Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I agree with your point. No problem there.

Mine was that if those who selected the 20 constants actually understood physics, the speed of light would not have been included, simply because it is a function of two more fundamental constants.

c is more widely known than either μ[sub]0[/sub] (mu, if it does not appear to you) or ε[sub]0[/sub] (epsilon, if it does not appear to you). I would actually state that all three are interdependent on each other and the medium through which they are passing, so using all three would be redundant and one educated in physics ought to know this while using one or two should suffice.

I’m glad that Spitzer has a wall full of degrees. My observations suggest that the more degrees one flaunts, the less capable he is of thinking clearly about fundamental issues.

Degrees are great for complex issues, but by the time one has acquired a few of them, the brain becomes clogged with data, opinions, and belief in the quality of the knowledge that one holds. The mind then tends to approach all problems from its vast knowledge base, trying to put as much of that knowledge as possible into its solution.

My observation is actually quite the opposite: the ones with few or no degrees are often the most arrogant that their theory is correct and are incapable of understanding the issues at hand. I have had a number of engineers with BS’s send me mail stating that they can prove Einstein’s theory of relativity wrong. I have seen numerous non-scientists attend APS and AAS meetings presenting their work that proves Newton wrong. All of these guys claim themselves as ‘geniuses’ and ‘on par with Newton and Einstein’ (which the latter is humorous given that they are aiming to disprove such a genius).
I also think the last paragraph should read as follows:
Degrees are great always, but if one has not acquired one, the brain becomes clogged with misinterpreted data, opinions based on lack of understanding, and belief in the superiority of their non-existent knowledge. The mind then tends to approach all problems from its lacking knowledge base, trying to make up as much of that knowledge as possible into its errant solution.

A large knowledge base is often essential for solving complex problems, but it usually gets in the way of finding simple solutions. That is why most scientific breakthroughs are developed by young people.

Wise philosophers have noted this. Thomas Kuhn, for example, pointed out that radical new ideas are never accepted into the general scientific paradigm until the old professors die off. This is simply human nature. When one has invested a lot of time and money into acquiring knowledge, it becomes a possession, and like other possessions, the owner is loathe to relegate it to a trash can, no matter how many maggots and vermin are dining within. .

This is horse manure and you should know it. Kuhn’s thesis of a paradigm shift can be proved wrong with two items:
(1) refereed journals that have been used to advanced science since the mid-1600’s
(2) the ‘old paradigm’ does not cease to exist, as Kuhn states numerous times in his shoddy book.
Einstein did not create a paradigm shift because (1) Lorentz published the exact same work a decade prior to Einstein and (2) Newtonian physics is still relevant. Science is a cumulative process, not a Gestalt shift process, as the failed physicist-turned-historian Kuhn predicts.

 

[tonyrey]

A good way to develop our appreciation of the evidence for Design is to examine the objections. Many are based on the imperfection of the universe - as if it is self-evident that an immensely complex physical system can function flawlessly. They tell us far more about a person’s mentality than the nature of reality. To find fault with the universe presupposes a degree of insight no human being could ever possess. It is an argument based on ignorance.

When contemplating the night sky most of us are filled with awe and wonder. In Rudolf Otto’s words we are confronted with the “mysterium tremendum et fascinans”. The claim that the universe is “inefficient” disappears into the obscurity where it belongs. Only a prejudiced person would presume to assess its value by human standards. The physicist Steven Weinberg thinks the universe seems pointless but he doesn’t have the audacity to dismiss it as inefficient. The occupational hazard of a scientist is to think in terms of purposeless events but there is no excuse for rejecting the universe as inferior to human standards.

It is a symptom of the materialist’s mindset that everything is seen in terms of numbers, quantity, size, speed, distance and mechanistic efficiency. Personal qualities are subordinated to impersonal features because persons are seen as things. Human beings are animals, spiritual realities are illusions, minds are calculating machines, reasoning is computation and purpose is a biological function devoid of intelligence…

There can be no half-measures when interpreting reality: the universe is either rational or not - and this applies to everything in the universe. It doesn’t make sense to regard some things as rational, valuable, purposeful and meaningful in an irrational, valueless, purposeless and meaningless system. It amounts to getting something for nothing and is merely wishful thinking. Moral subjectivists reject objective values. If they were consistent they would also reject objective reasons, purposes and meanings. But then they would destroy the foundation of their own theory… and they couldn’t afford to do that! Their allegation of inefficiency would rebound on themselves. Poetic justice!

