Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I see she 'outed you' as a political conservative ;) I guess ya just can't get away from labels no matter how poorly they might fit.

"Intelligent Design" is another political label of course, explicitly so. Personally, I think politics is a corrupting influence of just about everything it touches (if I wasn't such a wimp I would have left out that 'just about' part!)

There's nothing more important than truth. I like my truth to be the same as I once regarded math and science in my youth, pure and practical. I think that people that believe God is some kind of trickster by planting phony evidence are idiots; however, I still believe in the God of the bible that says in the beginning, billions of years ago, his son was given the power to create a universe while the angels looked on and marveled.

I can't prove it, but then, I don't need anybody to prove it for me either. ...and I still like my science pure and clean of politics.

Posted by ken anthony at August 8, 2005 09:21 PM

This is getting almost as bad as The Sixteen Words®.

**President Bush weighed in, stating in a roundtable interview with reporters that ''intelligent design" should be taught along with evolution in public schools.**

Well, yes... and no. He was asked if the two should be taught, but instead of answering he rephrased the question in far more general terms - and answered his own version.

Weaseling/waffling? Well,yeah. But it certainly implies he is uncomfortable with ID, at least as proposed. Perhaps he feels, with Darwin himself, that evolution may be the way God chose to work.

Posted by John Anderson at August 9, 2005 12:38 AM

Rand sarcastic? No way! ;-)

What's that chick smoking?

''Intelligent design" boils down to the claim sarcastically summed up by aerospace engineer and science consultant Rand Simberg on his blog, Transterrestrial Musings: ''I'm not smart enough to figure out how this structure could evolve, therefore there must have been a designer."

By the way, Rand, if this quote is accurate, kudos for the smack down of Falwell, Dobson et. al.

Posted by Bill White at August 9, 2005 07:13 AM

I doubt that Falwell, Dobson, et al are are that enthusiastic about ID either, since it contradicts the classic Biblical creation story.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at August 9, 2005 08:49 AM

I would describe you as a scientific conservative.
This will land eventually in the same area that every one of these goofy arguments lands. Teachers will be told to include in their lessons that some disagree with the theory of evolution. Then some mention of this most recent flurry of philosophical masturbation will finally be given some cute press name “IDism” or some such, after which it will die away even in name after a few new text additions. In the end those that believe will believe and those that don’t won’t. So lets get on with exploring more interesting problems.

Posted by jjs at August 9, 2005 09:09 AM

Mr. Simberg:

I read Cathy Young's article today which quoted you as claiming that intelligent design theory is not science.

Please consider the following scenario:

We receive a strange signal from outer space. After much analysis, many scientists begin to think that the structure of the signal suggests that it was intelligently designed. Now here's the question: Taking into account the definition of "science," is the question of WHETHER this signal could have been intelligently designed a scientific one?

The answer is: of course it is. Even if not all scientists could agree on the answer, the attempt to answer the question would be a purely scientific undertaking, even if the signal was a totally unique artifact.

It just seems to me that many people who get heartburn over the idea of competing ideas being taught in schools really are straining at logic in their attempts to keep these viewpoints out. The above scenario is comparable to the evolution question in every particular.

You were quoted as saying that the anti-evolution people's argument comes down to: ''I'm not smart enough to figure out how this structure could evolve, therefore there must have been a designer." Maybe this was out of context, but it seems like your point only holds water IF one assumes that naturalistic cause and effect must necessarily explain everything. In other words, you've made a faith assumption in the explanatory capacity of naturalism and then decided that evolution is as good a theory as any to explain the facts: "Everything in existence must have a naturalistic cause, therefore evolution must be the answer..."

I'm not coming at this from a strictly religious perspective. Frankly I'm not sure what I believe about this question. But perhaps you should try to understand the frustration of people on the other side of this. It seems like the anti-intelligent design people have made an a priori decision that competing theories shouldn't be taught to children, and then, in order to support their agenda, they attempt to define the terms of the debate in such a way (i.e. particular twists on the definition of science) so that the competing ideas are EXCLUDED FROM THE OUTSET from being treated on the same level as evolution.

