Meet Your Neighbors - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 10, 2005

RE: Meet Your Neighbors

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Scientist wrote:
There was no before the Big Bang and without time there is no cause-effect and no logic or language.

How do you know there was no "before the Big Bang?" Is that an article of faith based on a lot of assumptions about Time? It might be.

Of course, we can't conceive of anything without Time. It's the quintessential independent variable. But the promise of some sort of "existence" outside of Time is quite tempting for a bunch of primates that have spent the past hundred thousand years or so obsessing about mortality.

I had a religion prof a looooong time ago who based virtually everything in his course on the premise that Judeo-Christian (and by extrapolation Islamic) theology was pretty much centered on the idea that God (or YWH or Allah) controlled history (i.e., Time). That's pretty attractive to downtrodden groups of people (or groups that perceive themselves as downtrodden), because it gives them an excuse for their sorry behavior. ("It was God's will that Cousin Lee Bob got drunk & drove his pickup truck into that tree" or "It is Allah's will that Cousin Abdullah strapped 3 pounds of C-4 to his body & blew up the police station." God's will or not, Lee Bob & Abdullah are both no longer inhabiting this particular frame of reference.)

[As an aside, Your inclusion of language in your list of things that wouldn't be without Time is particularly intriguing given the opening words of the Gospel of John, "In the beginning was the Word..." (How many people think that those words come from Genesis?)]

Scientist went on to say:
All of this can be avoided by just not paying attention to the meaning of words. Throw out a bunch of good sounding words to lay people who don't understand logical fallacies and it all sounds nice.

Well, they just have to get outside of Time to do that, I guess! Sounds like we're heading right back to why the "community" doesn't understand academic freedom & is susceptible to the "day's work for a day's pay" line. But in a sense, it's the same can of annelids.

Stupidity may be genetic, but ignorance can be cured ... unless somebody has a compelling reason not to permit ignorance to be cured. The usual reason seems to me to be the never-ending quest for power.

Finally, Scientist concluded:
This has been a very interesting thread and I thank all that participated.

You bet. Thanks, Scientist, for the cerebral push-ups this morning! I needed the workout.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Scientist, I'm not sure I can agree with you about intelligent design. I've done some reading on the subject and found the material concerning 'irreducible complexity' to be quite compelling. That (at least to me - a non-scientist) seemed to be completey based on scientific data. While I know there are differences of opinion about the bacterium flaggelum (please forgive the spelling) it certainly seems to be both complex and irreducible.

Are you familiar with the Discovery Institue group?

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Now for the tough question: Is anyone in this discussion going to put "their pen where there mouth is" and rebut the letter in today's Hattiesburg American?

Evolution is just a theory

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050810/OPINION03/508100318/1014/OPINION

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Scientist wrote:

This is true, Curious, and must be made very clear. The "credible scientists" are not speaking of science when they give their view in support of I.D. The reason is I.D. is not a scientific theory and both "intelligent" and "design" have no precise scientific meaning. In my opinion these people are using their scientific credentials to fool lay people concerning I.D. They are not speaking as scientists when they do so.;

Hear! Hear! How right you are!

I don't keep a list of the "scientists" who speak out in favor of creationism (or intelligent design or orthogenesis or whatever high-falutin' term one hangs on it), but I used to. Almost without exception, they are speaking "out of their discipline." The most vocal "scientists" I've heard speak out against biological evolutaion are chemists & physicists by training. I might note, too, that one of them turned out not to have ever taken a single course in biology.

It would be just as preposterous to have a plumber repair your automobile or an electrician fix your kitchen sink. We don't hire a "tradesman" but a mechanic or plumber. "Scientist" is a generic term just like "tradesman."

Of course, if the audience is levitating out in No-Time-Space, any scientist will do, I suppose.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Tough Question wrote:

Now for the tough question: Is anyone in this discussion going to put "their pen where there mouth is" and rebut the letter in today's Hattiesburg American?
Evolution is just a theoryhttp://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050810/OPINION03/508100318/1014/OPINION

Not me. I've already been run out of two towns for teaching evolution

But following up on my last post about electricians, here's one that a friend (who was a chemist) told me...