 

[ReapReason]

c is more widely known than either μ[sub]0[/sub] (mu, if it does not appear to you) or ε[sub]0[/sub] (epsilon, if it does not appear to you). I would actually state that all three are interdependent on each other and the medium through which they are passing, so using all three would be redundant and** one educated in physics ought to know this while using one or two should suffice.**

Dame!!! You just made greylorn look like a quack.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Dame!!! You just made greylorn look like a quack.

He is not a quack, he just thinks that his knowledge of physics is superior to everyone else’s knowledge of physics.

 

[ReapReason]

He is not a quack,

Okay. I would say that’s debatable.

he just thinks that his knowledge of physics is superior to everyone else’s knowledge of physics.

Yep, sure seems that way. Even worse, the idea that having degrees ultimately makes you less capable of doing good science is ridiculous.

A dogmatic adherence to a model of physics that doesn’t reflect the overall scientific evidence and yet is forced to fit the data regardless is more dangerous to science than somebodies library of university degree’s

For example, Greylorn inflates the principle that “energy cannot be destroyed or created” beyond the scientific epistemological context of physics and translates it in to a metaphysical claim insofar as he presents it as a universal irrefutable principle of reality itself. Instead saying that no “physical thing” can create or destroy energy, he will say that no conceivable thing can destroy it or create it including God. He gives absolutely no metaphysical justification for this view, while at the same time touting the authority of science as his metaphysical justification (which makes no sense), forgetting to mention that he has the unfounded non-scientific belief that all things are physical to begin with.

This stinks of pseudo-science, if you don’t mind me saying.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Yep, sure seems that way. Even worse, the idea that having degrees ultimately makes you less capable of doing good science is ridiculous.

Like I said in one of my previous posts, as a professional scientist (i.e., having been granted a PhD) I have seen more idiotic theories coming from non-PhD’s than from PhD’s. Certainly there have been bad ideas from PhD’s (the aether comes to mind, as does Hannes Alfven’s plasma cosmology), but not quite to the extent that greylorn suggests.

A dogmatic adherence to a model of physics that doesn’t reflect the overall scientific evidence and yet is forced to fit the data regardless is more dangerous to science than somebodies library of university degree’s

All one has to do is take a look at the ArXiv pre-prints to see his ‘must obey science status quo’ concept is just flagrantly wrong. There are numerous papers being published regularly that adjust, deny/reject, defend, and invent theories about why this is so. There is no ‘the man’ as greylorn thinks there is.
The adherence to models of phenomena are due to a particular theory’s ability to predict a result. If a prediction is wrong, the theory either needs adjustment or tossed out. This happens regularly, and not just in physics. A good scientist follows the data, not the masses, regardless of the degrees.

For example, Greylorn inflates the principle that “energy cannot be destroyed or created” beyond the scientific epistemological context of physics and translates it in to a metaphysical claim insofar as he presents it as a universal irrefutable principle of reality itself. Instead saying that no “physical thing” can create or destroy energy, he will say that no conceivable thing can destroy it or create it including God. He gives absolutely no metaphysical justification for this view, while at the same time touting the authority of science as his metaphysical justification (which makes no sense), forgetting to mention that he has the unfounded non-scientific belief that all things are physical to begin with.

Greylorn believes all of this because he does not believe in an infinitely capable God; his gods are just ‘really powerful’ and ‘bounded by the laws of physics’ as greylorn understands them. He claims he was convinced of the limited power of a god because (and I am hoping that I am recalling this correctly) a priest was unable to answer a ‘simple’ question that he ‘invented’ when he was younger: could God create a rock that he was not able to move?
Obviously this is a false question, since it presupposes that an infinitely capable Being cannot do something. And despite my trying to tell him that, he still abides by that idea. So his odd Beon theory was derived as a result of his limited knowledge of physics and lack of understanding in everything else (philosophy, biology, psychology, etc).

This stinks of pseudo-science, if you don’t mind me saying.

It is worse than pseudo-science: it is new age. He denied writing a new age book, but given the definition (emphasis mine):
The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions ranging from atheism and monotheism through classical pantheism, naturalistic pantheism, pandeism and panentheism to polytheism **combined with science **and Gaia philosophy; particularly archaeoastronomy, astronomy, ecology, environmentalism, the Gaia hypothesis, psychology and physics.
It definitely fits into the new age genre.

