Debate: Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design

[CFLarsen]

In other words, Scott's and Darat's statements aren't mutually exclusive. See how easy that was, if you'd only make sure to understand the context instead of leaving it out?

Why do you assume there is an effort being made?

 

[Hawk one]

I didn't. That's why I said "...if you'd (i.e. you would) only make sure...". To me, that indicates someone isn't making an effort in debating honestly.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ah, OK. It's early here....

 

[brodski]

Well we always hear, from experts like Scott, that there really is no controversy.

There is a political controversy over ID, there is no scientific controversy, just like there is a political controversy over Holocaust denial, without there being any historical controversy.
Just because some historians choose to debate Holocaust deniers in order to expose their lies does not mean that there is any evidence whatsoever for the Holocaust deniers claims, in the same way that just because some biologists choose to debate with, and debunk, evolution deniers does not mean that there is there is any evidence for the claims made by these neo-creationists.

 

[The Atheist]

There is a political controversy over ID, there is no scientific controversy, just like there is a political controversy over Holocaust denial, without there being any historical controversy.
Just because some historians choose to debate Holocaust deniers in order to expose their lies does not mean that there is any evidence whatsoever for the Holocaust deniers claims, in the same way that just because some biologists choose to debate with, and debunk, evolution deniers does not mean that there is there is any evidence for the claims made by these neo-creationists.

And additional to that, what's the alternative to debate?

"No thanks, the subject's far too stupid for us even to bother lowering ourselves to discuss. There is in fact, nothing to discuss, science wins, nanannana"

"See, they're scared."

 

[DeviousB]

Paul A. Nelson:
1 Used different examples where science has not yet (according to him) found an explanation.
2 Claims that these could be explained by the theory of Intelligent Design (ID)
- Was very evasive when asked critical questions, and answered with new questions.
3 Admitted that ID is not a proper scientific theory, yet...

1) So having said once, "The following are irreducibly complex...", only to have that complexity reduced, there argument is basically "Ah, but the following are irreducibly complex..."?!

What is this?! The "ID" of the gaps argument?!

2) They could also be explained by panspermia without recourse to an intelligent designer. They could also be explained by evoultion if we are allowed to invent unknown intermediaries like they do!

3) Sorry, you appear to have got cut off there. Was the whole sentence "Admitted ID is not a proper scientific theory, yet he thinks it deserves equal time to real science anyway"? Or pehaps "not a proper scientific theory, yet he is still trying to push its agenda-ridden husk down our throats"!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Many times, constants are the result of the unit system. Chose the right unit system, and the multiplier is unity.

There is no reason why we couldn't work in a unit system in which pV = nT

Yes, but that does not mean that the constants don't exist. C exists as it has units even if you chose a unit system where its value is 1. Yes choosing a convient unit system makes things easier, but there is no unit system that does this across the board. You are just moving your constants around.

And yes I know that there are also unitless constants like the fine structure constant. The point is that they exist and we have measured them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sure it's very important in Grand Unified Cat Theory (a branch of 'Cat Length and Weight Studies', I believe
[*]).

A constant in physics is not so much an admission of 'we don't know why' as a statement to the effect 'we can't know why'. The standard model doesn't (can't) predict the masses of any of it's particles; AFAIK it also doesn't explain why there are only three families of them.

It would be nice if our physical theories could derive all the physical constants, so that we weren't in some Leibnitzian 'best of all possible worlds', but in the only possible world. Of course, the anthropicists might be right and there very well might not be a reason why the mass of an electron is 0.5 MeV.

As a former scientist, I sincerely hope that the number of things we cannot ,even in principle, know is very, very small. This obviously forms part of my objection to ID; introducing more things we can't possibly know is bad, mkay?

[* i.e. CLAWS ]

I see what you are getting at, but then again I was always more interested in experimental physics than theoretical physics. I think that is more an interest in how the universe works instead of why the universe works.

 

[DeviousB]

And yes I know that there are also unitless constants like the fine structure constant. The point is that they exist and we have measured them.

In the case of the FSC, wasn't this initially a mathematical 'trick' to make the equations work, and only later was it shown that you could measure it experimentally through the Hall effect?

IIRC, the agreement between the empirical and predicted values of α is one of the verifications of QED.

