. I don't expect it will, any more than a geologist could give you the precise history of every piece of rock you throw at him, or a doctor could explain exactly why Joe Bloggs gets that peculiar metallic itchy sensation in his mouth whenever he thinks of walrusses. Perhaps you are setting the bar exceptionally high for one topic?

What's the special difficulty about getting both reptiles and mammals from single-celled organisms? Are you implying that you're happy with the evolution of fungi, flowering plants, worms, molluscs, fish, insects, amphibians, birds, etc, but just not reptiles and mammals?

Posted by: Norman at April 29, 2008 6:11 AM

It's beginning to look as if the cat has got C. David Parsons' tongue. I'm a bit disappointed. I'd have thought that someone who has had enough drive to write a 7-volume book would be able to defend it in an argument.

Posted by: Norman at April 29, 2008 6:15 AM

Was it Schrodinger's?

Heh heh...sorry, just couldn't resist.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 29, 2008 6:19 AM

In case that's cryptic for anyone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 29, 2008 6:20 AM

Norman, I've got a fundamental problem with any organism of higher complexity self-deriving from a simpler one.

Give what we know of the reproductive arts, the same exact mutation would have to occur in several offspring of the same generation, and they would have to mate, being unable to mate with the offspring that were like their parents.

And given the biodiversity of Earth, the possibility of that happening that many times is just beyond what I am willing to imagine.

simpler: an oak tree cannot pollenate a maple, nor vice-versa. Which would imply that if they had common ancestry, that at least one male and one female tree with the same genetic diversions from said ancestor had to come in to being at or near the same time, so that they could produce new oak/maple trees.

I find it no less an act of faith to believe that every major mutation that led to a new species that is observable today happened in such a way as to produce sufficient reproduction-capable mutated offspring to support the new species, and did it in the space of one generation.

With the lifespan of trees, it's a little more believable (200-300 years). Mammals? I'm just not buying it.

Posted by: brian at April 29, 2008 6:28 AM

Brian- I'll guess that by "higher complexity" you mean something like "longer genotype", ie having more genetic information. If that's all you're worried about, it's quite easy to see how one organism can get more DNA. All you need is a mutation that duplicates a chunk of DNA. Initially the duplicate section will express itself in just the same way as the original, so there may not be any observable effect on the organism. But the duplicate genes can be inherited, and this will enable mutations to occur in the duplicated section that do have an effect (maybe good, maybe bad) while the original bit of DNA continues to provide the original function.

Your oak/maple cross is putting two very different creatures together, not surprising they can't mate. No-one suggests otherwise. Certainly the odds of simultaneous mutations occurring to create a new breeding population overnight are impossibly small. No-one suggests that happened either.

It is possible to cross different species to some extent even today. Sometimes this gives sterile offspring like mules. Sometimes they are fertile - lions and tigers can mate for example. So it's not unreasonable to expect that a creature with a mutation can sometimes mate with other creatures that don't have that mutation.

When two individuals mate, they don't have identical DNA, so already it is evident that two strands of different DNA can combine to make a chromosome. Just how different can they be? And how different do they need to be for evolution by natural selection to kick in? And that's before you consider prokaryotes, eukaryotes, retroviruses, plasmids and god-knows-what. The general impression I get of the DNA world is that it is far more jumbled up than you might think. And once it gets into the right place, DNA gets replicated and starts affecting the life chances of its host organism. It's very powerful stuff.

I'm willing to consider that there may be many more avenues for it to be moved around and replicated than we currently know; I don't share your certainties about what can and cannot happen in the natural world. We continually learn of new possibilities. We never seem to close them off. The more we learn, the more opportunities we discover for DNA to do its thing.

Posted by: Norman at April 29, 2008 7:01 AM

So what your saying then brian is you belive that one day long ago multi billion celled orgaisms just popped up out of nowhere at the behest of god, excuse me intellegent deigner

is that what your saying?

