>>could well have arisen from nothing ... just a quantum perturbation<<
"Could," is the operative word an Quantum Perturbation THEORY, should be allowed. Let the evidence be the guide, but allow all the evidence. That's what Stein is advocating.
Chris Wilkerson, D.C. Carson Doctors Group TabletPCs in Medicine Editor-in-Chief www.MedicalTabletPC.com Home: www.Digital-Doc.com
The scientific method evaluates theories on the basis of their ability to explain known facts, and for their predictive value.
Religious theories like "intelligent design" have no predictive value. So, while science recognizes these as theories, they're similar to the tea cup orbiting the sun theories. Not much cup.
Graham http://www.synapsedirect.com/ Synapse - the EMR for smart users
Indeed, and science is the accumulation of observable data that conforms to the requirements of objectivity and reproducibility.
Intelligent design states that the existence of matter (among other things) is too improbable to happen by chance. It predicts that science will find other improbable coincidences in physics. Again, Stein is pointing out that the academic community is silencing, alternative thought with economic punitive measures.
digital-doc:Again, Stein is pointing out that the academic community is silencing, alternative thought with economic punitive measures.
I haven't seen the movie ... but if I were approached for funding for a project which is based upon god, I would suggest to the applicant that they approach the church for funding. There are religious colleges and other institutes that are more appropriate for faith based research. I would not expect the applicant to complain that they were turned down in favour of a project which is likely to have predictive value. How many churches funded evolution research? How was Galileo treated by the church?
Funding wasn't the issue, as far as I know, it was freedom of thought. Imagine if Rebol code was was prevented from running on Vista, XP, OSX, Linux, BSD etc. You might have to resort to "Prayer!"
digital-doc:Funding wasn't the issue, as far as I know, it was freedom of thought
I guess that's a turn for the books then. Religion has an age old history of thought suppression.
gchiu: As for needing someone/thing to setup the position, the current cosmological view is that this was not necessary. The net energy in the universe is zero, and so the universe according to the laws of thermodynamics could well have arisen from nothing ... just a quantum perturbation. This was a zero information situation, and so any god that existed would also have no information regarding the creation of the universe.
As for needing someone/thing to setup the position, the current cosmological view is that this was not necessary. The net energy in the universe is zero, and so the universe according to the laws of thermodynamics could well have arisen from nothing ... just a quantum perturbation. This was a zero information situation, and so any god that existed would also have no information regarding the creation of the universe.
That, ladies and gentlemen is known as "double-speak"
gchiu: As for Gould, most atheists/scientists are content to be left alone but those afflicted with religious fantasies are unable to leave science alone.
As for Gould, most atheists/scientists are content to be left alone but those afflicted with religious fantasies are unable to leave science alone.
Actually, Graham, that is not true. Certain scientists find it much fun to prod & poke "fundementalists" for their beliefs. Case in point my freshman year zoology professor out of the clear blue in class made a statement about how misguided and silly fundementalist Christians were. It never even belonged in the class. He could have taught his beliefs...er science...and left the comment to his friends over drinks. Instead he chose to use his lecturn as a pulpit.
Another case in point would be your incessant degrading attacks against people of faith. Many of your comments are condescending and pointedly inflammatory. As I quote, "My God greated your god." or "Actually the worst fault of science was to invent paper so that religous propaganda could be passed on." or "religion is an infection passed on from parent to child" . Statements such as these only bring out the defensive side of those who believe and prevents good discussion.
As long as such punches are thrown or as long as science tries to belittle faith, there will be controversy. I am not saying those of faith are innocent in this matter, but it's a little trite to say "those afflicted with religious fantasies are unable to leave science alone ".
R Terry Ellis
DescriptMED, LLC
Get Done, Go Home!
Tour The Chart!
R Terry Ellis: gchiu: As for needing someone/thing to setup the position, the current cosmological view is that this was not necessary. The net energy in the universe is zero, and so the universe according to the laws of thermodynamics could well have arisen from nothing ... just a quantum perturbation. This was a zero information situation, and so any god that existed would also have no information regarding the creation of the universe.That, ladies and gentlemen is known as "double-speak"
Actually it's physics. But what do those of a religious bent understand ? Because if they did, they wouldn't make such statements.
