So, anyone who finds problems with what is going on in the public school system with the teaching of ignorant chance is a religious zealot? Why is it that it is proper to start with an assumption of random ignorant chance to build theories of evolution, but wrong to start with intelligently programmed design to build different theories of evolution? Since we don't know if the forces that give rise to change are ignorant or intelligent, why build a theory on the basis of ignorance rather than intelligence? Why is it necessary at all to even mention random ignorant chance as the instigator in change? The biological processes we observe would stay exactly the say in either case, whether the changes observed and the nature of biological organisms were driven by random ignorant chance or by intelligently programmed design? Please address this issue. Don't you think an objective scientific approach would be better served if the platform were agnostic, rather than atheistic in the sense of not assuming either intelligence or ignorance as the foundation of life and the origin of mankind and other forms of life? The debate would end quickly if science would just reclaim the position as neutral observer of what we can actually be proved, rather than a speculative assumptive first cause position.
Because random chance is perfectly explained by thermodynamics model and supported by experiments, but intelligent design is not. In fact, you can compute the rate of gene mutations as a function of temperature (the higher the temperature, the faster the mutations), and it comes out pretty close to the experimental results. That is, if you assume random chance. No such predictions can be made if you assume intelligent design. The fact that you can not make a verifiable prediction based on the intelligent design assumption precludes it from any scientific consideration. So far, all predictions made from random chance assumption has either been verified experimentally or waiting to be verified. There has not been any evidence contradicting it. If one day such evidence emerges, I'm sure scientists will modify their theory accordingly. Again, ID theory does not allow such a process of verification/falsification.
How do you know that intelligent design doesn't produce what appears as random chance? In the beginning of this thread I discussed how a computer program can generate a table of random numbers, so we have an example of random numbers by intelligent design of a programmer....but you are saying that what we observe in biological organisms is known not to be programmed? There is no evidence that shows that biological change are not programmed by intelligent design, so why exclude it? Why begin with an assumption that is not fact? As far as predictions go, can't you predict the outcome of sporting events, or stock market behavior? Yet both events are on the foundation of intelligent design, not ignorant chance. The bottom line is that what we are observing is far too complicated, with far too many unknowns and unknowables to begin with an assumption of either design or chance, so why not agree to teach neither, just teach observations and fact, not speculative theory that doesn't produce anything anyway.
I agree string theory is allowing the speculation of an almost infinite amount of universes. Exactly the speculation needed to combat the conclusions drawn from the anthroic principle by an informed intellect. go ahead keep on having "faith" in your beliefs about science. let me help you out. If you were really interested in learning. You would define what the best argument for the anthropic principle currently is, and knock it down with some sort of authority. I find it interesting that the minute you challenge the world view of a man of "rationality" they start taking cheap shots. One guy starts calling me a preacher and one guy tells me I must be hearing satan. no wonder the markets are not efficient. Look at the emotions coming out of a physics major and a lawyer when I bring out a concept that challenges their weltanchung. why not try and have a rational debate and prove that what I have proposed is incorrect.
Let me help you out. The syntax of your respose corresponds almost exactly to that of Z. Either he is prompting you with responses behind the scene, or you are taking lessons in trolling from him. Regardless, the bait's stale, and I've already destroyed your argument in favor of anthropic principle to my own satisfaction, if not to yours. So, if you wish to continue this argument, you'll need to find another sucker (pardon me -- "adversary").
Now you're showing your ignorance with the computers too. What computer generates are not random numbers. They are pseudo-random numbers, meaning that they are tuned such that the correlations between these numbers are insignificant for the purpose of computation. For each type of "random" number generator, the correlations are well understood and people are advised to use the most appropriate generator for their tasks. With today's technology, no computer can generate truly random numbers. If biological events had similar types of correlations, it would be a very big deal and scientists would be all over them.
Now you are calling me a troll. You went from a respected adversary to an intellectual fairy in a very short period of time. By the way zzz and I hardly ever agree on anything. He happens to be giving you are hard time on this one with rhetoric and logic, I am just giving you scientific information. If you spent a half an hour on the internet you would see that the anthropic princple as proposed by astrophysicist Brandon Carter in 1973 and supported more recently as science has learned more about gravity, lamda and symetry is a very respected argument in the upper echelons of physics. major sceintific Institutiions even have symposiums on the anthropic principle. By the way here is Susskind again. Amanda Gefter: If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design? Leonard Susskind: I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. ------ You see if you do not have a multiverse than science does not currently have an answer for natures fine tunings.
appearance of design is undeniable -- (unless you believe in a multiverse) Leonard Susskind from physicsweb. http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/18/12/3 you will see a little rundown of our debate. I would say slightly skewed to than anti anthropic side but certainly eye opening for you anti AP people.
I've been reading your posts in this thread and it's remarkable how much faith you put into the pronouncements of Susskind in particular and 'upper echelon' physicists in general. This is odd, considering that most ID'ers are quick to point out that it is undue faith in the scientific method that deceives those who do not accept ID. You speak as if you are on very intimate terms with concepts such as string theory. However, if I am not mistaken, string theory has never achieved the kind of widespread acceptance that, for example, QM has. Please let me know if I am wrong about that. Either way, just because Susskind can't see an alternative to string theory that does not involve ID, it doesn't mean that such an alternative does not exists. Very very very smart theoretical physicists have been spectacularly wrong in the past (a lot, actually). In the end, it's proof we need. I am STILL asking for anyone to post a link to the proof that has been offered for ID. I am not holding my breath for zEvader to do it, because he is asserting out his ass as usual. I thought some of the other more level headed ID'ers here might be able to show me one scrap of proof, since the whole point of ID is that it is supposed to be scientifically provable.
Again, only through misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) these articles you would find support for ID. The anthropic principles is basically this: The fact that we exist pretty much limits what the values of the natural constants can be in our corner of the universe. It doesn't mean that someone designed these numbers so that we can exist. Here is an analogy. Suppose you and your friend are playing Russian roulette. After a couple of rounds between you and your friend, he draws the bullet and kills himself. You could have two reactions to it. One is "God I'm lucky!" The other is "God I'm blessed!" Both are plausible human reactions but which one is more logical?