And anyone who belives in a god is an idiot

Posted by: luljlp at April 29, 2008 7:01 AM

I am saying that at some point, an intelligent being created the basis for life, and interfered with its development until it got to the point it is at today.

If that makes me an idiot, then I'm one of the smartest idiots in the world.

Anyone who believes that spontaneous order can arise in systems where there is no inherent intellect or interest is an idiot.

Darwin said nothing about biogenesis or trans-speciation. Yet all the ID crowd (which is really a cover for teaching Jesus in public schools) are convinced that evolution describes precisely that. They aren't idiots, but they think everyone else is.

There are all kinds of hypotheses out there that claim to describe how homo sapiens and orangutans derived from a common ancestor. None of them can be proven.

Intra-species adaptation and selection is obvious to the untrained observer. There's no point in debating it.

But there is absolutely no evidence that single-celled organisms that reproduced by mitosis "evolved" into billion-celled organisms with hundreds of specialized cell types, organs, regenerative facilities, and sexual reproduction.

The bacteria is probably the perfect life form. Durable, resistant, adaptive. Why would nature produce highly complex organisms with few, if any, redundant parts? Why would nature take an organism that reproduces rapidly, and make highly complex ones that take months to produce a single offspring?

I'm sorry, but outside of nuclear fusion, you just don't see the universe INCREASING the complexity or order of things.

Until someone has proven otherwise, it seems to me rational that we are naught but an experiment in a perfectly prepared petri dish.

If that makes me an idiot, so be it. I'll stay here with my happy little life and die stupid in about 50 years.

And if I'm right or wrong, it won't matter either way. Especially when you consider that I'm not interested in killing other people for not sharing my view of the universe.

Posted by: brian at April 29, 2008 7:28 AM

Brian,

Dawkin's book "Climbing Mount Improbable" addresses this exact question. The answer is that mutations are undirected, yet by differential retentiion of favorable ones are cumulatively adaptive.

His opponents having kindly provided him with "how can something as specific as an eye possibly have evolved?" as a straw man, he knocks it down with chapter and verse om the dozens of independant evolutionary inventions of different eyes. Not only _can_ a complex eye evolve from humble beginnings, it seems to be all but inevitable!

I can't do justice to the book. If you're actually interested, read it. It's available used from Amazon for $5 or so.

--
phunctor

Posted by: phunctor at April 29, 2008 7:31 AM

"the same exact mutation would have to occur in several offspring of the same generation," That depends on the dominance of said mutation. As far as I know all Pigeon Blood Discus come from one funny looking fish that one breeder found just prior to a cull. The color variation was a spontaneous mutation and a dominant one.

I don't know what research has been done on mammals. Mammalian evolution is harder to study for both practical and ethical reasons. Fish evolution I'm a bit more acquainted with for lab experiments. There are at least a few know pygmy angels that can do cross species breeding. Also there are certain species that have a wide distribution with isolated packets around atols. Some atols have fish that do well in captivity while the same fish species from a different atol using the same capture methods have really shit survival rate. They have been isolated for 100's of generations at least and visually they are almost identical.

However I haven't really heard of a good reason how the same species got spread over atolls hundreds of miles apart. So while I'm not ready to discount higher power there appear to be less and less places for it to hide.

Posted by: vlad at April 29, 2008 7:37 AM

"Jamie - "scientific zealot[s]" rare??? Read anything on AGW lately? The wikipedia kerfuffle over AGW isn't zealotry? (I'll grant that it's political in nature, but scientists have shown little reluctance to whore themselves out and lie for grant money)"

That's zealotry? That's not even "dedication to the cause of 'science'." You said it yourself, it's willingness to "whore themselves out" for money. That's just simple greed. Where's the blind dedication to science?

Posted by: Jamie at April 29, 2008 7:39 AM

"Anyone who believes that spontaneous order can arise in systems where there is no inherent intellect or interest is an idiot." Using vibrations or flow to sort particle size of sand. The order of a system can increases and it does not require intelligences just energy.

