Re: *Expelled* writer admits he opposes the entire foundation of

On Mar 6, 8:30 pm, kevinmille...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:44 pm, rem6...@xxxxxxxxx (Robert Maas, seehttp://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:





From: Glend <interelectromagne...@xxxxxxxxx>
How can we know that we know anything?

That question presumes a fact not in evidence, namely that we know
that we know anything. In fact we don't know that we know anything,
and we might not even know anything. Scientific theories have
worked very well in the past, but that's no guarantee they will
continue to work in the future. On the other hand, there's no "good
time" to suddenly realize that some particular time in the near
future, such as next Tuesday, physical laws we have grown
accustomed to will suddenly stop working. Like why next Tuesday
instead of a million years in the future or a googol number of
years in the future?

The only times the *implications* of the laws of physics might have
suddenly changed "everything" around us were:
- When the first fission bomb (uranium or plutonium) was exploded,
   and there was a hypothetical chance the shock would cause
   detonation of the atmosphere into hydrogen fusion.
- When the first hydrogen-fusion bomb was exploded, likewise.
- When the first underwater hydrogen-fusion bomb was exploded,
   where the increased density of hydrogen in liquid water might
   have detonated over a wider scale.
- Over a longer time scale, when we realized that Betelgeuse and
   Antares are at the end of their lifetimes and could go supernova
  "any time now" while they might still be too close for comfort.
- If and when we produce high enough energies at CERN or other
   particle accelerator such that a neutral W boson is created
   which causes an uncontrolled micro-black-hole implosion after
   which the particle falls through the center of the Earth
   snarfing any matter in its path, orbiting the center of the
   Earth repeatedly and as it repeatedly excavates the solid
   material of the Earth it destabilizes the previously-solid
   material causing increased rate of collapse and resultant
   increased release of heat due to relaxation of gravitational
   potential energy, causing increased volcanism and global
   warming. But that's not the worst of it. As the black hole grows
   exponentially, it settles in the center of the core of the Earth,
   with a near-vacuum region surrounding it. The neighboring core
   *boils* into that vacuum, and an acretion disk is formed within
   that vacuum-hole around the black hole, giving off gamma rays
   that convert the iron in the core to other elements for large
   region around the vacuum-hole, destabilizing the solid metallic
   state of that former-iron, causing increased fragmentation of
   the solid material and consequent increased rate of boiling
   hence rapidly increasing size of hole and acretion disk within
   it. Eventually a pair of quasar-like polar beams began drilling
   upward toward the surface of the Earth.
- Any others you can think of? Cyanide in tail of Halley's Comet in
   1910 when Earth passed through it, and collision with asteroid
   in year 2029 or 2036, don't count.

Personally, I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian
evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise
itself.

I see ID as a load of bull, except for the Omphalos version of it.
Either there are natural laws which produce evidence exactly like
evolution, or there's a supernatural being using ID to play an
immense joke on us by deliberately emulating evolution. It really
doesn't matter to me which is the case. Either there isn't a god,
or there is one shitload of a fucking liar of a god. Either way
there's nobody to worship or respect or love or pray to etc. etc.

Will we allow non-material causation into science or won't we?

The only thing we should allow into science is mathematical models.
Either they have a random element, or they don't. At present, QM
has a random element, and that seems to fit the evidence best. If
there's a supernatural being, either it acts random, fitting the QM
model at present, Omphalos for QM, or it acts non-random, which
doesn't seem to fit the evidence at present. Maybe next Tuesday, or
in a million years, or in a googol number of years, the
supernatural will decide to stop playing random and play a new game
we'll need to learn to survive. Or maybe the godless Cosmos will
just sponteously change mode, just as it did several times during
the first three minutes of the Big Bang as the temperature dropped
below various crystallization thresholds. (Remember when the one
force split between gravity and electrostrongweak? Nah. But we do
remember when electrostrongweak split into strong and electroweak,
and later when electroweak split into electromagnetism and weak.
And we also remember when Guth inflation ended. Whether Guth
inflation started, or was always running back-forever, we don't
really know.)

IDers say new evidence in biology and elsewhere compels us to
reconsider our answer.

There's no evidence whatsoever in biology that seriously affects
the question of what can be known by intelligent thinking devices
(such as some humans) who study nature using the Scientific Method.

... non-material causation, such as human consciousness.