 

[pgwenthold]

In fact, quantum physicists work in eV (electron Volts) for just that reason. eV is the unit of mass, of energy and (in reciprocal) the unit of time.

It's a lot easier when things like the permeativity of a vacuum and Bohr magnetons are 1, that's true. I was thinking that (even pulled out my modern physics book), but decided to go with something more readily familiar.

Of course, if you redefine your units so that a particular formula has it's ugly constant reduced to '1', then a load of other formulae involving the same terms are suddenly going to require ugly constants of their own.

But really it's just showing that there aren't any "natural units."

Why are the physical constants what they are? Because we chose a given unit set.

[note: this doesn't always work - additive constants, for example, are zero or non-zero, and that is unit independent]

 

[Ratatoskr]

1) So having said once, "The following are irreducibly complex...", only to have that complexity reduced, there argument is basically "Ah, but the following are irreducibly complex..."?!

What is this?! The "ID" of the gaps argument?!

2) They could also be explained by panspermia without recourse to an intelligent designer. They could also be explained by evoultion if we are allowed to invent unknown intermediaries like they do!

3) Sorry, you appear to have got cut off there. Was the whole sentence "Admitted ID is not a proper scientific theory, yet he thinks it deserves equal time to real science anyway"? Or pehaps "not a proper scientific theory, yet he is still trying to push its agenda-ridden husk down our throats"!

This was just items I remembered after the debate, didn't get a chance to take proper notes unfortunatly.

And yes, I wish I had the time to confront him with these statements, but at the time there was a lot of people who wanted to ask him (and he answered, sort of..)

On point 3) he said he didn't think we should dismiss it as a stupid idea, but it was quite obvious (to me, at least) that there was a certain agenda behind it.

I'm pretty sure there was some reporters there from various student papers, so I'm guessing there will be an article out soon. I'll see what I can find.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yes, but that does not mean that the constants don't exist. C exists as it has units even if you chose a unit system where its value is 1. Yes choosing a convient unit system makes things easier, but there is no unit system that does this across the board. You are just moving your constants around.

But that is what you are saying constants are doing. They are just convenient constant conversions.

Go back to the expression

pV/nT = R

You want to classify R = 1 (pressure unit) L/mol K as a "constant". However, where is the constant in pV = nT?

The only thing the "constant" is telling you is that you are able to interconvert (pressure unit)*L and mol*K directly.

I turn it around. The reason we have constants (for the most part) is to make it convenient to work in a single unit system. As I said above, there apparently is not a "natural unit" system.

 

[Cuddles]

In fact, quantum physicists work in eV (electron Volts) for just that reason. eV is the unit of mass, of energy and (in reciprocal) the unit of time.

Not entirely true. We use units where the speed of light = 1. This means the values of energy, momentum and mass are all equal, but the units are not. Unfortunately we are usually sloppy and write it all as eV, but the actual units are eV, eV/c and eV/c².

Of course, if you redefine your units so that a particular formula has it's ugly constant reduced to '1', then a load of other formulae involving the same terms are suddenly going to require ugly constants of their own.

As you say, this is the whole problem. If we could find a system of units where all constants became equal to 1 we could genuinely say we had found the fundamental system of the universe. As it is, we are left with arbitrary unit systems that we have made up, and get inconvenient constants as a result.

 

[Tez]

some of the constants are dimensionless (e.g. the fine structure constant, ratio of electron to muon mass) - these are the "arbitrary constants we can only measure and not redefine by a change of units". Though there are ideas about how they can arise from more fundamental theories and then be predicted.

 

[hammegk]

Hmmm. Is the real answer 137 rather than 42?

 

[The Atheist]

Hmmm. Is the real answer 137 rather than 42?

I'd be interested in knowing what number of people realise just how extremely clever Douglas Adams was.

I miss that man. He would have been right at home in here.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

" concept is widely held as a creation of Christian right-wingers"

Is this proof that creation does not require intelligence?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Two pages of 'no controversy'. Let's see if we can get to 3.

 

[CFLarsen]

Two pages of 'no controversy'. Let's see if we can get to 3.

Again, you show how disingenuous and dishonest you are.

There is no scientific controversy. There is a political/religious controversy.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Exactamente!