A beautiful argument for naturalism from Michael Shermer

[Foster Zygote]

We're awaiting your evidence for non life becoming life; a detailed pathway from say chemicals to an elephant, and all of the many molecular machines within the life.

NO smoke blowing, just do it, please.

Yeah Zaay, sum up all of evolutionary theory in a few sentences so T'ai doesn't have to actually study any of it himself.

Steven

 

[RandFan]

So not able to make some (of the most important) predictions.

Is that because of the inherent randomness in the equation?

? We can answer what we can answer. That you think it is the most important is just your opinion. One more time. This is an argument from ignorance. That we can't answer all of the questions proves nothing. And just because you declare that your "questions" represent "some of the most important predictions" does not make it so.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The Precambrian Explosion, how so?

What is the problem you perceive with the Cambrian Explosion? I've heard a lot of fundie creationist problems with it, I'm just interested to see if they differ from yours.

Steven

 

[Foster Zygote]

So not able to make some (of the most important) predictions.

Is that because of the inherent randomness in the equation?

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that evolution is entirely random. There is an important element of randomness that supplies the variation upon which natural selection acts, but natural selection is not random.

Steven

 

[RandFan]

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that evolution is entirely random. There is an important element of randomness that supplies the variation upon which natural selection acts, but natural selection is not random.

Steven

Random is the favored strawman of ID proponents/anti evolutionists. Dawkins thoroughly debunks this red herring in The Blind Watchmaker.

Of course that won't keep ID proponents from making this tired old strawman.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm wondering hopw Shermer plans to test the hypothesis of infinite or "near infinite" (whatever that means!) universes.

Since it is outside of Shermer's field I don't imagine that he will test it at all. Theoretical physicists like Hawking, Kaku, etc. will do the testing.

If our universe, by definition, is all that we see or observe, how is infinite universes anything more than an interesting, but untestable, narrative?

Less than a century ago people believed that our galaxy was the whole of the universe. Then we discovered that the universe contains hundreds of billions of galaxies. Now research in theoretical physics strongly suggests the possibility that our universe is but one of many "bubble universes". If this is true it will be very much like the discovery that stars are other suns, or that our galaxy is not the whole of the universe.

Steven

 

[Foster Zygote]

Random is the favored strawman of ID proponents/anti evolutionists. Dawkins thoroughly debunks this red herring in The Blind Watchmaker.

Of course that won't keep ID proponents from making this tired old strawman.

Yeah, T'ai seems to be buying into the whole "hurricane assembling a working 747" fallacy.

Steven

 

[RandFan]

Since it is outside of Shermer's field I don't imagine that he will test it at all. Theoretical physicists like Hawking, Kaku, etc. will do the testing.

Less than a century ago people believed that our galaxy was the whole of the universe. Then we discovered that the universe contains hundreds of billions of galaxies. Now research in theoretical physics strongly suggests the possibility that our universe is but one of many "bubble universes". If this is true it will be very much like the discovery that stars are other suns, or that our galaxy is not the whole of the universe.

Steven

Great response.

It's difficult for mere mortals like me (I mean not gifted mentally) to grasp many of the theories of theoretical physicists. However, it is important to understand that the consequences of logic and mathematics have led to many important discoveries that many of us simply take for granted. Nuclear power being one of those discoveries.

Now, we can dismiss these theoretical physicists with our own home spun wisdom and observations but we do so out of ignorance. It's fine to be skeptical of these theories, Ed knows many are unproven, but if one is going to be skeptical one could at least become a bit more educated and make reasoned arguments. Home spun wisdom and self referenced observation didn't make the earth flat, the stars fixed or the earth the center of the universe.

 

[Z]

Why is it people who go on so long about degrees, generally prove to be the most ignorant, mentally challenged people on these forums?

A degree is not a measure of intelligence, only a measure of education that a person was exposed to. It is more a measure of available wealth, these days; available time, and a small measure of educational quality; but even Ph.D.s can be dumb as rocks sometimes. And a few are hyperstupid, even about their own subjects.

Never base an assumption about intelligence level on whether or not a person is degreed.

 

[T'ai Chi]

But is it because of randomness?

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, you're dishonestly twisting what I said.

No one is doing this.

I said it is hard to take his current beliefs and statements on the state of the universe more anything more than a large grain of salt since he has flip-flopped from strong belief to strong disbelief, and not that he has to be born in the skeptical movement to take him seriously.

Which is equivalent to saying that a person needs to be born skeptical be to taken seriously.

But go back some years... and he'd say the exact opposite, so it is hard to put much weight in his current strong statement of belief.

Are you really this dense? Are you now saying that atheists can't be taken seriously if they used to believe in a religion or god? Do you also believe that theists who used to be atheists shouldn't be taken seriously as well?

There are many ways to interpret the evidence.

But only one correct way.

If someone sees a sign that has "Hi Steve" written on it, we know it is designed. Yet when some see DNA, which is a 500 gadzillion times more complex, people don't see real design but 'give it time and chance and it can happen'.

Argument from complexity is a fallacy, you should know this already, since it's been explained a billion times in this forum.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Fair enough, then let's stop the BS and get our cards on the table. What is your point?

His point is that scientific evidence doesn't matter because it directly contradicts his own religious beliefs.

He read some garbage from the Discovery Institute, so he "knows" that evolution is wrong.

