If you have a kid who wants to go into science, you and the kid had better see this documentary, to be released in April. Either your kid should just sell out now and become an atheistic materialist or your kid needs a strategy to survive an astoundingly hostile atmosphere.
Recently, theExpelled movie’s line producer Mark Mathis (yes, the former TV news hound) and I discussed (Intelligent Design hits Hollywood! Will Hollywood hit back?) the way in which legacy media bighairs and establishment science bores close ranks to pretend that the universe shows no evidence of intelligent design. And - as the film, to be released in April, shows - they do not scruple to wreck the careers of anyone who knows better and says so.
This is despite the fact that almost all the great scientists have admitted the evidence for design. It was what converted the world’s best respected academic atheist,Antony Flew, who talks abut that in his book, There IS a God.
But mediocre men are often unaffected by what moves their betters … they do not rise to the experience of the ideas themselves, they simply repeat them as dull mantras, collect their pay, and stump off home.
Anyway, a while back, Mark and I had talked about how to get across to people the problem we face: Increasingly, tax-supported science at universities is in the hands of dogmatic and unimaginative atheists with a vested interest in denying evidence of design in the universe or life forms. Here’s what I suggested:
You asked me to consider the question of how to interest the public in a Big Idea.
I’d suggest that we look at how disturbing social trends relate to the Big Idea.
For example, look at the enormous growth in the last half century of genuine admiration of self-destructive lifestyles and behaviour. You can see it clearly by looking at the difference between traditional culture heroes and modern ones.
The Man Called Cash, for example, had his problems with drugs, but he wasn’t making records that called June a bitch and threatening to whack her around. He was divorced, but he wasn’t a deadbeat dad. And he didn’t celebrate his drug problems; he overcame them.
How times change! Entertainment media shamelessly cash in on today’s celebration of loser lifestyles in rap music.
Historically, this is highly unusual. There is nothing “natural” about exalting self-destructive, criminal lifestyles. It was more natural for my peers to admire Neil Armstrong and Terry Fox than for today’s teens to admire rappers and drunken celebs exposing their posteriors.
How did it come about? One direct cause is atheistic materialism as the defacto public religion.
Atheistic materialism neither proposes any type of behaviour as correct nor holds anyone responsible for their behaviour. The wrong behaviour just means that you don’t spread your selfish genes.
But many people do not care whether they spread their selfish genes or not. So self-destructiveness and irresponsibility are merely some choices among many.
No, most viewers won’t care about the Big Idea for its own sake. But they may care about how it filters down to our families, and our communities.
Here’s the case: If the universe is designed, being a drug-addled, louse-infested, violent loser ISN’T cool, it’s NOT just one choice among many. It’s a denial of reality.
And the Expelled team asks only for an hour and a half of viewers’ time to explain why intellectual freedom must be restored in the sciences so that the case for a designed universe can be heard.
A powerful weapon, that, for the viewer.
Readers, what do you think?
And while I am here anyway:
Today at Salvo:
Here’s my recent piece in Salvo, a pop sci mag that either rocks or shocks, depending on whether you think that popular science MUST front for materialism (it doesn’t). Here’s my article about a nutritionist who did a study on whether prayer helps, found that it did, and was subjected to a savage onslaught from materialists and religious conventionalists, all of whom just wanted to shut him down.
Today at The Mindful Hack:
Row between philosophers over consciousness
pulls better than your average Britcom
Are you a believer? You must be if you think that the future is real
The most significant thing about ex-atheist Antony Flew is that he was NOT convinced by an old tyme religious experience but by the evidence from science. So what gives with the “new atheists”?
One reason why The Golden Compass tanked at the box office?
Today at the Post-Darwinist
Evolutionary psychology: Where do I go to get my tax money back? These profs know less than I do!
A thought for your Evolution Sunday service … On why you shouldn’t hold one!
Today at The Design of Life blog
Was Mendel wrong? Yes, he might have been. Amazingly. here for more. That’s part of what cutting edge science is about. Authorities could be wrong. (If your kid is being taught materialism in science class, encourage the kid to go to Design of Life blog. The book is even better, actually.)
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
» Do you have to be an atheist…? said,
February 10, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Palinurus said,
February 10, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Paul Burnett said,
Denyse has been shilling for the Dishonesty Institute since at least December 19 2007 - see http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/expelled-intell.html for an expose on how she was helping “game” the Amazon system for the book Pandas II, The Design of Life. Another report on Denyse is at http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/oleary.html - “She seeks
advice from scientists chosen on the basis of religious doctrine.”
It’s actually sad that Denyse is helping spread the Big Lie that scientists have to be atheists. Granted, there aren’t many Biblical literalist scientists who think the Universe was created in 4004 BC, but even the Baptists say “It’s been the conventional wisdom that scientists are atheists, but not so, by a long shot.” - http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=6691
February 10, 2008 at 9:53 pm
amfortas said,
Do you have to be a Christian to be ArchBishop of Canterbury? Ahh, wrong question. Is the Pope a Catholic? That’s better.
When the next Dark Ages come (not long I fear) who would you leave the repositories of knowledge with? Monks in a Monastery or some PhDs in an underground torus?
Who has the track record?
February 11, 2008 at 8:47 am
amfortas said,
February 11, 2008 at 8:52 am
Paul Burnett said,
What do you mean by “torus?” A torus is the mashed-doughnut base of a pillar, or an anchor-ring (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus ). Are you referring to some obscure meaning of “torus” - or did you mean something else?