At present there's no evidence whatsoever for any factor of
non-material causation in human consciousness. You're fantasizing.

Right now, I see many branches of science--particularly
evolutionary biology--as highly rationalistic. Theory-driven rather
than evidence driven.

No. Evolutionary biology is like most other sciences, trying to
devise mathematical models that fit evidence, which in part
involves working out the mathematical consequences of those models
in great detail. The thing about mathematical models, as opposed to
childlike "magic-daddy" models, is that it takes some work to
figure out what the correct consequences would be if the model were
true. It's not like you can just use a simple word argument such as
"mommy can do anything, therefore she can keep me safe at night" to
work out the correct consequences. Even Mendel's laws take a
nontrivial amount of math to figure out what happens after three
generations with a 10% fitness selection each generation, for example.

ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more
empirical approach

Not at all. They don't even bother to state clearly the specific
model they propose, much less work out the consequences, much less
compare consequences of model as well as alternate models against
evidence. For example, if there's an intelligent designer who can
do anything, and Australia is split off from the other continents
for fifty million years, how much variation would the ID produce
between Australia and the other landmasses compared to
intra-landmass variation? How does this prediction compare to what
natural selection would predict? ID doesn't have a model in the
first place, so it can't make any such prediction. ID is garbage.

at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates.

That's all they have, rhetoric, and occasional baseless lawsuits.

Here's a good word for good old Glen D. taken from today's Expelled
blog. Just in case you missed it there, Glen!

Dear Glen Davidson,

Belittling your opponents, and using crude colloquialisms to insult
them results in nothing. If you wish to change hearts, use the balm of
charity, not the flamethrower of outrage and disgust.

Honestly, please debate courteously. Yelling down opponents, no matter
how idiotic you think they are, is never the right thing to do.
Listen, and respond intelligently to your opponents.

And no, just in case anyone has the idea in mind, mentioning that
idiotic, childish, annoying, and downright stupid "spaghetti monster"
is not an intelligent response. It doesn't do anything. It's like a
kid sticking his tongue out and saying, "you're stupid!" There are
more charitable and effective ways to communicate a point.

Don't be mean, don't be nasty. Okay? Now, play nice.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It should be educational to any IDiot supporter to see the guys that
are involved in perpetrating the ID scam look so pathetically out
classed. What kind of boob would not consider intelligent design
controversial when the guys that perpetrated the scam are running the
bait and switch on anyone that believed them about the ID scam. All a
guy like Kevin has to do is to explain why he undertook writing
expelled after the ID perps that he thought were getting a raw deal
had started to run the bait and switch on their own supporters. When
the switch scam doesn't even mention that ID ever existed, why should
the ID perps not be controversial? What did they do in Ohio? Should
they be lauded for running the bait and switch on the Ohio creationist
rubes? The Ohio rubes wanted to teach the wonders of ID, but what did
they get to teach from the ID perps? Meyer personally ran the bait
and switch on the Ohio rubes. What happened in Wisconsin and
Minnesota soon after? What has happened to every creationist rube
legislator or school board that has wanted to teach the science of
intelligent design? The only group the wouldn't take the switch or
drop the issue has been Dover, and what happened there?

Such lack of integrity, is obviously controversial. Just look at this
Expelled project that Kevin is involved in. Were they upfront and
honest about what they were doing? Why couldn't they be honest?
Doesn't that tell Kevin something about the guys that he is
associating with? What happened to the teach ID creationist scam?
Why should the guys that were involved in perpetrating that dishonest
scam not be "controversial?" Heck they are running the bait and
switch on their own creationist supporters. Just think what the rubes
in Florida think of the IDiot scam artists that sold them the ID
scam. They were the latest victims of the bait and switch. How many
of them came out and wanted to teach the science of intelligent design
just a few weeks ago, but what did they have to settle for? Do you
think that the rubes that know that they were lied to will be tossing
rose petals at the feet of the ID scam artists if they came to town?
They might smile to their faces because they have to keep up a good
front if they want to continue to push their religious agenda, but
behind the backs if the ID perps their supporters probably have some
pretty foul things to say about them. Why do the dishonest ID perps
have any supporters left at all? How can you run the bait and switch
on your own support base and still have their support? Doesn't the
whole effort stink just because of that fact? If that is the kind of
support base that you have, what does that say about what you are
trying to do?

Ron Okimoto

.