Posted by Bob Wainwright at August 9, 2005 02:20 PM

Bob Wainwright seems to support teaching supernatural beliefs about the origin of humanity as science. "Supernatural" and "Science" are incompatible in the science classroom. I have no problem with this "teach the controversy" proposal in comparative religion or philosophy classrooms. 99 % + , or more, of real biologists do not accept that there is a controversy because ID is not a scientific theory. It is a supernatural belief.
Why is this so difficult to understand?

Posted by Mike at August 9, 2005 03:10 PM

Mike, your response totally failed to take anything in my post into account. It was just a rote "talking point" of the anti- intelligent design political constituency.

Why is it so hard to understand that the question of whether a particular artifact was intelligently designed is a scientific question? It seems that for some people, it is a scientific issue unless the artifact in question is the MOST COMPLEX of all known artifacts: biological life on earth.

Posted by Bob Wainwright at August 9, 2005 04:44 PM

I feel his noodly presence... how funny! Personally, I just wish grade school taught kids to think. Which it does, but mostly regarding who's going to hook up with whom.

Posted by ken anthony at August 9, 2005 10:08 PM

The intelligent design and irreducible complexity arguments were deveoloped by a group of scientists and philosophers working to explain observations that evolution cannot explain. Phillip Johnson, esq., hosted the conference to address these problems. The men who attended understand evolution. They had worked for years to explain their observations in terms of the "national religion" of evolution. They published their observations in peer-reviewed papers. They derived the concept of irreducible complexity to define one of the problems of using evolution to explain what they observed (and what you can observe too, if you are not too lazy and dishonest). These scientists and philosophers were looking for understanding, not for some government grant, and they went to the molecular level for answers.

Even Darwin admitted that such a problem as irreducible complexity would be the coup de grace to his evolution hypothesis. Intelligent design was the answer to this problem. Rocket scientist Rand Simberg is welcome to exhibit his superior intellect and show us all how proteins, amino acids, DNA, etc. can form from a pile of elements. Go Rand!!! Show us your scintillating intellect!

So, you may enjoy making childish jokes about intelligent design, but your real work is to explain irreducible complexity in evolutionary terms. Go for it boys and girls, and let's see how you do.

In the meantime, I would hope that at least some of you are bright enough to know that Bush is a political animal and NOT a Christian, and he certainly does not live the life of a Christian (he could start by upholding the Constitution as he took an oath to do).

Jerry Falwell is an evalgelist, he has shot himself in the foot a time or two, and certainly he is merely using the term intelligent design. Jerry did not derive it and therefore it is pointless to go after him if you wish to discredit the concept. Also, Jerry doesn't know the difference between the church and a 501(c)3 tax-exempt corporation, so why pick on him just because some other people did some very impressive work and he points it out?

James Dobson is a psychologist, he would like to be considered a Christian but he believes Christianity can be blended with phychology. james did not derive the concept of intelligent design based on his scientific observations either and he doesn't know the difference between the church and a 501(c)3 tax-exempt corporation either. I like some thing gone under the banner of Focus on the Family, but basically it is an organization of fluff, lacking foundation, particularly in matters of law where Dobson believes we are the slaves of government and must do whatever the current batch of tyrants says to do.

Beating up on such scientific and theological lightweights is pointless. Address the fundamental problem of how the universe came to be without God. God says he created the universe in six days and God made the earth's rotation equal to his day so there would be no doubt.

Jurrasic Park is the true expression of evolution - flickering images visible only when illumination is absent. If you can be intellectually honest, check out:
http://www.origins.org/pjohnson/pjohnson.html and there are many other sites with unrebutted arguments that scientific evidence supports creation. Among these is the Institute for Creation Research, and a recent article is posted at: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842
Just for balance you should check out the evolutionists masquerading as open-handed muses at:
http://www.talkorigins.org

However, these misnamed "talkorigins" people bring no objective observations to the table, no explanations of their own. They, as are all atheists, are empty vessels, clouds without rain, vain and futile waiting for the end of their useless lives.

So, you smirking fools show me how the universe came to be without God. You are not the first to think this can be done. Nietzche and Horace Greeley died lunatic and Jean-Paul Sarte admitted God is, and that there has to be a Prime Mover. You will find yourselves face to face with God, your Creator first, trying to explain to Him that He did not create the universe and you in it for his own good pleasure.

Sincerely,
David Parker

Posted by David Parker at August 10, 2005 12:33 PM

So, you may enjoy making childish jokes about intelligent design, but your real work is to explain irreducible complexity in evolutionary terms. Go for it boys and girls, and let's see how you do.