He also has stated that it's illogical to say IPU's don't exist unless one can search every quark of the infinite universe and time to be sure.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Apparently ...

 

[elliotfc]

Significant to whom? Significance is a human construct. Humans are significant only to themselves.

*I didn't bring up significance*. I responded to the person who invoked it. Having been invoked...

To look at humans and think that we are significant in comparison to the universe that is as large as it is and has existed for many eons before us and will exist for many after us is simply arrogance.

Part of me totally agrees. The other part of me understands that we are subjective and therefore *do* think of ourselves as significant. In fact, just by *thinking* we demonstrate that we understand our significance.

For our brief moment in time the shuttles are more significant to our lives but many if not most of the pebbles will long out live the shuttles.

*Which would make the shuttles significant*, no?

Let's say a person lives 80 years of blissful life. For *8 minutes* of that life, he/she is tortured severely, absolutely severely. Were those 8 minutes significant? Relatively speaking, absolutely. Essentially speaking? Probably not. But again, I was responding to the invocation of significance, and didn't bring up the idea meself.

If humans were created on many different planets then you would be correct.

Or alternate "intelligent" life forms. It's a base, baseless speculative theory, but I'm content with it for what its worth, and it ain't worth much I guess.

I grew up Mormon and Mormons believe in many worlds so I can understand that point. If you hold such a philosophy then that is fine but Shermer is addressing a classical (typical?) Judeo-Christian concept of creation that holds that there is but one creation. In that sense he is right.

I agree that a classical Judeo-Christian concept wouldn't include non-human or human intelligent life forms created in a way commensurate to ourselves.

? I don't get that at all. It buggers belief. Why? Would you construct a building the size of the solar system to house only your family? Did god construct all of this so we could go "wow"? Is it to simply inspire awe? Hell, 10 billion galaxies would have been more than enough.

I don't know why some people need 87 million dollars, or 29 billion dollars. My parents are house-hunting in Indiana and I don't know why they are looking at houses with 6 bedrooms when it's just them.

If we assume that expansion is a necessary result of the big bang, why not have billions of *things* to fill up that space? Yes, we occupy a relative speck...but like I suggested earlier...could that not make us remarkably significant? And why is that a bad thing?

Is being impressed with creation a bad thing? I don't know if God *wants* us to be impressed with creation. If someone paints a picture, is it bad if many people are impressed by it, when they were merely scratching the artistic itch?

As for "more than enough"...the universe only housing our solar system would have been more than enough. Or how about just us and the sun? Either it's arbitrary...or it's not arbitrary...or, for whatever reasons, there's more than we can comprehend. Theologians say that God's love is greater than we can comprehend. An analogy *could* be drawn. Not that I'm advocating the analogy, just throwing it out there.

Actually no. The word "likely" and "unlikely" have come to mean probably or not probably based on reason, logic, experience/comparison or any combination thereof.

Fair enough, I get your point, but I'd temper it with what God does as being independent of anything that we determine to be probable or likely or reasonable.

When the scientists plotted a trajectory and probability of success of reaching the moon they did not have any direct comparisons.

No, they just had the equations and the measurements and the calculations, derived from our experiences and observations. But projectile motion is all around us, and the Big Bang is as far as we know an absolutely singular event, so much so that we're told that the physics don't actually apply during the initial moments.

-Elliot

 

[RandFan]

But is it because of randomness?

There is an element of randomness however it is not simply random.

Random Genetic Drift
The Evolution of Improved Fitness

However,

Complex structures did not arise by chance

Educate yourself.

 

[RandFan]

Fair enough, I get your point, but I'd temper it with what God does as being independent of anything that we determine to be probable or likely or reasonable.

No, they just had the equations and the measurements and the calculations, derived from our experiences and observations. But projectile motion is all around us, and the Big Bang is as far as we know an absolutely singular event, so much so that we're told that the physics don't actually apply during the initial moments.

I think the evidence that the scientists had then is not far off from what Shermer has now to make his statement. I'm happy to simply disagree.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[elliotfc]

I'm trying to think of an analogy but all are lacking. It wouldn't be like building the solar system to house a single strain of bacteria.

The universe wasn't created as it currently is, right? The universe is expanding. An analogy is that time is unfolding.

It doesn't work because it just doesn't come anywhere near to representing the scale of the universe compared to humans. Any attempt to create such a scale would fail due to the limitations of the human mind. The notion that all of the universe exists because god created humans doesn't make sense.

I, too, am not satisfied with the idea that the universe exists *just* for humans. Having said that, if it does in fact exist for just humans, complaining about that is irrelevant.

-Elliot

 

[RandFan]

The universe wasn't created as it currently is, right? The universe is expanding. An analogy is that time is unfolding.

Agreed though I'm not exactly certain of the relevance. If you sucked out all of the space and stacked up all of the matter you would have one incomprehensibly large thing.

I, too, am not satisfied with the idea that the universe exists *just* for humans. Having said that, if it does in fact exist for just humans, complaining about that is irrelevant.

I would agree. I'm not complaining though, just noting that Shermer has a point.

 

[KingMerv00]

Still wondering why I should consider supernaturalism.

 

[RandFan]

Still wondering why I should consider supernaturalism.

Because Jack Chick publishes little booklet's full of inspiring art and bullet proof logic...