Dean's World

From the little I know or understand about the basics of cosmology, I think that all life could very well be accidental. And depending upon circumstances attending the long term future of the universe (this particular universe, if facts ultimately prove that there are more than one), life could ultimately be heading for omnicide. In other words, the end of all life everywhere throughout this universe.

If all that occurs, any future succeeding universe could have had no knowledge -- and perhaps only the barest of hints -- that any kind of life ever existed in a predecessor universe. So that for all practical purposes, each successive universe is a closed unit with no long term past and no long term future.

In the world of myth, i.e., the world of faith and religion as opposed to the world of measurable fact that I live in, understand, and relate to, none of this is of consequence. You believers will get to meet your god, or gods, who live forever and are everywhere regardless of space and time, and your souls will float around the universe forever.

(Hopefully these floating souls will not spend an eternity wishing to return to life and inhabiting real bodies that walk, talk, eat, fornicate, love, hate, accumulated, accomplish. I would prefer to be dead forever than to spend eons of time wishing for something I could never have or never be. Moreover, no believers have ever been able to tell me that in their belief systems, souls can actually communicate with one another so as to ease their loneliness.)

So from what I am reading into all this, I wonder if a real system of intelligent design would even be ethical, or instead, it would be just another means of some great, invisible boss, enslaving people forever, even after they are dead.

Fuck that. Kill me if you want. Send me to hell if you want. But I sure wouldn't want to be dead and conscious at the same time, and locked into that kind of shit forever.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Fred Reed, who is definitely NOT a Christian, has a great article about evolution that touches on ID.

What Distinguishes Evolution from Other Science

Early on, I noticed three things about evolution that differentiated it from other sciences (or, I could almost say, from science). First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence. (And of course the less you know, the greater the number of things that are plausible, because there are fewer facts to get in the way.) Again and again evolutionists assumed that suggesting how something might have happened was equivalent to establishing how it had happened. Asking them for evidence usually aroused annoyance and sometimes, if persisted in, hostility.

As an example, it seems plausible to evolutionists that life arose by chemical misadventure. By this they mean (I think) that they cannot imagine how else it might have come about. (Neither can I. Does one accept a poor explanation because unable to think of a good one?) This accidental-life theory, being somewhat plausible, is therefore accepted without the usual standards of science, such as reproducibility or rigorous demonstration of mathematical feasibility. Putting it otherwise, evolutionists are too attached to their ideas to be able to question them.

Consequently, discussion often turns to vague and murky assertion. Starlings are said to have evolved to be the color of dirt so that hawks can’t see them to eat them. This is plausible. But guacamayos and cockatoos are gaudy enough to be seen from low-earth orbit. Is there a contradiction here? No, say evolutionists. Guacamayos are gaudy so they can find each other to mate. Always there is the pat explanation. But starlings seem to mate with great success, though invisible. If you have heard a guacamayo shriek, you can hardly doubt that another one could easily find it. Enthusiasts of evolution then told me that guacamayos were at the top of their food chain, and didn’t have predators. Or else that the predators were colorblind. On and on it goes. But…is any of this established?

Second, evolution seemed more a metaphysics or ideology than a science. The sciences, as I knew them, gave clear answers. Evolution involved intense faith in fuzzy principles. You demonstrated chemistry, but believed evolution. If you have ever debated a Marxist, or a serious liberal or conservative, or a feminist or Christian, you will have noticed that, although they can be exceedingly bright and well informed, they display a maddening imprecision. You never get a straight answer if it is one they do not want to give. Nothing is ever firmly established. Crucial assertions do not tie to observable reality. Invariably the Marxist (or evolutionist) assumes that a detailed knowledge of economic conditions under the reign of Nicholas II or whatever substitutes for being able to answer simple questions, such as why Marxism has never worked: the Fallacy of Irrelevant Knowledge. And of course almost anything can be made believable by considering only favorable evidence and interpreting hard.

Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does—except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions—overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism.

I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn’t a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry. Thus their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use)—of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress.

This tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. “Creationist” is to evolution what “racist” is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science.

His essay is quite lengthy, but well worth the read. Read the whole thing.

I think that's a quite fair argument, Dale.

Arnold,

Please, Do not take the hemlock just yet. Have a pint of Guinness. It's going to be okay.

Firstly, lets trashcan ID, the ideal world of pompous do-gooders attempt to hijack science. Let them write a book, like Origin of the Species Amended and wait out 100 years like Darwin did. Leastwise do not teach non-science until its science.