Yes, assuming that there is such a thing as "irreducible complexity," that is the real work--to show that there isn't and that such things can in fact evolve. Working on it is what scientists do. Throwing up your hands, and whining that you can't figure it out, so God (or someone else unspecified) must have done it, is lazy, and an abandonment of science.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 10, 2005 12:48 PM

I should add:

The intelligent design and irreducible complexity arguments were deveoloped by a group of scientists and philosophers working to explain observations that evolution cannot explain.

Saying "God (or someone) did it" is not an explanation, at least not a scientific one, particularly when there's no experiment to perform to prove this false, or determine who the guilty party is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 10, 2005 12:55 PM

David Parker:

Well, this smirking fool of an atheist tried to pass the time waiting for the end of my useless life by taking your suggestion to visit Professor Johnson's web site. I read a couple articles, and skimmed several others. I didn't see any attempts to prove the existence of a creator, just a lot of criticism of the theory of evolution. The major logical flaw I see in a lot of creationist/ID literature is a false dichotomy, that one must choose between the theory of evolution or belief in a creator. One could have both or neither. Just because the theory of evolution may be incomplete, or even flatly wrong, it does not then necessarily follow that there must be a creator. There could be other, as yet unknown mechanisms to explain how species change over time. Perhaps Maxwell's Demon is messing with animals' DNA.

What I find unpersuasive about ID is that it really doesn't explain anything. "The universe is so complex it must have been designed". That just leads to the question of where did the designer come from? (This is an old line of inquiry, called the "infinite regression" problem.)

Because of "smirking fools" I will allow myself one snarky comment: my real problem with ID is that IMHO most of people who want ID taught in schools don't really believe or care if ID is good science, they are just using it as the sheep's clothing to allow the wolf of religious teaching into a science class. /end of snark

Posted by ray_g at August 10, 2005 02:30 PM

Mr Parker,

I'll just pick on one teensy little item...(can't resist)

"God says he created the universe in six days and God made the earth's rotation equal to his day so there would be no doubt."

Which book did you get that out of? Certainly not (KJV)Genesis...if so please go back and give it another read. He created the EARTH in six days...the universe was almost an afterthought (did it one 1) and the 24 hour rotation period is an inference made by the most pompous of all of His creations...MAN.

The text of Genesis was written from memory by a man (we think) who was probably still shaking from his supernatural encounter. While I have no problem believing in the meeting...you would have a hard time convincing me that a person of that time period would have understood the 'scientific' concepts (you know...the Universe and planetary rotations) that God MUST have been imparting to him.

Gen 1:16 clearly says '...two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night..." Not the SUN and the MOON. I can almost accept 'greater light' for SUN...but lesser light for a giant ROCK?

Posted by CJ at August 11, 2005 10:15 AM

This scenario occured. In the 1960s, scientists started receiving pulsed radio signals that were definitely extraterrestrial in origin. Some half seriously called these "LGM" (Little Green Men) signals. As they looked around, they found a good number of these pulse signals, all going at different rates. They didn't know of anything natural that could create signals like these.

After dusting off some theoretical ideas and thinking about it a bit more, they came up with the "pulsar" - a rapidly rotating neutron star. Astronomy classes don't teach the "LGM theory" as an alternative to the "pulsar theory" because there is substantial evidence, calculation and theory in a number of fields supporting the "pulsar theory." Still, nobody actually has a picture of a pulsar. There could be little green men, flitting about in their faster than light spacecraft, setting up radio transmitters and other gizmos meant to fool us. You can't absolutely prove that it isn't happening, but there is no evidence for it.

Posted by VR at August 11, 2005 01:45 PM

Just because the theory of evolution may be incomplete, or even flatly wrong, it does not then necessarily follow that there must be a creator. There could be other, as yet unknown mechanisms to explain how species change over time. Perhaps Maxwell's Demon is messing with animals' DNA.

Right. Various kinds of spontaneous generation and causal loops are also alternatives to evolution. I find it interesting that most people I've talked with who think ID should be taught in the science classroom are very skeptical of other non-evolutionary options. How do we KNOW that time travel isn't involved? Why shouldn't it be taught as an option? How do we know that causality couldn't have worked differently than it does today? And so on. If we're going to teach ID, let's teach all the possibilities. Of course, it isn't science, but that's the point.

