Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Has string theory tied up better ideas in physics?
(By SHARON BEGLEY, The Wall Street Journal, 06-23-2006)

Nobel physicist Wolfgang Pauli didn't suffer fools gladly. Fond of calling colleagues' work "wrong" or "completely wrong," he saved his worst epithet for work so sloppy and speculative it is "not even wrong."

That's how mathematician Peter Woit of Columbia University describes string theory. In his book, "Not Even Wrong," published in the U.K. this month and due in the U.S. in September, he calls the theory "a disaster for physics."

A year or two ago, that would have been a fringe opinion, motivated by sour grapes over not sitting at physics' equivalent of the cool kids' table. But now, after two decades in which string theory has been the doyenne of best-seller lists and the dominant paradigm in particle physics, Mr. Woit has company.

"When it comes to extending our knowledge of the laws of nature, we have made no real headway" in 30 years, writes physicist Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, in his book, "The Trouble with Physics," also due in September. "It's called hitting the wall."

He blames string theory for this "crisis in particle physics," the branch of physics that tries to explain the most fundamental forces and building blocks of the world.

String theory, which took off in 1984, posits that elementary particles such as electrons are not points, as standard physics had it. They are, instead, vibrations of one-dimensional strings 1/100 billion billionth the size of an atomic nucleus. Different vibrations supposedly produce all the subatomic particles from quarks to gluons. Oh, and strings exist in a space of 10, or maybe 11, dimensions. No one knows exactly what or where the extra dimensions are, but assuming their existence makes the math work.

String theory, proponents said, could reconcile quantum mechanics (the physics of subatomic particles) and gravity, the longest-distance force in the universe. That impressed particle physicists no end. In the 1980s, most jumped on the string bandwagon and since then, stringsters have written thousands of papers.

But one thing they haven't done is coax a single prediction from their theory. In fact, "theory" is a misnomer, since unlike general relativity theory or quantum theory, string theory is not a concise set of solvable equations describing the behavior of the physical world. It's more of an idea or a framework.

Partly as a result, string theory "makes no new predictions that are testable by current _ or even currently conceivable _ experiments," writes Prof. Smolin. "The few clean predictions it does make have already been made by other" theories.

Worse, the equations of string theory have myriad solutions, an extreme version of how the algebraic equation X2 4 has two solutions (2 and -2). The solutions arise from the fact that there are so many ways to "compactify" its extra dimensions _ to roll them up so you get the three spatial dimensions of the real world. With more than 10 raised to 500th power (1 followed by 500 zeros) ways to compactify, there are that many possible universes.

"There is no good insight into which is more likely," concedes physicist Michael Peskin of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.

If string theory made a prediction that didn't accord with physical reality, stringsters could say it's correct in one of these other universes. As a result, writes Prof. Smolin, "string theory cannot be disproved." By the usual standards, that would rule it out as science.

String theory isn't any more wrong than preons, twistor theory, dynamical triangulations, or other physics fads. But in those cases, physicists saw the writing on the wall and moved on. Not so in string theory.

"What is strange is that string theory has survived past the point where it should have been clear that it wouldn't work," says Mr. Woit. Not merely survived, but thrived. Virtually every young mathematically inclined particle theorist must sign on to the string agenda to get an academic job. By his count, of 22 recently tenured professors in particle theory at the six top U.S. departments, 20 are string theorists.

One physicist commented on Mr. Woit's blog that Ph.D. students who choose mathematical theory topics that "are non-string are seriously harming their career prospects."

To be fair, string theory can claim some success. A 1985 paper showed that if you compactify extra dimensions in a certain way, the number of quarks and leptons you get is exactly the number found in nature. "This is the only idea out there for why the number of quarks and leptons is what it is," says Prof. Peskin. Still, that is less a prediction of string theory than a consequence.

If fewer physicists were tied to strings might some of the enduring mysteries of the universe be solved? Might we know why there is more matter than antimatter? Why the proton's mass is 1,836 times the electron's? Why the 18 key numbers in the standard model of fundamental particles have the values they do?

"With smart people pursuing these questions, more might have been answered," says Mr. Woit. "Too few really good people have been working on anything other than string theory."

That string theory abandoned testable predictions may be its ultimate betrayal of science.

String theory, which took off in 1984, posits that elementary particles such as electrons are not points, as standard physics had it. They are, instead, vibrations of one-dimensional strings 1/100 billion billionth the size of an atomic nucleus. Different vibrations supposedly produce all the subatomic particles from quarks to gluons. Oh, and strings exist in a space of 10, or maybe 11, dimensions. No one knows exactly what or where the extra dimensions are, but assuming their existence makes the math work.