 

[tonyrey]

There are Christians as well as materialists who reject Design without realising the full implications. If the universe is not planned or intended to exist it doesn’t fulfil any purpose. God is no longer a loving Father who created us in His image and likeness so that we can share His life in heaven. It is made quite clear in the Catechism that this is not the teaching of Jesus or the Church:

V. GOD CARRIES OUT HIS PLAN: DIVINE PROVIDENCE ** 302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) ** toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:

By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.161 303 The witness of Scripture is unanimous that the solicitude of divine providence is concrete and immediate;** God cares for all, from the least things to the great events of the world and its history. **The sacred books powerfully affirm God’s absolute sovereignty over the course of events: "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases."162 And so it is with Christ, “who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens”.163 As the book of Proverbs states: "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will be established."164

 

[Sair]

There are Christians as well as materialists who reject Design without realising the full implications. If the universe is not planned or intended to exist it doesn’t fulfil any purpose. God is no longer a loving Father who created us in His image and likeness so that we can share His life in heaven. It is made quite clear in the Catechism that this is not the teaching of Jesus or the Church:

This puts me in mind of a question that I’ve had in the back of my mind for a while - why, when one does not hold certain important, even central beliefs prescribed by the doctrines of their professed faith, do they still identify as members of that faith community?

I think this may warrant another thread…

 

[tonyrey]

There are Christians as well as materialists who reject Design without realising the full implications. If the universe is not planned or intended to exist it doesn’t fulfil any purpose. God is no longer a loving Father who created us in His image and likeness so that

I think there are only three possibilities:

1. They don’t think about it
2. They don’t think it matters
3. They think they can convert others to their beliefs

 

[ReapReason]

There are Christians as well as materialists who reject Design without realising the full implications. If the universe is not planned or intended to exist it doesn’t fulfil any purpose. God is no longer a loving Father who created us in His image and likeness so that we can share His life in heaven. It is made quite clear in the Catechism that this is not the teaching of Jesus or the Church:

There are Christians that reject ID theory, but do not reject design. The assumption i think you are making is that a thing can only be designed in the artisan sense of the word.

 

[farpinho]

Not directly related to this topic, but somehow related to it…
nytimes.com/2009/07/26/weekinreview/26overbye.html?_r=0

 

[tonyrey]

There are Christians that reject ID theory, but do not reject design. The assumption i think you are making is that a thing can only be designed in the artisan sense of the word.

How do you define the artisan sense?

 

[greylorn]

Like I said in one of my previous posts, as a professional scientist (i.e., having been granted a PhD) I have seen more idiotic theories coming from non-PhD’s than from PhD’s. Certainly there have been bad ideas from PhD’s (the aether comes to mind, as does Hannes Alfven’s plasma cosmology), but not quite to the extent that greylorn suggests.

All one has to do is take a look at the ArXiv pre-prints to see his ‘must obey science status quo’ concept is just flagrantly wrong. There are numerous papers being published regularly that adjust, deny/reject, defend, and invent theories about why this is so. There is no ‘the man’ as greylorn thinks there is.
The adherence to models of phenomena are due to a particular theory’s ability to predict a result. If a prediction is wrong, the theory either needs adjustment or tossed out. This happens regularly, and not just in physics. A good scientist follows the data, not the masses, regardless of the degrees.

Greylorn believes all of this because he does not believe in an infinitely capable God; his gods are just ‘really powerful’ and ‘bounded by the laws of physics’ as greylorn understands them. He claims he was convinced of the limited power of a god because (and I am hoping that I am recalling this correctly) a priest was unable to answer a ‘simple’ question that he ‘invented’ when he was younger: could God create a rock that he was not able to move?
Obviously this is a false question, since it presupposes that an infinitely capable Being cannot do something. And despite my trying to tell him that, he still abides by that idea. So his odd Beon theory was derived as a result of his limited knowledge of physics and lack of understanding in everything else (philosophy, biology, psychology, etc).

It is worse than pseudo-science: it is new age. He denied writing a new age book, but given the definition (emphasis mine):
The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions ranging from atheism and monotheism through classical pantheism, naturalistic pantheism, pandeism and panentheism to polytheism **combined with science **and Gaia philosophy; particularly archaeoastronomy, astronomy, ecology, environmentalism, the Gaia hypothesis, psychology and physics.
It definitely fits into the new age genre.

It may be worth noting that these dubious comments were written by someone who refuses to read the book in which the ideas he’s whining about are explained.

In simpler terms, they are written by an ignorant man, who is determined to remain ignorant, yet chooses to make up whatever he wants about ideas he has never studied. This kind of behavior is typical of the Ph.D types I’ve criticized earlier.

One reason I wrote the book was to get my ideas into the minds of serious physicists who also believed in a Creator. My ideas are only a beginning, but they offer something which no other theology does— a potentially verifiable God-concept, and a definitely verifiable “soul” concept. I cannot do the verifications necessary myself, having no access to the necessary resources. But other, younger, more qualified people could.