So it's "just a theory?" Well, electrons are "just a theory." Electron theory, to be exact. Nobody's ever seen one & they're defined as having essentially no mass & zinging around close to the speed of light. That borders on being unbelievable, doesn't it? So, what did your high school physical science teacher tell you electricity was? "The flow of electrons through a conductor," you say? Well, here's a coathanger. Stick it in that wall socket over there & then tell me it's "just a theory."

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Scientist wrote:There was no before the Big Bang and without time there is no cause-effect and no logic or language.

Invictus wrote: How do you know there was no "before the Big Bang?" Is that an article of faith based on a lot of assumptions about Time? It might be. Of course, we can't conceive of anything without Time. It's the quintessential independent variable. But the promise of some sort of "existence" outside of Time is quite tempting for a bunch of primates that have spent the past hundred thousand years or so obsessing about mortality. I had a religion prof a looooong time ago who based virtually everything in his course on the premise that Judeo-Christian (and by extrapolation Islamic) theology was pretty much centered on the idea that God (or YWH or Allah) controlled history (i.e., Time). That's pretty attractive to downtrodden groups of people (or groups that perceive themselves as downtrodden), because it gives them an excuse for their sorry behavior. ("It was God's will that Cousin Lee Bob got drunk & drove his pickup truck into that tree" or "It is Allah's will that Cousin Abdullah strapped 3 pounds of C-4 to his body & blew up the police station." God's will or not, Lee Bob & Abdullah are both no longer inhabiting this particular frame of reference.) [As an aside, Your inclusion of language in your list of things that wouldn't be without Time is particularly intriguing given the opening words of the Gospel of John, "In the beginning was the Word..." (How many people think that those words come from Genesis?)]Scientist went on to say:All of this can be avoided by just not paying attention to the meaning of words. Throw out a bunch of good sounding words to lay people who don't understand logical fallacies and it all sounds nice.Well, they just have to get outside of Time to do that, I guess! Sounds like we're heading right back to why the "community" doesn't understand academic freedom & is susceptible to the "day's work for a day's pay" line. But in a sense, it's the same can of annelids. Stupidity may be genetic, but ignorance can be cured ... unless somebody has a compelling reason not to permit ignorance to be cured. The usual reason seems to me to be the never-ending quest for power.Finally, Scientist concluded:This has been a very interesting thread and I thank all that participated.You bet. Thanks, Scientist, for the cerebral push-ups this morning! I needed the workout.

Thanks for a very enjoyable post Invictus. It's hard to get a humor out of this topic, but you managed to give me a chuckle. Great post.

Concerning your question: “How do you know there was no "before the Big Bang?" Is that an article of faith based on a lot of assumptions about Time?"

This is from the meaning of the words. The Big Bang theory has the universe expanding from a singularity. The physical universe is space-time. (Notice I didn't say space and time.) One can't exist without the other because they are related. (This has to do with General Relativity.) Without space and matter, time is a meaningless word because time is related to change.

Some have difficulty understanding this because they are thinking of the universe as if they are watching it from outside. But we are in the universe and part of it.

(Of course all of this is based on our present knowledge of physics.)

Date: Aug 10, 2005

But Invictus, you didn't speak to my question about irreducible complexity. To simply categorize this as non-scientists speaking firstly, isn't true, and secondly, doesn't apply the scientific principle to the problem.

There is a specific definition for 'Intelligent Design', at least as used by the researchers affiliated with the Discovery Institute (www.discovery.org). As a non-scientist I'm not equipped to completely evaluate their claims. But it does seem clear that credibly trained scientists are among the group, and that they approaching the questions/problems scientifically.

If you, or others, are aware of this work I would love to hear your critique of specifics of their research.

Thanks,

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Curious wrote:

Scientist, I'm not sure I can agree with you about intelligent design. I've done some reading on the subject and found the material concerning 'irreducible complexity' to be quite compelling. That (at least to me - a non-scientist) seemed to be completey based on scientific data. While I know there are differences of opinion about the bacterium flaggelum (please forgive the spelling) it certainly seems to be both complex and irreducible. Are you familiar with the Discovery Institue group?

Yes, Curious, I heard of this and the organization. It is just more pseudoscience trying to get I.D. into science. I'm not familiar with the term "irreducibly complex" being used by scientist, but rather only Creationists. Below is the definition for the readers and some links pointing out the fallacies and rebutting the "claims".

"Irreducibly Complex: ... means a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."