(London Times, June 26, 2006, Letters to the Editor)

Sir, Most faith schools in Britain are either Anglican or Roman Catholic and have no problem with evolution. The schools which do are either the independent evangelical schools or the city academies. Here creationism is taught, often under the cloak of "teaching the controversy" or balancing the two "faith" views of creation and evolution. Sometimes creationism is smuggled into state schools, often through visiting speakers. That is a great concern as creationism, whether as young earth creationism or intelligent design, can only be described as scientific nonsense. To compound this, most creationist writings are dishonest in their portrayal of "evolution". To teach creationism as science is to teach nonsense. It is timely that scientists have made it clear that creationism is misguided. However, it is a great pity that the churches have so far failed to address the issue. By failing to do so, they also put church schools at risk.
THE REV M. ROBERTS
Cockerham, Lancaster

Sir, It would have been more accurate to state that some creationists believe that the world was formed in 4004BC. The Bible gives no date for the formation of the world, rather it sets out the stages of its formation over an indeterminate period. In this regard there is no conflict. The issue is whether this world is the product of a series of random events over billions of years or the work of a divine being. To my mind, the magnificent complexity of this world proclaims the glory of God.
GEOFF GILL
Kendal, Cumbria

Sir, There is a straightforward objection to those who believe that the Earth is only 8,000 years old. Not the complexity of evolution, nor that of carbon-dating, but dendrochronology. Charting the overlap of the annular rings of the living and dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of California takes the oldest tree back to an age of 9,000 years; the recent discovery of even older pieces of timber is likely to take this further back to nearly 10,000 years, just about the end of the last Ice Age. The principle behind dendrochronolgy is so simple and the evidence obtained from it so obvious that it should be impervious to rebuttal.
PETER STOCKEN
Doncaster

Creationism Taught By Design
(London Times, June 27, 2006)

CREATIONISM is finding its way into university lecture halls, raising concerns with some academics that the biblical story of creation will be given equal weight to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Compulsory lectures in intelligent design and creationism are going to be included in second-year courses for zoology and genetics undergraduates at Leeds University, The Times Higher Education Supplement (June 23) reveals.

But there's a twist: lecturers will present the controversial theories as being incompatible with scientific evidence. "It is essential they (students) understand the historical context and the flaws in the arguments these groups put forward," says Michael McPherson, of Leeds University.

Despite the clear anti- creationist stance of these lecturers, the move has set warning bells ringing across the UK science community.

"It would be undesirable for universities to spend a lot of precious resources teaching students that creationism and intelligent design are not based on scientific evidence," says David Read, the vice- president of the Royal Society.

Yet other academics are keen to see evolutionary theory challenged in university lecture halls.

"The scientific establishment prevents dissenting views," says Professor Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick. "I have a lot of respect for those who have true scientific credentials and are upfront about their views."

Students, though, seem open to creationism. One study, carried out by Professor Roger Downie, of the University of Glasgow, found that one science student in ten did not believe in evolution.

"This gives a very poor prognosis for their understanding of what science is and their ability to be scientists," Prof Downie says.

Evolution's Lonely Battle in a Georgia Classroom

are you accusin the god fearin folk of georgia of bein related to tree rats?

According to evolutionary theory squirrels share very large percentages of DNA with our goodselves and thus that is an accusation of nearly cannibalism.

According to evolutionary theory squirrels share very large percentages of DNA with our goodselves and thus that is an accusation of nearly cannibalism.


"According to evolutionary theory" notice. It is ET that accuses the good folks of Georgia of being related to squirrels isn't it and you are an evolution theorist as I understand things. I didn't even suggest they eat them either. You did.

There's not much danger of you ever losing an argument using a method of that nature. A net full of slippery eels comes to mind.

He was making a joke, Spendi!

It was in very poor taste.

Such a diet is certainly nutritious for the medical profession. They look well set to dine on it for ever and ever.

FA wrote-

Quote:

He was making a joke, Spendi!

It was in very poor taste.

Bill: Science only in science class
(JUDY PUTNAM, Saginaw News, June 29, 2006)

LANSING -- Lawmakers have booted a plan requiring science teachers to present competing theories of evolution and global warming from legislation after critics said it would require public schools to teach religious theories about creation.

The debate is not over.

The House Education Committee voted 15-2 Wednesday to forward the bill by Midland Republican Rep. John Moolenaar requiring teachers to use scientific methods to evaluate scientific theories.

It passed in an amended form proposed by Richland Republican Rep. Lorence Wenke that deleted examples of global warming and evolution, with support from Bad Axe Republican Tom Meyer and others.

Lawmakers still could reinsert those examples, however, as the bill moves through the Legislature.

Although supporters said the bill is not about intelligent design, a lawyer for the Gull Lake School District said it likely would lead to a lawsuit against the Kalamazoo County district, which in 2004 told two teachers to stop teaching the theory.

The Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor last year threatened to sue the district for not allowing the teaching of intelligent design, said Lisa Swem, the district's attorney. The center defended the Dover, Pa., school board's policy to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in a high-profile case last year. A federal court ruled that policy unconstitutional.

Swem said Moolenaar's original bill would require teaching competing theories to Darwin's evolution. She said intelligent design -- the theory that living creatures are so complex that they could not have developed without a guiding hand -- is "in the forefront of competing theories."

"It essentially would provide a legal basis for the Thomas More Center to follow through on the threat to sue for not teaching intelligent design," Swem said.

But Moolenaar said intelligent design is not the point. He said students need to learn to evaluate evidence that supports theories and opposes them.

Ralph Seelke, a University of Wisconsin-Superior biology professor, testified before the committee earlier this month that that there is evidence that doesn't fit with Darwin's theory of evolution, such as fossil records that show new species suddenly appearing.

Moolenaar said students should learn about that evidence. "The full range of scientific evidence ought to be considered," he said.

Swem said the language in Moolenaar's bill mirrors tactics by the intelligent design movement to get around court decisions by "teaching the controversy" over evolution.

Ralph Seelke, a University of Wisconsin-Superior biology professor, testified before the committee earlier this month that that there is evidence that doesn't fit with Darwin's theory of evolution, such as fossil records that show new species suddenly appearing.