Now with respect to omnicide. It flat isn't gonna happen, right away. Now some folk think the ideal paradigm form of infinity is the circle. I can tell it isn't. Its the straight line. That's infinity. The circle is just another closed system. In the String theory, parallel universes do not collide. Some math dude figured it out, I think with an protractor.

In any event, why don't the high schools introduce the teaching of theoretical physics such as proposed by Dr. Michio Kaku. He makes a lot more sense.

You can find him: here

He talks about: Cosmology, M-theory, String theory and its implications for the fate of the universe. and other interesting stuff.

And as well he talks about: Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos.

I begin to think that Sullum has the right of it--the anti-ID people are so vehement in their opposition to even having a discussion of something so trivial that they're basically driving kids out of the public schools and/or into believing scientists lie. The anti-ID people either have a blind spot here and can't see it, or they see it and don't care. Pretty gruesome to watch either way.

One of the more interesting of the ID folks is William Debski. He has some interesting papers here, and a rather impressive CV.

I was thinking about the issue of whether involving the courts would produce a backlash, and where debates should take place.

Suppose, for example, that cigarette companies somehow sponsored school board elections in such a way that students would be taught that the idea that cigarettes are a health hazard is "just a theory".

I.e. it is similar in many ways to what the ID opponents are claiming - it's not really science, there is a pernicious hidden agenda.

How would and should such a situation play out? How is it different from the ID debate?

I apologize in advance if it's a stupid question, it just seems that there are several hot button issues swirling around at once and it's a little hard to fathom.

Interesting. Here we have McKiernan saying "lets trashcan ID, the ideal world of pompous do-gooders attempt to hijack science."

Apparently Mr. McKiernan has access to knowlege far beyond those of mortal men, and already has the answers to the ID debate.

So why not let the rest of us in on the skinny, Mac?

Or are you just another "scientific" skeptic whos adherence to dogma precisely mirrors the people of faith whom you ridicule? According to you, there's no debate to have; stick a fork in it, it's done!

Then we have Robert B., another "fork" advocate, who compares ID proponents to cigarette companies. Hey, a "twofer" slime: he demonizes the ID proponents while accusing them of intellectual dishonesty at the same time. What a deal!!

Bobby, alas, forgets to do his homework. You know, silly things like providing compelling arguments and/or evidence which tend to vitiate the ID claims.

I'm sorry if this sounds snarky, but it just irks me when allegedly rational adults have trouble behaving so.

I think Dean's right, here:

I begin to think that Sullum has the right of it--the anti-ID people are so vehement in their opposition to even having a discussion of something so trivial that they're basically driving kids out of the public schools and/or into believing scientists lie.

Casey: I suggest reading the top two papers on this site here.

You'll likely read it and say, "why are they making such a stink over this?"

As I read it all I could think was, "and someone exposed to this will no longer be able to conduct a controlled study, understand genetics, learn about meitosis and photosynthesis and cellular reproduction because... because...?"

It's our evil hidden agenda, and all that sweet, sweet cash they slide under the table to us. I'm buying a Ferrari with mine, how about you?

Well, let me quote the Dembski paper:

---

The Scientific Usefulness of Intelligent Design

According to Nobel laureate William Lawrence Bragg, The important thing in science is not so
much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.”47 Intelligent design is
doing just that—discovering useful ways of thinking about and interpreting well-established
facts of science that pertain to biological complexity and diversity.

Take the problem of junk DNA. According to the conventional neo-Darwinian theory of
evolution, the genome of organisms is cobbled together over a long evolutionary history through
a trial and error process of natural selection sifting the effects of random genetic errors. As a
consequence, neo-Darwinism expects to find a lot of “junk” DNA, that is, DNA that serves no
useful purpose but that is simply carried along for the ride because it is easier for cells to keep copying DNA that genetic errors render useless than to identify and eliminate such DNA from the genome.

The theory of intelligent design, on the other hand, in approaching organisms as designed
systems, is less apt to dismiss seemingly useless DNA as junk. Instead, it encourages biologists
to investigate whether systems that at first appear functionless might in fact have a function.
And, as it is now turning out, seemingly useless “junk” DNA is increasingly being found to serve
useful biological functions. For instance, James Shapiro and Richard Sternberg have recently
provided a comprehensive overview of the functions of repetitive DNA—a classic type of “junk”
DNA.48 Similarly, Roy Britten has recently outlined the functions of mobile genetic elements—
another class of sequences long thought to be simply parasitic junk.49

