Physics professor endorces Intelligent Design

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The entire ID community now consists only of the Discovery Institute and a handful of true believers who post at the heavily censored site Uncommonly Dense, er, Uncommon Descent. Even the professional anti-science quacks at the DI seem like they're just mailing it in these days. When, not if, Howard Abramson decides to turn off the money tap to the DI the whole ID movement will shrivel up and blow away.

I'm not even talking about the professional ID proponents. I'm talking about otherwise intelligent people who buy into the ID trap hook, line, and sinker. I have one friend who runs an apologetics ministry, and who is working on his doctorate, but who absolutely refuses to see that ID is a textbook God-of-the-gaps. It's a mind-boggling sort of cognitive dissonance.

[phank]

I'm not even talking about the professional ID proponents. I'm talking about otherwise intelligent people who buy into the ID trap hook, line, and sinker. I have one friend who runs an apologetics ministry, and who is working on his doctorate, but who absolutely refuses to see that ID is a textbook God-of-the-gaps. It's a mind-boggling sort of cognitive dissonance.

I think it's a matter of axioms here:

1) My god "exists" and is the Genuine Creator
2) Science has never needed any gods to explain anything, and science works.
3) Either science is all wrong, or I am. But my god tells me I'm not.
4) Therefore science is wrong.

Contrast this with what sensible people present:

1) My god "exists" and is the genuine creator.
2) Science has never needed any gods to explain anything, and science works
3) Therefore science must be investigating how my god "really" works.

The question, then, is: When science and scripture flat disagree, how can this conflict be resolved? The ID people tend to resolve it by simply rejecting whatever science offends their understanding of scripture. Most Christians resolve it by a process of continuously "recontexting" scripture so as to make it compatible. In practice, this means we don't quite understand the meaning of scripture until science tells us - and frequently that meaning would (absent scientific knowledge) have defied even the most imaginative interpretation, since sometimes scripture is as incorrect as it is unambiguous, and we must fall back on "well, the ancient Hebrews lacked the context to understand what they were told, and cast it into hopelessly inappropriate cultural terms."

And of course, science can't tell us the right way to live. The closest we can come is game theory.

[klaus54]

You won't get any support of the ID movement from me. I do not really see it as science.

The irony I see is that you confidently profess what I see as ignorance and you do so with confidence.

I have absolutely no idea about which you are talking.

Of course other than ID not being science.

K54

P.S. And I advise you learning the meaning of the word "irony" and apply it to yourself.

[Jedidiah]

I have absolutely no idea about which you are talking.

Of course you don't.

[firstfloor]

Why do you require God to follow our parochial views of economics?

Well, the biblical God in Genesis constructs a firmament. That would be the most economical and practical device if the earth and its inhabitants were the purpose of creation. What we see in the universe is very different, meaning that we are no longer thinking about the God of Genesis who makes things and gets tired and is conscious of the time it takes and so on and therefore must be economical.

If you forego the economics of Biblical creation you also abandon the Genesis God.

The enormous size of the universe is the most surprising thing ever discovered. Nothing in the Bible prepared us for that discovery. It is shocking but it leaves you with a stark choice between the telescope and the Bible. People who try to use both inevitably get muddled.

Perhaps. But our observations of the heavens humble us and show us how small we really are in this universe.

True.

Or you could say that red is green, or 2+2=5, or all sorts of other nonsense. Where's your EVIDENCE for your statements?

The evidence is what we find in our telescopes and microscopes. In my view, science can discover what God is and is already making progress in that direction. He inhabits the same space that you do, like the TARDIS it is bigger on the inside, infinite but physically the precise dimensions of your own skull.

[seer]

Not likely, but there is no evidence of an absolute beginning of anything only models and theorems concerning the theoretical nature of the greater cosmos and the origins of our universe. Steinhardt's model may be true, or one of the multiverse theorem variations may be true, and there is no evidence demonstrating any one model is the correct one.

But Shuny, there is no evidence for anything except this finite universe. And according to Big Bang cosmology this universe did "begin" to exist. If now you are suggesting that something more exists then it is on you to show it. And listen Shuny, I know that your religion teaches that God has been creating universes from eternity past and that of course you want science to confirm that belief - that is understandable.

[shunyadragon]

But Shuny, there is no evidence for anything except this finite universe. And according to Big Bang cosmology this universe did "begin" to exist. If now you are suggesting that something more exists then it is on you to show it.