Posted by: vlad at April 29, 2008 7:43 AM

brian - Anyone who believes that spontaneous order can arise in systems where there is no inherent intellect or interest is an idiot.

A snowflake is more ordered than liquid water. Does it take an intelligent designer to produce them all?

Posted by: Norman at April 29, 2008 8:17 AM

Vlad- I might be being a pain, but bosons are studied outside colliders. They are just particles with integer spin.
Please don't think I'm attacking you, you are obviously well informed, so I just assume that you would want to know.

Posted by: maria at April 29, 2008 8:26 AM

But the best reason not to spend much time on Intelligent Design is much much simpler. There is nothing to be gained from it (Mr. Butler).

You've erred in your comment several times, but this one is the worst. A theory that could distinguish random from designed structures would be fantastically useful. I gave an example from archeology.

There's plenty of reasons to be skeptical of ID. The utility of a working theory isn't one of them.

Posted by: Jeff at April 29, 2008 8:51 AM

Are you a mathmatician? I am not, I barely qualifiy as an arithmatician however I have seen several examples of math types who would gladly explain why the ID types are abusing, misusing or misunderstanding the math they claim supports their beliefs (Jim).

Math graduate student. I read the Panda's Thumb article some time ago, and I've read Chaim's criticism. I'd really like them to submit their work for peer review. It could end the controversy once and for all. They criticize the applicability of the definitions to the ID mathematical structures. This amounts to a philosophical argument again, not a mathematical one. If the definitions are being used improperly, then they need to exhibit a contradiction or counter-example. As far as I can tell, none has been found.

Posted by: Jeff at April 29, 2008 9:02 AM

Your's is a Luddite view of science that would stunt it into uselessness.

Fuck off. I have a Ph.D. in Cognitive Psych from a top university, am a former NRSA fellow, an author over several publications in peer reviewed empircal journals, and author of an undergraduate thesis on Cartesian dualism and the mind-body problem as it relates to our understanding of the word. Mine is not luddite's view.

As a math graduate student, you have a particular perspective on the term "science", but you are a fool if you think that people (outside of the ivory tower) use the term "science" to mean other than the empirical sciences (i.e., stuff that can potentially be observed and tested). I stunt nothing by using the term science in a way that everybody (except a bunch of wankers with nothing better to do than argue over the parsing of a commonly understood term) accepts as its definition.

Posted by: justin case at April 29, 2008 9:49 AM

Here's a post that you may find interesting at http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=642831 It has to do with the Bible being a science book.

THE POLITE ADVERSARY.

While science and religion are compatible, religion and evolution are not. The Bible is, in fact, a science book. For the discerning, there are three creation accounts in the Bible: the familiar one in Genesis, a lesser known one in Job, and an even lesser known one in Proverbs. When the three separate, but distinct accounts, are correlated, a complete history of the earth may be realized. For example, the scientific account details the earth's accreation from a watery nebulae, explains what the light was that was created on the second day (the sun was created on the fourth day), and numerous other events.

Please know that the King James scholars translated the creation accounts in a scientific void; this is why the polite adversary failed to realize that the Bible is science book. For example, take a look at one missed translation in the following verse:

“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."--Genesis 1:15

But first a short history of sunspots.

The first modern discovery of sunspots occurred during the years 1610-11 by the famous Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Soon after Galileo had constructed his first telescope, he devised a procedure whereby the plane of the sun could be safely studied by projecting an image on a sheet of paper. The measure was to prevent exposure of the eyes to ultraviolet rays which may result in inflammation and photophobia, “painful sensitiveness to strong light,” and even blindness. The simple procedure consisted of drawing the eyepiece of the telescope outwards past the position of normal focus which allowed a real and enlarged image to be focused on a white screen.