R Terry Ellis:Another case in point would be your incessant degrading attacks against people of faith. Many of your comments are condescending and pointedly inflammatory. As I quote, "My God greated your god."
Another case in point would be your incessant degrading attacks against people of faith. Many of your comments are condescending and pointedly inflammatory. As I quote, "My God greated your god."
That statement was to point out the logical flaw that exists with creationism. But hey, logic is not a strong point in faith based system.
R Terry Ellis: He could have taught his beliefs...er science
He could have taught his beliefs...er science
Scinece is not about what you believe, it's soley about what you can prove. Assuming Inteligent design wans't bunk there is still the question as to who, or what, the desinger is. God, The devil, super intelligent alien beings with a penchant for practical jokes? ID doens't answer this question and doesn't even try. That's the problem, it gives up whereas a true science never would.
The other problem is the total and complete lack of evidence to support ID/Creationism. Darwin being wrong is not proof that ID is right.
However the worst mistake creationists make is their total ignorance of science and it's methodology. Simply put - in scinece a theory of evolution is useless without a corrsponding fact of evolution - just as we would have no need for a theory of planetary motion unless the planets actually move.
Evolution is an observable fact. Natural selection (which creationists mistakenly label as "Darwins Theory of Evolution") is the predominant theory that explains how (not if) evolution occurs.
kwfl177,
Welcome to the forum -
kwfl177: R Terry Ellis: He could have taught his beliefs...er science Scinece is not about what you believe, it's soley about what you can prove. Assuming Inteligent design wans't bunk there is still the question as to who, or what, the desinger is. God, The devil, super intelligent alien beings with a penchant for practical jokes? ID doens't answer this question and doesn't even try. That's the problem, it gives up whereas a true science never would. The other problem is the total and complete lack of evidence to support ID/Creationism. Darwin being wrong is not proof that ID is right. However the worst mistake creationists make is their total ignorance of science and it's methodology. Simply put - in scinece a theory of evolution is useless without a corrsponding fact of evolution - just as we would have no need for a theory of planetary motion unless the planets actually move. Evolution is an observable fact. Natural selection (which creationists mistakenly label as "Darwins Theory of Evolution") is the predominant theory that explains how (not if) evolution occurs.
Before you misunderstand, I hold a biology & chemistry degree as well as my professional credentials. I in no way am uneducated about what science is or what it trys to do. Science is a very mportant and needed part of our existence on the planet. Its theories, observations and applications are what gives us both quality of life and even some of our biggest disasters on the planet (if wrongly applied).
Science can explain many things. It is a tool for us to use to develop an understanding of our environment and what we can do to make use of the resources that are available. Some say these available resources are "coincidence" others say they are "created". Science is a great thing and properlly applied, but it over extends its own authority when people use it to say there is no God. You say there is no evidence, the Scripture says "God made Himself evident through what is created". It takes as much faith to believe that science has all the answers on this issue as it does to accept that there is a creator (God).
You say evolution is observable. Oh really. Okay where are the links? Why don't they continue to present themselves? I am talking about those creatures that would exist at the bifurcations of the phylogenetic tree. Where are the next stages of the evolutionary scale? Are we at the end point? Is man the final bud(fruit) on the branch?
Science and creationism do not have to conflict. Science was created and answers many questions about creation, but does not reign supreme over its origin and I contend that the origin is God, hence intellegent design.
I am not a true believer in any religion I believe all religions are great and follow a common theme.
The theme being there was a force, that created what started what we have today.
There is much theory on the opposite, with good evidence, but no actual proof of either theory.
One can not prove G_d exists, one can not prove he does not.
One can not prove we came from a chain based on evolution.
No matter how you look at this you will be stuck looking at which came first the chicken or the egg.
See at the root of this, you will always have, but who/what created the cells that created the life we star the chain of evolution. When we get that, the question would be who/what created that? Who/what provided the catalysts?
This argument will never be resoled. Man drops Nuclear bomb on Japan, we have Science and we have proof. Man invents drugs to help with treatment of disease, again provable, like Antibiotics. Man can put gas in a machine and for $5.00 a gallon can drive it around town or country, provable.
Some form of G_d/Creator vs. Science in this debate proof, never available.
Thus, it is a reasonable assumption that if two people argue over this they are arguing over something they can not convince the other is wrong in.