Two articles rebutting:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html

Many more articles can be found at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Date: Aug 10, 2005

You fellas with Ph.D.'s science are so smart. Can you tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a needle?

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Scientist wrote:

It is just more pseudoscience trying to get I.D. into science.

How about sociology, psychology, economics and the other so called social sciences. Do you consider any of those pseudosciences?

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Curious wrote:

But Invictus, you didn't speak to my question about irreducible complexity. To simply categorize this as non-scientists speaking firstly, isn't true, and secondly, doesn't apply the scientific principle to the problem. There is a specific definition for 'Intelligent Design', at least as used by the researchers affiliated with the Discovery Institute (www.discovery.org). As a non-scientist I'm not equipped to completely evaluate their claims. But it does seem clear that credibly trained scientists are among the group, and that they approaching the questions/problems scientifically. If you, or others, are aware of this work I would love to hear your critique of specifics of their research. Thanks,

Curious, you are discovering how the organization uses the credentials of scientist to deceive the layperson. You said, "But it does seem clear that credibly trained scientists are among the group, and that they approaching the questions/problems scientifically."

The problem is lay people generally don't know how to determine this and only use what "sounds" good. If they were using science and approaching the problem scientifically then they would be publishing is international, referred journals of science. These people started their own journals because their works didn't meet the criteria for publishing in reputable science journals.

Some wonder who is right in all of this. Who said, "By their fruits you will know them."? These people are out to deceive.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Philosopher wrote:

You fellas with Ph.D.'s science are so smart. Can you tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a needle?

All of them.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Taxonomy wrote:

Scientist wrote: It is just more pseudoscience trying to get I.D. into science. How about sociology, psychology, economics and the other so called social sciences. Do you consider any of those pseudosciences?

I'd like a response to that one. What is it that makes a social science a science?

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Curious wrote:
I've done some reading on the subject and found the material concerning 'irreducible complexity' to be quite compelling.

Ernst Mayr, late emeritus professor of zoology at Harvard & one of the foremost evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, was pretty famous for rejecting reductionism in evolutionary biology. Reductionism is de rigeur in physical sciences & to an extent, biology succumbed to "physics envy" during the first part of the last century. Mayr postulated that evolution can't be studied by reducing complexity to single genes but that the entire genome (and gene pool, for that matter) had to be taken into account. He proposed the concept of "emergent properties" that only appear at higher levels of organization, basically that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. Ultimately, the idea is that complexity doesn't have to be "reducible" to be understood. Not everything "scientific" can be boiled down to a neat mathematical formula, nor does it have to be.

Mayr would probably roll over in his grave to know that some creationist was using a phrase like "irreducible complexity" to promote the teaching of what is ultimately a sectarian religious belief in public school science classrooms.

The question is whether we throw up our hands & say, "Oh dear, this complexity is so irreducible that I must invoke a supernatural intelligence to explain it," or whether we just say, "There is much we don't understand given the tools we have at the moment, so let's get back to the lab!"

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Curious wrote:

If you, or others, are aware of this work I would love to hear your critique of specifics of their research.

Google is, of course, your friend.

First, do not confuse The Discovery Institute with The Discovery Institute. The first link is where you need to be unless you're really into Zoroastrianism.

Although it is pointedly not unbiased, you may find the article at www.infidels.org. Overall, the Discovery Institute is not releasing information in any normal scientific fashion (as new ideas are discovered) but following a set game plan (called the "Wedge Strategy") for overturning what it views as "materialistic science." Western civilization is fading fast & it's all science's fault.

The Americans United for Separation of Church and State has also weighed in on the Discovery Institute & it isn't supportive. Many churches belong to the USCS, BTW. The best quote from that article: "Though the Discovery Institute describes itself as a think tank 'specializing in national and international affairs,' the group's real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers. That's unlikely to change anytime soon."

The

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Citizen wrote:

Taxonomy wrote: Scientist wrote: It is just more pseudoscience trying to get I.D. into science. How about sociology, psychology, economics and the other so called social sciences. Do you consider any of those pseudosciences? I'd like a response to that one. What is it that makes a social science a science?

Sorry Citizen I was away on business. This isn't an easy question for me to answer. I think some parts may be science and some parts pseudoscience. I think it's a mixture. The questions I would ask are "Do they have operational definitions?", "Can they measure the thing defined either directly or indirectly"?, "Do organizing principles exist that explain and unify larger bodies of knowledge"? and "Can the principles be used to predict the future under suitable conditions?" I realize some systems are nonlinear and can result in chaos. Prediction becomes only general.