I expected that my ideas would get short shrift from atheists, but had hoped for better from those who share my belief in a created universe.

 

[greylorn]

He is not a quack, he just thinks that his knowledge of physics is superior to everyone else’s knowledge of physics.

The word “different” applies; “superior” does not.

I became seriously disenchanted with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and abandoned plans to obtain a PhD in physics. Upon the termination of my formal education I worked in astronomy, where I found a few others who had shared the same insights about QM and had escaped physics, in favor of a field where they could apply their physics knowledge.

Through personal study and ongoing contact with associates who were much better educated than I was, and often more intelligent, I focused my attention upon integrating physics and theology.

No doubt my detailed knowledge of physics is less than yours. Obtaining that knowledge would only have been useful if I’d wanted a permanent job in academia. What I may have, however, is something that to the best of my knowledge is a unique perspective on the integration of creation theory and fundamental physics.

My ideas about the nature of God and beon (soul) differ in that they are verifiable by the methods of physics. In an era where fewer and fewer educated people find it sensible to believe in the potential for their post-death survival as a definite entity, much less in an intelligent, deliberate Creator, it had seemed to me that these ideas would be useful to thoughtful individuals.

 

[ReapReason]

My ideas about the nature of God and beon (soul) differ in that they are verifiable by the methods of physics. In an era where fewer and fewer educated people find it sensible to believe in the potential for their post-death survival as a definite entity, much less in an intelligent, deliberate Creator, it had seemed to me that these ideas would be useful to thoughtful individuals.

Why is it necessary to have a beon or God theory in science? Why do you feel compelled to turn these ideas into a scientific theory?

Have you considered whether or not your idea of a creator is even compatible with the scientific method given that the sciences proceed according to a “methodological naturalism”?

 

[greylorn]

greylorn:

…if those who selected the 20 constants actually understood physics, the speed of light would not have been included, simply because it is a function of two more fundamental constants.

c is more widely known than either μ0 (mu, if it does not appear to you) or ε0 (epsilon, if it does not appear to you). I would actually state that all three are interdependent on each other and the medium through which they are passing, so using all three would be redundant and one educated in physics ought to know this while using one or two should suffice.

I’d not have figured the 20-constant selection process to be a popularity contest, like “Dancing with the Stars.”

Of course you are correct that if there are three interdependent values, one of which can be derived from the other two, we get to choose the two that we regard as most important.

For example, one could write Al’s famous equation as,

c = (E/m)[sup]1/2[/sup] instead of E=mc[sup]2[/sup].

because the expressions are mathematically identical. However, doing so would obscure the core physics concept involved.

The same is true for “c,” μ[sub]0[/sub] and ε[sub]0[/sub]. We can choose any two. But in the interest of understanding physics, rather than simply manipulating mathematical symbols, why not use the two that further our understanding?

μ[sub]0[/sub] and ε[sub]0[/sub] are common to all materials, but “c” (light speed) is not. That explains why I could not see a darned thing through the “guaranteed unbreakable” eyeglasses I bought awhile back. The lenses were made of aluminum, and the permittivity of aluminum does not permit the transfer of light.

Therefore, because μ[sub]0[/sub] and ε[sub]0[/sub] are common to all materials, even those that cannot transmit light, should they not be regarded as more fundamental?

Let me stress, O Ph.D physicist, that I am not seeking a semantic quibble here. I’m just looking for the physics and the understanding of how our universe works.

If I get to learn things from you along the way, that’s a bonus. For example, would you kindly explain how to get letters of the Greek alphabet into text? Thanks!

 

[greylorn]

greylorn:

My ideas about the nature of God and beon (soul) differ in that they are verifiable by the methods of physics. In an era where fewer and fewer educated people find it sensible to believe in the potential for their post-death survival as a definite entity, much less in an intelligent, deliberate Creator, it had seemed to me that these ideas would be useful to thoughtful individuals.

Why is it necessary to have a beon or God theory in science? Why do you feel compelled to turn these ideas into a scientific theory?

I repeated my comments above so that you could actually read them, and see that I used the word “useful” in describing the potential value of my ideas. “Necessary” is your word, not mine. It is common for liberals and pinheads to insert their own language in place of the original. It is a neurolinguistic ploy designed to turn the conversation in a direction that puts the originator of the conversation on the defensive. I do not know why they do that. Perhaps they cannot read, or can read but cannot think very coherently. Perhaps they cannot mount an honest argument, but feel a need to say something, even if it is disingenuous. Going under the handle of ReapReason, I assume that you do not want to be one of those nits. Hence my correction.