Looking for function in biological systems despite its apparent absence follows from what in
Appendix 4 is called the Principle of Methodological Engineering. As is clear from the
intelligent design research themes outlined in that appendix, the theory of intelligent design is
capable of generating useful insights into biological systems—insights not forthcoming from a
purely materialistic conception of evolution such as neo-Darwinism. At the same time, intelligent
design is also asking tough questions of conventional evolutionary theory, forcing it to own up to its unsolved problems. David Raup, one of the world’s leading paleontologists and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, though a skeptic of intelligent design, regards this as a
healthy development. As he puts it:

"[If] some natural biological process, as yet undiscovered, yields the organisms we have
without relying solely on conventional natural selection operating on random variation,…
then Darwin et al. have found a mechanism that works in simple cases (which it certainly
does!) but misses more important mechanisms of evolutionary change and adaptation.
The search for the missing mechanisms can only be helped by people like you [i.e.,
design theorists] asking tough questions. Keep at it!"50

----

Dembski further identifies not one but ten peer-reviewed publications that have been put out by intelligent design theorists, including multiple molecular biologists and mathematicians.

I suggest reading this report by Dembski.

Dembski makes the point, over and over again, that giving evolutionists a foil is useful for improving evolution's rigorousness, and that teaching students how to think critically and evaluate data is a highly useful goal.

After reading Dembski's paper, I no longer buy the idea that ID is simply an intellectually lazy "God did it" response, any more than the naturalist/materialist view is a method of putting a big grey question mark over everything not currently understood so it can be ignored.

Robert, from watching this debate unfold for a while now, it would seem to me that ID's opponents are far more inflamed by what they perceive as ulterior motive than anything else. Why? Because they consistently mis-state ID theorists' positions, and they consistently insist that because of this or that source of funding or this or that (often out-of-context) quotation that they seize upon, that the whole thing is an attempt to impose religion onto science.

Sadly, they also seem to pretty consistently think that it is dangerous and pernicious to allow High School students to debate scientific ideas. I'm very glad I didn't have that sort of science teacher when I was in High School.

It all comes to the question of harm: when you ask about the harm, it's always vague handwaving stuff and/or an accusation that it's imposition of religion.

I still think that what the ID people are presenting is weak in many areas, but I'm surprised to find there's more there behind what they're saying than what I thought there was.

McK,

One story I've started, but never finished is called "Singing Stones." Its a happy, benevolent future with freedom, prosperity,and so forth. Our 'hero' is oppressed by all the "God bless you's" and so forth since this techno-wonderland is also a very Christian country. So he steals a spaceship to get away. And jumps off through jumpgates further and further from Earth.

One problem he finds is that the AI on board, in contravention to most AI's in SF, is a very firm believer. It evinces the opinion that faith is only logical.

As each jump away from Earth, the protagonist casts away one more connection with happiness. Until finally he gets to a distant planet, and takes a one-way shuttle ride to its surface to get away from the last vestige of other people, the annoying AI.

He camps that night in a field of rocks in his tent. And he wakes that morning to winds rushing through holes in the rocks making a sound similiar to a reverential chorus.


--Great minds think alike or something.

Eric

Jumpgates--kinda those things on Babylon Five in the early years where you have to go through a big metal circle to go into hyperspace. Its not quite the SG-1 thing since those are planet-based, but other than that yes it is. Sometimes in stories, its just a odd spot in space with no metal gate. Basically an interstellar teleport for spaceships.

Often times, Science Fiction stories have a 'list' of jumpgates. You jump from Earth to Solar System B, cross the system at sub-light speed to the next jumpgate, and then jump to Solar System C, and so forth. This is what my protagonist is doing. It can be considered a way to slip around Einstein's limits, but I don't think that would actually work. I think it would still violate causuality. You could carry information from Star B to Star A at faster-than-light speeds (FTL) and thats forbidden for some reason. I don't understand causuality very much, but I don't feel bad because I kinda doubt most other SF writers do either.

Protagonist--a broader category than hero. It includes non-heroic types that the story centers on.

AI--Artificial Intelligence. "Dave, I have a problem." or some such comment from 2001. A computer that is self-aware and thinks.

SF-science-fiction not San Francisco

In essence, a guy self-exiles himself to get away from God and God's people, and still finds God's presence after he has locked himself in a trap.

Clear as mud?

I think McK's is more needle-like, more subtle and realistic, and mine is more of a sledgehammer--as in, yes, the universe is out to get you, although I hope for pschyological realism in the renunciation process as the exile pushes himself further and further away.

And I'm glad to be amusing. The Ladyfaire finds a lot of my stories depressing. I personally find a black humor in a lot of what I write. I'm often enough on the verge of cackling as I type some stories.

Your styles!

Difference is that cigarettes are probably bad for your lungs, while belief in a Creator isn't bad for anybody, except those who may have reason to fear the Creator's justice.