Galileo utilized the procedure in an in-depth study of sunspot phenomena. Aided by the enlarged image, he discovered that sunspot groups did not remain in stationary or fixed positions but rotated from left to right across the face of the sun, disappearing behind the horizon. Records of the study revealed that a sunspot completes a circuit around the sun in about 27 days. Galileo had discovered the first modern evidence of the rotation of the sun. Galileo, however, may not be accredited with the find: the famous Italian merely verified yet another biblical revelation; for the phenomenon is recorded in the oldest science book on record, the Bible:

“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."--Genesis 1:15

The word great in Hebrew is gadowl, gaw-dole’, “great in any sense.” Gadowl is from the prime root gadal, gaw-dal, meaning “to twist.” The greater sense, “to twist,” to turn or revolve, was overlooked due to the fact that the King James interpreters were translating terms in a scientific void. Of more than passing interest, the word “great” applies not only to the sun but also to the Moon; “two great lights” were created, not one. Corrected, 1 Genesis 1:15 reads:

“And God made two great rotating lights; the greater rotating light [the Sun] to rule the day, and the lesser rotating light [the Moon] to rule the night: he made the stars also.”

Hence, the historian of “Genesis” is accredited with the discovery of the rotation of the sun. -- Ref. Volume 1 of The Quest for Right http://questforright.com

The polite adversary need not align himself/herself with evolutionists, atheists, and agnostics. The Bible is an in-depth science book if one is willing to delve into its many mysteries.

Posted by: C. David Parsons at April 29, 2008 9:58 AM

THE POLITE ADVERSARY.

While science and religion are compatible, religion and evolution are not. The Bible is, in fact, a science book. For the discerning, there are three creation accounts in the Bible: the familiar one in Genesis, a lesser known one in Job, and an even lesser known one in Proverbs. When the three separate, but distinct accounts, are correlated, a complete history of the earth may be realized. For example, the scientific account details the earth's accreation from a watery nebulae, explains what the light was that was created on the second day (the sun was created on the fourth day), and numerous other events.

Please know that the King James scholars translated the creation accounts in a scientific void; this is why the polite adversary failed to realize that the Bible is science book. For example, take a look at one missed translation in the following verse:

“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."--Genesis 1:15

But first a short history of sunspots.

The first modern discovery of sunspots occurred during the years 1610-11 by the famous Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Soon after Galileo had constructed his first telescope, he devised a procedure whereby the plane of the sun could be safely studied by projecting an image on a sheet of paper. The measure was to prevent exposure of the eyes to ultraviolet rays which may result in inflammation and photophobia, “painful sensitiveness to strong light,” and even blindness. The simple procedure consisted of drawing the eyepiece of the telescope outwards past the position of normal focus which allowed a real and enlarged image to be focused on a white screen.

Galileo utilized the procedure in an in-depth study of sunspot phenomena. Aided by the enlarged image, he discovered that sunspot groups did not remain in stationary or fixed positions but rotated from left to right across the face of the sun, disappearing behind the horizon. Records of the study revealed that a sunspot completes a circuit around the sun in about 27 days. Galileo had discovered the first modern evidence of the rotation of the sun. Galileo, however, may not be accredited with the find: the famous Italian merely verified yet another biblical revelation; for the phenomenon is recorded in the oldest science book on record, the Bible:

“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."--Genesis 1:15

The word great in Hebrew is gadowl, gaw-dole’, “great in any sense.” Gadowl is from the prime root gadal, gaw-dal, meaning “to twist.” The greater sense, “to twist,” to turn or revolve, was overlooked due to the fact that the King James interpreters were translating terms in a scientific void. Of more than passing interest, the word “great” applies not only to the sun but also to the Moon; “two great lights” were created, not one. Corrected, 1 Genesis 1:15 reads:

“And God made two great rotating lights; the greater rotating light [the Sun] to rule the day, and the lesser rotating light [the Moon] to rule the night: he made the stars also.”

Hence, the historian of “Genesis” is accredited with the discovery of the rotation of the sun. -- Ref. Volume 1 of The Quest for Right http://questforright.com

The polite adversary need not align himself/herself with evolutionists, atheists, and agnostics. The Bible is an in-depth science book if one is willing to delve into its many mysteries.