Please understand that I'm a physical scientist and consider myself ignorant in the social science area. So another answer is, "I don't know".

Date: Aug 10, 2005

The rest of my last post... Sorry...

The National Center for Science Education has even noted some "interesting" changes in the web banners used by the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Check it out!

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Invictus wrote:

The rest of my last post... Sorry... The National Center for Science Education has even noted some "interesting" changes in the web banners used by the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Check it out!

Thanks Invictus. "By their fruit you will know them."

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Tough Question wrote:

Now for the tough question: Is anyone in this discussion going to put "their pen where there mouth is" and rebut the letter in today's Hattiesburg American? Evolution is just a theoryhttp://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050810/OPINION03/508100318/1014/OPINION

Today's letter to the editor is written by John Hanbury?

Date: Aug 10, 2005

I just received my TIME magazine(Aug. 15) in the mail. The cover title is "Evolution Wars" with a picture from the Sistine Chapel of god pointing down to a monkey who has his hand to the chin contemplating. Can you imagine the letters that will generate? Should be an interesting read.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Two in a row wrote:

Tough Question wrote:
Now for the tough question: Is anyone in this discussion going to put "their pen where there mouth is" and rebut the letter in today's Hattiesburg American? Evolution is just a theoryhttp://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050810/OPINION03/508100318/1014/OPINION
Today's letter to the editor is written by John Hanbury?

Uh oh! Don't anybody start attacking his qualifications to talk about evolution or this thread is going to go south in a hurry! A Hanbury thread attracts trolls like

attracts flies!

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Two in a row wrote:

Tough Question wrote: Now for the tough question: Is anyone in this discussion going to put "their pen where there mouth is" and rebut the letter in today's Hattiesburg American? Evolution is just a theoryhttp://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050810/OPINION03/508100318/1014/OPINION Today's letter to the editor is written by John Hanbury?

The Op-Ed piece that Kate Greene rebutted was written by JACK Hanbury. Are we sure John and Jack are the same person?

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Immediately violating my own rule (see previous post), this one line from that LTE is incorrect: "The first false idea in the theory is that non-organic matter can transform itself into organic matter. Pasteur proved that was impossible."

Pasteur "proved" that life begets life. That's all.

Over 50 years ago, urea (an organic compound) was synthesized from water, methane, ammonia & hydrogen. See Wikipedia if you don't remember the Miller-Urey experiment. And let's just say that they didn't do the experiment to prove they could make fertilizer in a laboratory. There's plenty enough "fertilizer" on the editorial page of the HA these days!

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Immediately violating my own rule (see previous post), this one line from that LTE is incorrect: "The first false idea in the theory is that non-organic matter can transform itself into organic matter. Pasteur proved that was impossible." Pasteur "proved" that life begets life. That's all. Over 50 years ago, urea (an organic compound) was synthesized from water, methane, ammonia & hydrogen. See Wikipedia if you don't remember the Miller-Urey experiment. And let's just say that they didn't do the experiment to prove they could make fertilizer in a laboratory. There's plenty enough "fertilizer" on the editorial page of the HA these days!

High school biology students learn about the Miller-Urey experiments.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Today's letter to the editor is written by John Hanbury? The Op-Ed piece that Kate Greene rebutted was written by JACK Hanbury. Are we sure John and Jack are the same person?

Same troll, using a different variant of his name in an attempt to seem like a different person. Remember that "John F. Kennedy" was "Jack Kennedy" to his associates and close friends.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

The Op-Ed piece that Kate Greene rebutted was written by JACK Hanbury. Are we sure John and Jack are the same person?

We are sure that Jack's real name is John.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

"Jack" is John.

Actually, and for the benefit of my friend SON -- that's a fact . . . JACK!

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Taxonomy wrote:

How about sociology, psychology, economics and the other so called social sciences. Do you consider any of those pseudosciences?

I consider phrenology to be a pseudoscience. And if you pay good money for an argone acculumator, you've succumbed to pseudoscience.

I'm not sure, however, about secretarial science. Isn't that something the president of USM is reputed to know a lot about?

Date: Aug 10, 2005

By the way Invictus . . . . I'm amazed at the things you know . . .