When I first developed my ideas I was not compelled to do much of anything with them. They answered my personal questions, and after kicking them around with friends and a wife, I realized that others did not share my questions and curiosities.

Later in life I began to see the deleterious effect of incorrect beliefs about the nature of man and purpose of creation. I saw the effects of Darwinism, which led to atheism and communism. I saw how these beliefs were beginning to erode Christian society and lead to confused moral standards, even within myself.

In time I realized that I needed to learn about things that had previously held little appeal to me. so I studied and experimented with alternative ideas and theologies, figuring that someone else must have done a better job of it than I.

In the meantime, I treated my ideas as if they were correct, and used them to raise three offspring. They worked wonderfully in this capacity. Although one of the three is still trying to figure things out. the other two are far more successful and happy than I will ever be.

Had I found a better alternative to my own ideas, I’d have been off the hook. Alas. I am personally responsible for ideas that have the potential to change the world, but which will ultimately have no effect whatsoever because I am an incompetent marketer and have no active allies.

Have you considered whether or not your idea of a creator is even compatible with the scientific method given that the sciences proceed according to a “methodological naturalism”?

I’ve actually done some science, so I know what the scientific method is. More correctly, I know about a lot of different forms and styles of this method. In real life, it often consists of a bunch of bright guys hanging out in a peaceable tavern, making up stuff and telling lies, and every now and then creating the space for new ideas.

I’ve never heard of “methodological naturalism” before. If any of the gentlemen I worked with brought up such an inanely pretentious term, one of us would have emptied a mug of beer over his pointy little head.

All of my ideas about God and soul and other fun concepts were engineered with the expectation of empirical, hard science verification (physics, not parapsychology or statistical analyses) in mind.

 

[tonyrey]

There are Christians that reject ID theory, but do not reject design. The assumption i think you are making is that a thing can only be designed in the artisan sense of the word.

1. The definition of an artisan is “a skilled workman; craftsman”.
2. Craftmanship - of the type displayed in the masterpieces of art, music, science and architecture - implies insight, power and wisdom.
3. If the universe displays no evidence of insight, power and wisdom there is no reason to believe in the Creator of the universe.

 

[ReapReason]

1. The definition of an artisan is “a skilled workman; craftsman”.
2. Craftmanship - of the type displayed in the masterpieces of art, music, science and architecture - implies insight, power and wisdom.
3. If the universe displays no evidence of insight, power and wisdom there is no reason to believe in the Creator of the universe.

I never said there is no evidence of insight in the universe. However, i don’t believe the universe expresses the hands-on type of craftsmanship you would see in the construction of a wooden boat for example, that couldn’t arise according to secondary causes (the interaction of various elements). Neither do i feel it necessary to identify that kind of craftsmanship in-order to identify qualities that would require insight in order to exist.

For example, the activities of DNA cannot give rise to the end-directed qualities we find in organisms without the existence of distinct goal directed information. We are talking about irreducibly complex commands telling atoms to arrange themselves into a biological construct. Where does this information and meaning come from? When we create symbols such as we find in books, the meaning of the story is always distinct from the the representative symbols; and thus when we ask where the meaning comes from we have no choice but to attribute that meaning to the creative activity of a mind. DNA represents the same issue. Physics alone cannot explain the existence of any meaning that any particular DNA code sequence represents, because meaning itself is beyond the capacities of the scientific method to describe physically since we are ultimately dealing with abstract information, as opposed to analogous constructs. But that doesn’t mean that the construction of DNA itself need be the work of an artist since it is conceivable that this object could arise naturally. Its the effect of the DNA that requires an explanation that physics cannot provide.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

It may be worth noting that these dubious comments were written by someone who refuses to read the book in which the ideas he’s whining about are explained.

Why read a pseudo-science book when the author has explicitly stated there lies false information within its pages? You have stated that your book links the soul to dark energy, a hypothesis that is impossible to prove, and that there are only two forces, not the four that are known throughout the world.

In simpler terms, they are written by an ignorant man, who is determined to remain ignorant, yet chooses to make up whatever he wants about ideas he has never studied. This kind of behavior is typical of the Ph.D types I’ve criticized earlier.

Curiously, your behavior is exactly the kind of behavior from BS/BA graduates that I have mentioned earlier. And your first sentence here equally applies to you: your comments are written by an ignorant man, and who intends on being, but chooses to remain completely ignorant about the subject that he has not studied but writes a lot about.