Posted by: C. David Parsons at April 29, 2008 9:59 AM

The Bible is, in fact, a science book.

I'm on deadline, and just dropped by to check for spam trapped comments, but please, somebody who has a moment, have at this one!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 29, 2008 10:07 AM

"Vlad- I might be being a pain, but bosons are studied outside colliders. They are just particles with integer spin.
Please don't think I'm attacking you, you are obviously well informed, so I just assume that you would want to know." I'm just trying to figure out why Parsons is treating quantum theory as mysticism.

I'm not completely aware of what quantum theory research goes on in academia currently though I'm curious now and will be looking into it. I do like to know thank you.

Posted by: vlad at April 29, 2008 10:47 AM

brian -

Out of the numerous idiotic statements you're making, this one is actually pretty accurate;

Anyone who believes that spontaneous order can arise in systems where there is no inherent intellect or interest is an idiot.

Unfortunately for your argument, the only people that actually believe that are as ignorant about the topic of evolution as you obviously are. I would suggest following the links that Radwaste so kindly posted. Even if it doesn't change your beliefs, it will allow you to argue against evolution, rather than this complete misunderstanding you have of it now.

A helpful tip though. Evolution is not random, spontaneous or short term. Evolution does not measurably occur in the space of one generation.

Posted by: DuWayne at April 29, 2008 10:48 AM

I've seen this claim that the Bible - or Koran - is a science book. But this claim always rests on careful and subtle reinterpretation of the sacred text to fit in with whatever the latest science says. It's always retrospective, playing catch up.

So let's see what happens when we ask for a prediction. Currently, cosmologists find that they are unable to account for 90% of the universe's mass. There are ideas about this but so far nobody knows. Perhaps there is another force, like gravity; perhaps there is a repulsive force; perhaps the estimates of mass are wrong by a factor of 10; perhaps the shape of space-time is the answer.

Please tell me what the bible says about this. Don't wait until the scientists find an answer, and then "discover" the same answer in the bible. If the bible is a science book, it should have something to say, no? Even if it isn't, surely you could ask the creator for a clue? The slightest prediction would be impressive.

While we're waiting, perhaps you could explain why the bible doesn't say anything about the germ theory of disease. That would have been most helpful during the last few millennia. Certainly better than the "divine retribution" theory of disease.

I notice your silence on the subject of Darwin's private life, and its relevance to the theory of evolution by natural selection. So I predict silence on the "bible as a science book" and a long post on another topic. Or perhaps just silence.

PS given that the moon always presents the same face toward the earth, why is it described as rotating? And why is the earth not described as rotating?

Posted by: Norman at April 29, 2008 10:54 AM

Mr Cut and Paste Parsons -

No sir, the Christian bible is most certainly not a science book. It is a religious text, one that makes the dubious claim of being the divine word of a hateful, genocidal and evil god. It is the foundation for the dogma of one of the most destructive death cults in human history. It was a strong influence on the foundation of the most destructive death cult in human history.

While science and religion are compatible, religion and evolution are not.

Tell that to the Vatican. Tell that to Francis Collins. Tell that to the myriad people who find little trouble reconciling an acceptance of evolution with their religious faith.

A accurate version of your statement would read; "While my belief in what science is and my religion compatible, my religion and evolution are not."

Posted by: DuWayne at April 29, 2008 11:06 AM

"The bible is, in fact a science book" Oh I'll take this one.

“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."--Genesis 1:15" Yes yes but here's the big rub. The moon is not a light. The moon is a reflective surface. So there are not two lights but one. Had it said God created a mirror and a light I'd give it two thumbs up.

"And God made two great rotating lights" No as per the translation you are suggesting he either made two great lights or two rotating lights, unless gadowl is used twice.