Posted by VR at August 11, 2005 02:14 PM

CJ, regarding the "two great lights," what the heck else could they be besides the sun and moon? I'm open to suggestions, but I know of no other "great lights" in our sky.

Also, you seem to have missed Gen. 1:17, where God created the stars on the fourth day. That's not the earth--that's the rest of the universe. (Not to mention the implications in the previous two verses.)

In addition, it's hardly a "pompous inference" to call the days 24-hour periods. Each day's "activities" conclude with the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning, the [first, second, etc.] day." That sounds pretty plain to me.

Now, don't infer what I myself believe from this post. I'm just telling you what it says.

Posted by Obi-Wan at August 11, 2005 02:32 PM

ABC News just ran a story about a museum in Eureka Springs, Arkansas - the Museum of Earth History - which has an exhibit that claims that there were pairs dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.

Bible reference anyone?

Posted by Keith Cowing at August 11, 2005 04:08 PM

Sir Obi Wan ;-)

The original post that I was picking on said that God created the universe in six days...as you point out the universe i.e. the stars was done on the fourth. So we agree completely (I didn't miss 1:17) on that point.

As for the 'great lights'...my point was WHY does Genesis say 'lesser light' and not MOON?

And...

"Each day's "activities" conclude with the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning, the [first, second, etc.] day." That sounds pretty plain to me."

True. However, if you consider that he who wrote Genesis received his information from God. That God, an omnipotent being, must have gone to great lengths to explain all that He had done in terms that his 'messenger' would be able to understand. Ergo, God's explanation of 'an evening and a morning' may differ greatly from how it is written. This is proved (very loosely) by the use of 'lesser light' rather than MOON. Why did he write down 'lesser light'? Is it because God said 'MOON' and it wasn't understood? Can you imagine the conversation?

"And I created the MOON."

"Um....what's a MOON?"

"...It's that big, shiny orb in the sky."

"I thought that was the SUN."

"No, the SUN is the big glowing orb in the sky that hurts your eyes when you look at it. However, when the EARTH rotates on it's axis and hides the SUN you will see the MOON and all the accompanying STARS."

"What's an axis?"

"Augh!!! Just write 'lesser light' and leave it at that."

"The Earth rotates?"

"AND ON THE FIFTH DAY!!!!"

Posted by CJ at August 12, 2005 01:16 PM

"Sir?" Right disarming way to begin a post! I don't deserve that much respect, but thanks.

This is starting to sound too pedantic and nit-picky to me, but is not the Earth part of the universe? What's the big deal with saying the Bible says that the universe, collectively, was created in six days? I guess I'm just missing something, but it seems to me to be logical, and not worth this sort of argument.

my point was WHY does Genesis say 'lesser light' and not MOON?

Good question, and I have no idea why certain words were chosen--but the assertion that the writer received his information directly from God makes each choice of words extremely significant. (This is the concept of verbal inspiration.) And your comic dialog, while laugh-out-loud funny (I might have believed it was from a Monty Python sketch, actually), implies that the concept that that big, white thing in the sky is called the "moon" was somehow incomprehensible, while the whole bible is full of much more complex concepts. Are you making the claim that God "watered down" his revelations before giving them to biblical writers? If so, that's going to be a hard concept to defend, especially about the time Jesus comes along.

In fact, it sounds like you pretty much insulted the intelligence of the writer, not to mention God for choosing him to start with.

Posted by Obi-Wan at August 12, 2005 02:03 PM

Keith, the only biblical references of which I'm aware that are used to justify belief that dinosaurs were the contemporaries of man are a few passages (best descriptions are in the book of Job) that discuss two creatures, called "leviathan" and "behemoth." Both are described in terms difficult to reconcile with any known living creature (not that many haven't tried), but that could easily describe any of several prehistoric creatures.

I'll leave it to you to follow the links and read the descriptions.

Posted by Obi-Wan at August 12, 2005 02:35 PM

Sir Obi-Wan...is that not how one should address a Jedi? ;-)

"...but is not the Earth part of the universe? What's the big deal with saying the Bible says that the universe, collectively, was created in six days?"