False seer, there are various versions of the 'Big Bang' theorems, and none of them propose an absolute beginning, and likewise viable models like Steinhardt's. Virtually all the models and theorems propose that before the 'Big Bang' their existed a black hole, or singularity, and none proposed a beginning from nothing. I am not suggesting that more necessarily exists. It is a matter of science that the view that our physical existence is infinite and eternal, nor finite and temporal is not supported by the evidence and science.

And listen Shuny, I know that your religion teaches that God has been creating universes from eternity past and that of course you want science to confirm that belief - that is understandable.

What my religion teaches is another issue, and should be addressed in the thread on the Baha'i Faith. The issue here is science and what the evidence shows.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

...theorems propose that before the 'Big Bang' their existed a black hole, or singularity

Minor correction: the singularity which precedes Big Bang cosmology would not likely have been a Black Hole. All Black Holes are singularities, but not all singularities are Black Holes.

[shunyadragon]

Good, then we agree that the universe is evidence for God, . . .

No. The evidence through scientific methods remains neutral, but best fits the Baha'i view of the nature of physical existence.


Yes. If anything the evidence confirms the more universal Baha'i view of the spiritual nature of humanity, and the physical evidence of the nature of our physical existence. The ancient religions of individual cultures reflect only a limited spiritual view, and do not reflect the universal nature of our world we can witness today.

[firstfloor]

Minor correction: the singularity which precedes Big Bang cosmology would not likely have been a Black Hole. All Black Holes are singularities, but not all singularities are Black Holes.

Spacetime is highly curved near a black hole. The Universe as a whole has nearly zero curvature even when it is very young (post inflation I think).

[seer]

False seer, there are various versions of the 'Big Bang' theorems, and none of them propose an absolute beginning, and likewise viable models like Steinhardt's. Virtually all the models and theorems propose that before the 'Big Bang' their existed a black hole, or singularity, and none proposed a beginning from nothing. I am not suggesting that more necessarily exists. It is a matter of science that the view that our physical existence is infinite and eternal, nor finite and temporal is not supported by the evidence and science.

Shuny, sorry, again there may be different ideas but there is no physical evidence for anything besides that finite universe.

What my religion teaches is another issue, and should be addressed in the thread on the Baha'i Faith. The issue here is science and what the evidence shows.

Well no, it is about what is true. For instance that universe is the way it is because of God's active work. Nature did not do this herself. Whether science can discover that fact is immaterial. Both our religions teach that the universe is evidence for God. And if science does not agree with that fact then science is wrong.

No. The evidence through scientific methods remains neutral, but best fits the Baha'i view of the nature of physical existence.

Shuny, your religion teaches that the universe is evidence for God. Do you agree?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Shuny, sorry, again there may be different ideas but there is no physical evidence for anything besides that finite universe.

Actually, there's no evidence either way, for a past-temporally finite universe or a past-temporally infinite one.

Well no, it is about what is true. For instance that universe is the way it is because of God's active work. Nature did not do this herself. Whether science can discover that fact is immaterial. Both our religions teach that the universe is evidence for God. And if science does not agree with that fact then science is wrong.

Considering this discussion is about science, in the Natural Science 301 forum, I'll have to disagree with you, here. There are plenty of fora on TWeb to discuss theology. Leave the Natural Science forum for natural science.

[seer]

Actually, there's no evidence either way, for a past-temporally finite universe or a past-temporally infinite one.

Really? As far as I know there is only evidence for this universe - and it is finite. It began with the Big bang.

Considering this discussion is about science, in the Natural Science 301 forum, I'll have to disagree with you, here. There are plenty of fora on TWeb to discuss theology. Leave the Natural Science forum for natural science.

No. This thread is about "Intelligent Design" so the concept of God has been introduced.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Really? As far as I know there is only evidence for this universe - and it is finite. It began with the Big bang.

What evidence do you have that the universe began with the Big Bang?

No. This thread is about "Intelligent Design" so the concept of God has been introduced.

Intelligent Design is, ostensibly, an attempt to discuss God within the framework of natural science. Usually, ID proponents attempt to at least pretend that it has nothing to do with supplanting science with theology, though it is nice to see some honesty in this regard.

[seer]

What evidence do you have that the universe began with the Big Bang?

I'm just going by popular cosmology. And the fact that the universe is expanding. We don't think it has been eternally expanding - correct?

Intelligent Design is, ostensibly, an attempt to discuss God within the framework of natural science. Usually, ID proponents attempt to at least pretend that it has nothing to do with supplanting science with theology, though it is nice to see some honesty in this regard.

OK...