"A theory that could distinguish random from designed structures would be fantastically useful." Yes but only if that theory has some shred of supporting evidence. The earth being flat was also a theory, and a mathematical one at that with well defined axioms. The fact that a theory may be well defined does not make it valid, or useful. Theories with no (key word here is NO) are just flights of fancy. This is different from theories that have limited evidence. We don't know everything but from what we know there is XYZ and this theory explains it. Now as more evidence appears that counters that theory then the theory is modified or abandoned. There is no reason to assign intelligence when simple cause and effect go a long way to explaining it.

Posted by: vlad at April 29, 2008 11:18 AM

"Theories with no (key word here is NO) are just flights of fancy." Sorry agian typing problems.

"Theories with no (key word here is NO) evidence are just flights of fancy."

Posted by: vlad at April 29, 2008 11:22 AM

There isn't time, Amy. Life's too short. Let's just ridicule them and try to hurt their feelings...

> The Bible is an in-depth
> science book if one is willing
> to delve into its many mysteries.

No science books I've ever read challenged the reader's "willingness" with a veil of "mystery." Scientists are all about doing the exact opposite of that: Being as clear as possible to people who want knowledge. Scientists want everyone in the world to be able to duplicate their experience. (See Justin's comment above: "Peer-reviewed".) As a scientist describes his findings, he tries to include enough detail that no one who reproduces his experiment can say "Dude, it doesn't work."

On the other hand, science throughout time and history has been an enterprise on a budget. So as you describe your research, you're not going to waste anyone's time with unnecessary words or flourishes... No hymnals in the laboratory.

Y'know, it seems like people who've never been to college but think of themselves as smart believe that if you have a big enough personality, you get to set the ground rules for intellect, and kinda set up your own field of play. This is not so.

A book about a medical student noted that all doctors are required to do some teaching along the way, even if they had no instructional aspirations at all... An ability to teach is a big component of intelligence. For many medical treatments, the rule is "See one, do one, teach one." If you can't share things with people, then you'll never be a usefully bright guy. You may be a shimmering genius in the grateful, admiring venue of your own skull. But that won't get you through medical school, where you'll be challenged by people with more juice than you have (your instructors) and with less (your students). Neither group wants you waste their time.

Religions will toss you out if you have attitude problems, but science doesn't care whether you believe in it or not... Which is nice. There are no unworthy sinners in science, but you gotta be smart enough to deliver the goods. It's nothing personal....

Posted by: Crid at April 29, 2008 11:23 AM

The funny thing about distinguishing designed structures from an undesigned background is that if god designed living things, he also designed the universe. So why is design evident in one but not the other? How can you distinguish the figure from its ground?

(Also, why did he do such a crap design job - and make it look just as if it was evolved? Perhaps he was trying to hide the evidence?)

Posted by: Norman at April 29, 2008 11:27 AM

"PS given that the moon always presents the same face toward the earth, why is it described as rotating? And why is the earth not described as rotating?"

As the Moon travels eastward, weaving in and about the Earth, it rotates in relationship to the Sun. From space it is quite obvious that the moon is rotating. See Wikipedia.

Your comment about the germ theory of disease is covered in Volume 7 of The Quest for Right. I am not at liberty to discuss this issue due to copyright matters.

Concerning Darwin's inability to understand certain earthly phenomena -- the following text is taken from Volume 2.

The investigation’s assessment of evolution is far from being new. Darwin was fully cognizant that he could not prove the "theory" and could not explain its mechanism, especially in so-called well-defined species: the connotation erroneously suggests that there are less-defined or more primitive species when all evidence is to the contrary. The scientific council uses language as a ruse in lieu of documented facts in order to promote Darwinism; hence, the phraseology is offensive. Again, stability, not variance, is the third law of procreation (read the volume to see what this means).

Darwin's studies revealed a wide variety of life forms, but what caused these varieties? Again, natural selection was thought to be the answer. In theory, those species best adapted to the environment tend to reproduce more offspring and transmit hereditary improvements (in slight variations); those less able to adapt to the environment leave fewer offspring and eventually die out. After a succession of generations, there is a tendency for the species to