Why yes, yes it is and no, perhaps it's not a big deal. But WHY is it not a big deal? Why assume that Moses understood the differences between a planet, a moon, and a universe? Wouldn't he ask how you get something from nothing? Would he understand the answer? Would we understand the answer today? Which leads quite nicely to....

"Are you making the claim that God "watered down" his revelations before giving them to biblical writers?"

I am making the supposition that it's quite plausible. It is not intended as insulting to either party although I admit the parody is over the top so to speak. That said, I simply don't believe that God would force the writer to understand Him and all of His works as that would violate the basic premise of free will. Ergo, the interpretation by a man of the Word of God.

The church tells us that we are God's children hence, Our Father. It is not unreasonable then to theorize that Our Father would patiently explain the complicated and intricate matters of all of His works in terms that his essentially very young child could understand. Much like parents today explain life concepts to their children. As such, I don't feel that I am belittling the intelligence of either party.

And I do rather fancy Monty Python...still trying to find out if European swallows are migratory.

Posted by CJ at August 12, 2005 09:32 PM

CJ,

You may address me however you wish--just please include enough postage so that I get to the destination. ;o) And insurance. Don't forget lots of insurance.

Moses, or anyone qualified to receive and transcribe God's revelation to all of mankind, should have had no trouble at all understanding--NOT what the moon was--but that it was the "lesser light" in the night sky, which is what we started out discussing in that context.

Total understanding of these things was hardly necessary for accurate transcription, anyway--this is verbal inspiration, remember? It's the words that matter, not whether the writer understood them. (Indeed, some writers, e.g. Daniel, stated flatly that he did not understand some of them at all.)

Therefore the emotional state of the writer matters not, except as it might affect his accuracy, and according to verbal inspiration the accuracy's a done deal anyway.

And whether Moses asked all the questions you postulate that he may reasonably have asked is likewise irrelevant, as the only things relevant were the words that were written down.

There was therefore no reason for God to simplify or "water down" His revelation. All he needed in a writer was a willing transcriptionist, not an interpreter--and least of all an exegetist.

It is not unreasonable then to theorize that Our Father would patiently explain the complicated and intricate matters of all of His works in terms that his essentially very young child could understand.

This makes no sense in the light of above arguments that the writer's understanding was not necessary, and clearly sometimes was even absent.

Now, I am describing these things from the perspective of the verbal inspiration of scripture, as I have inferred that you hold, as do the links provided. (Take this one characteristic away from scripture and it becomes anyone's game as to what it meant at the time it was given, and even more so as to what it means today.) If this is not your belief, then I apologize for making the assumption, but I think it makes the whole idea of an authoritative bible extremely problematic, if possible at all. Besides, as you stated that you hold Moses to be the writer of Genesis, this leads me to think that you also hold to verbal inspiration.

David Parker,

The intelligent design and irreducible complexity arguments were deveoloped by a group of scientists and philosophers working to explain observations that evolution cannot explain.

This is not true.

They were developed to explain observations that evolution cannot yet explain. I doubt that I have to explain the very great difference to you.

And, as Rand and ray_g both said, ID does not explain anything. What it does is to invoke a literal deus ex machina so that things don't have to be explained at all.

And irreducible complexity has hardly been shown to exist at all. It is postulated by some to exist--certainly believed by some to exist--but that is all.

The snarky or sarcastic attitudes often expressed toward ID and Creationism are, in my opinion, based more on frustration that one's opponent is ignoring basic logic and rationality in his arguments, as well as the very definitions of words (e.g. "science"), as pointed out above by several persons.

Posted by Obi-Wan at August 13, 2005 02:22 AM

David Parker's last comment is an excellent coda. The postulated "Intellegent Designer" is either God, or, some sort of "god-like" super alien (About whom, the necessary question is "Where did this entity come from?"), or what (This question is for you, Mr. Bob Wainwright.). The modern theory of evolution seeks to explain how life on earth came to be as it is now. The use of natural rather than supernatural evidence (Whatever that may be.) is so obvious that to deny it is exasperating.
The only reason to contend with these fools is that they pose a threat to science education in the USA today.

Posted by Mike at August 13, 2005 12:20 PM

I'd like to suggest that ID be changed to Interpretive Design, being that the most you can do to prove it, is interpret the scriptures in a way that supports your ideas.

Posted by Mac at August 15, 2005 08:26 AM

Post a comment