"For centuries scientists and philosophers have marveled at an eerie coincidence. Mathematics, a creation of human reason, can predict the nature of the universe, a fact physicist Eugene Wigner referred to as the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences." In the last three decades astronomers and cosmologists have noticed another, seemingly unrelated, mystery. Contrary to all expectations, the laws of physics seem precisely "fine-tuned" for the existence of complex life.
Could these two wonders actually be isolated pieces of a wider pattern? Both are prerequisites for science, yet what about the process of scientific discovery itself? What are its necessary conditions? Why is it even possible? Read any book on the history of science, and you'll learn about magnificent tales of human ingenuity, persistence, and dumb luck. But that's only part of the story, and not even the most important part. Our location is much more critical to science than it is to real estate. For some reason our Earthly location is extraordinarily well suited to allow us to peer into the heavens and discover its secrets.
Elsewhere, you might learn that Earth and its local environment provide a delicate, and probably exceedingly rare, cradle for complex life. But there's another, even more startling, fact, described: those same rare conditions that produce a habitable planet-that allow for the existence of complex observers like ourselves-also provide the best overall place for observing. What does this mean? At the least, it turns our view of the universe inside out. The universe is not "pointless" (Steven Weinberg), Earth merely "a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark," (Carl Sagan) and human existence "just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents" (Steven Weinberg). On the contrary, the evidence we can uncover from our Earthly home points to a universe that is designed for life, and designed for discovery."
It's all tommyrot. Of course life arises in a setting which is propitious. If conditions weren't favorable, life would not arise . . . Duh . . .
@Lightwizard,
That was an extremely bad joke, and i only wish there were a god, so you could be made to pay for it in Hell . . .
@Setanta,
Somehow I knew you'd be back
punishing me for that! So sorry. Could not resist.
@Lightwizard,
There's genetic drift, of course: mutated alleles which confer no significant advantage to the individual/colony and thus may become fixed entirely by chance, that chance inflated in the case of the founder effect. It isn't "Darwinian", which usually refers to Darwin's theories of evolution, especially natural selection.
Naturally, these people don't even know what that is. In this context, they aren't aware of any scientific theories: they tend to either be so ignorant that they truly think that ID is science or so devoted to their cause that they're willing to blatantly lie about it.
@farmerman,
Epigenetics is quite Darwinian... don't believe the sensationalist press releases/trash science journalism that would have you believe that epigenetics is so fantastic and new that all of our main biological considerations must be resynthesized: biologists are quite comfortable with some factors being both influenced by the environment and heritable: phenotypic plasticity is one example of this type of thinking and developmental biology has been going over this stuff for years.
I think you'll find an interesting correlation between 'EPIGENETICS WILL REVOLUTIONIZE BIOLOGY!!!' and either the researchers themselves or popular science magazines.
@farmerman,
He is absolutely faking his presentations, however. He *still* brings up the obvious idiocy of the bacterial flagellum, even after explicitly *abandoning it*, but only for private presentations. He's big on reinventing what happened at Dover, PA, too (and should know better).
Given his actions, it's clear that as a True Believer™, he still recognizes the fallacies in what he's saying but either doesn't care that it's fallacious (and still likes them) or thinks it's A-OK to lie for the cause.
@genoves,
And such is the mantra of anyone dead set on flogging a red herring while insulting someone, thus exposing themselves as a pompous ass.
"don't know ****" indeed. Touché, you are a formidable opponent of Mr. Setanta.
@Shirakawasuna,
The implications of epigenteic transfer becomes rather Lamarkian , since it may explain a mechanism for retention of "acquired characteristics" for a generation or more while a trait makes it through a population. Im following the news from Sean Carrolls persepctive since Im interested in the environmental changes that affected the extinction of rapidly evolving "index fossils". These give us some really tight environmental information for locations of hydrocarbon and pre-diagenetic (think setting concrete) deposits like gypsum and alumina.
Epigenetics seems to me to give a viable mechanism to punctuated equilibrium .
@Shirakawasuna,
I disagree. Ive met Behe (and Steve Austen) several times and Im always amazed at how sincere and commited they are in their "Belief systems" That, to me, is even more of a problem because it leaves nowhere that one can insert reason into the argument or discussion.
Austen made his bones as an optical mineralogist and his dissertation was on the effects of a diagnostic type of "halo" that develops in micas in granites that comntain specific transuranics. His research into this phenom (called directional pleichroism) was developed into an argument that "Polonium halos argue for a young earth" He has been beaten up by colleagues who point out that hes incorrect but hes merely turned this into an argument by Faith. He dismisses real science in this topic by stating that science can be wrong in the "halo" argument were the TIME SCALE of the early earth speeded up. .AND he accepts a universal flood (The dudes got a PhD from a good university and he just went off the edge later).
If these guys were mere charlatans then I could almost understand that "theyre doing it for money or notoriety". However, thats not the case. They are sincere, commited, they believe in their cause, and they have learned not to let the science critiques sink in very deeply. RAther frustrating. Its like everyone on the side of Creationism /ID was like gungasnake, except with credentials in a specific area of a relevant science and a research base from which to fan out for accolytes. They do believe that everything they say in the name of their brand of Christianity is blessed by the gret spirit. So, while there is some snake oil going around, they dont believe that they are the ones involved.
@Shirakawasuna,
Genetic drift is a refinement of the tree of life, which is Darwinian, due to findings including DNA, discovered with technology he did not have. I stated that elsewhere and Darwin isn't turning over in his grave over it, he would be rejoicing that his learned suppositions which were a part of his theory or hypothesis have turned into modern evolution. It's not natural to see branches of a tree growing other branches that interconnect in a web, so while the model is altered, it's still scientific truth. The truth is often in the details.
Behe and co. just pick and choose what fits into their model. Now we all know if it doesn't fit, you can't convict. Which is exactly what they started out to do -- put science on trial, even if they knowingly use the sin of omission (which is still a lie). It will backfire again and one of those will create an explosion they can't handle.
@farmerman,
Frightening. However, it's been my observation that intelligence in certain specialties of study does not immune people from their religious beliefs of god and ID. It's a phenomenon that somebody needs to do a PhD thesis on.
A link to a segment of a BBC documentary on the Tree of Life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6IrUUDboZo
If you click on the hi def button on the lower right, it's really impressive.
@wandeljw,
wandel, We don't even have to read between the lines; anything that attempts to add to any science curriculum is suspect.
@cicerone imposter,
That's true, c.i., especially with the variety of subterfuges we have seen in the last five years.
The author of the above essay points out some "red flags" that I have never thought about, however. Shameless appeals to common sense is a good one: "If common sense were a reliable guide, we wouldn't need science in the first place."
@wandeljw,
wande quoted-
Quote:At the same time, they never define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.
That's because it's a complete mystery but most people feel that the material explanation just doesn't feel right and quite a lot, including our anti-IDers, can't even handle the idea and ignore it.
Quote:And if an author describes the mind, or any biological system for that matter, as "irreducibly complex", let the alarm bells ring.
It is quite alarming.
Quote: so please read between the lines.
I just did. Amanda just picked out a few phrases, declared them suspicious and offered no explanations. It filled up some more white space and I imagine kept the overheads down.
She doesn't mention having sex when not on heat which is the
sine qua non of sexual selection.
Quote: If common sense were a reliable guide, we wouldn't need science in the first place.
I thought science was fundamentalist common sense. And the first element of common sense is that very few people have any. Certainly not anybody who got married or had kids.