February 11, 2008 at 10:01 am
Religious kids are corrupt fools said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:27 am
FVThinker said,
How utterly laughable and deluded!! O’Leary distinguishes herself again with the most consistently parroted nonsense. Do you want to know the FACTS Denyse? In a very recent survey, of the (I think) 500+ members our our National Academy of Sciences (some of our nation’s most respected thinkers), fully 74% of the them specifically identify themselves as atheists. If you include those that deny any sort of personal god, it brings the total up to something like 93%. Apparently by “great scientists”, you mean “people who call themselves scientists and support my worldview”. (google “national academy of sciences personal god” for many references)
Honestly Denyse, saying things like make you look ridiculous. Do some research before you spray dogma all over the place.
February 11, 2008 at 1:56 pm
jjtaup said,
“XXX’s WebSense indicates you are attempting to access a site that is currently disallowed…”
So I’d best not attempt any investigations during my waking hours. Similar to the predicament one finds oneself when conducting research under the auspices of the NIH or NSF. The problem isn’t so much that one must NOT believe in God, but that one MUST believe Man to be such.
Now, where can I find the monks?
How can we know this is true? Simple example: Billion, trillion, gazillion dollar expenditure on drugs that don’t cure, can’t cure, were never intended to cure, will never cure. Go talk to your doctor. Then go talk to a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine (as one example). Assuming both know their practice, you’ll hear explanations that are different, and complementary. Problem is that Western science (as is widely practiced) ignores its obverse, not because there is no empirical evidence, but because the empirical evidence does not conform to expectations.
It’s always been that way, and as our worldwide culture subscribes ever more fully to the philosophy of “the experts surely must know,” it descends into a sort of intellectual tyranny.
February 11, 2008 at 2:09 pm
FVThinker said,
Just why do you think that science is somehow some closed group that is not allowed to follow evidence of intelligence? The fact is that untold glory and recognition would come to any scientist who found and demonstrated anything that would support intelligence in creation. There is NO motivation to suppress anything in this regard.
If you ID-ers can come up with some argument better than “I don’t understand it, therefore God did it”, then you can sit at the table of intellectual discourse.
February 11, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
If you ID-ers can come up with some argument better than “I don’t understand it, therefore God did it”, then you can sit at the table of intellectual discourse.
Trash talk.
Your actual argument seems to be, “If I don’t understand it, then Chaos did it.”
But of course there is NO THEORY to explain how chemical evolution got started on planet Earth.
Is there? Hello?
Francis Crick says it was aliens.
You say Chaos Done It.
Which is true? Both or neither?
Yeah, baby. Science ist tot!
February 11, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Paul Burnett said,
That’s called “abiogenesis” and there are more robust theories about abiogenesis than there are about intelligent design creationism. See, for instance, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob
“Mike” also rejoiced, multiply mis-quoting Friedrich Nietzsche: “Yeah, baby. Science ist tot!” (Actually, that should be “Die Wissenschaft is tot!”)
While, in their ignorance, that is many a creationist’s fervent wish, it is of course far from true - and far from possible. In the last few thousand years, science and materialism have become much too deeply ingrained into the very fabric of human society to be declared dead.
Go ahead, try to convince everybody that the many advances of science and materialism are evil and must be done away with. No more healthy food or drinkable water, no more medical science or prolonged life or low infant mortality rate, no more technological toys - no more televisions or iPods or computers or internet. Let’s all go back to the Dark Ages of ignorance, and live in caves. Yeah, right…
Are you really sure that’s what you want? And how many volunteers do you think you will get? This reminds me of the anti-materialist hippies of the 1960s who wanted to become peasants and return to the “simple life.”
(By the way, I’m about halfway through Neil Shubin’s wonderful new book, Your Inner Fish ( http://www.yourinnerfish.com ), “a journey into the 3.5 billion-year history of the human body.” It’s a delightful adventure in paleontology - at least for those who don’t think humanity was created in 4004 BC. Highly recommended.)
February 11, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
What nasty, mean verbiage you spew, Paul.
And yet you cannot answer the simplest question: Where is the credible theory for life’s origins?
You filibuster and you personalize the arguments because you have no answer for the question.
Let me repeat it: Where is the THEORY for the chemical origin of life on earth?
Yeah, baby. Darwin IST TOT!
February 11, 2008 at 6:49 pm
jjtaup said,
Would you say that an open mind expects God to sit, strip, and be examined upon command? How many angels can dance upon the head of a pin? Silly question? Really about as sensible as expecting God to occupy eleven dimensions folded up too tightly to see except during prayer when He hovers just above the supplicant. I would be converted to atheism in a heartbeat were I to spot Him in such a compromising position, and therefore am astounded at what it is an atheist denies when he affirms his faith.
It really should be about meaning rather than technical definition, which is where a great many learned scholars make their gravest mistake. So God doesn’t exist?! Fine, I’m not going to spend my entire life proving the obvious. Nor do electrons. Nor do thoughts. Nor does love. No? Put them in a bottle. Let me hold them. Make them as objective as a slab of concrete. They’re just the nexus of an assortment of fanciful players and interactions contrived to tell a pleasing tale. But you’d be surprised at the number of scientists who believe they’re real.
Intelligence, while a really, really good thing, is overrated, as are the methods of science. The modern age has constructed a paradigmatic prison constructed of matter and energy (and throw in whatever else will improve the taste), and is gratified that it finds nothing greater than that when it constrains its sight accordingly.
February 11, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Paul Burnett said,
Charles Darwin, born 12 February 1809, did inded die over a century ago, on 19 April 1882. Yes, he is dead, and if it brings some comfort to you to know that he is dead, I am happy - though vaguely disappointed - for you.
I certainly claim no expertise in abiogenesis (”the chemical origin of life on earth”), but if you go to Google and enter “THEORY for the chemical origin of life on earth” you get 131,000 hits. So it’s there. But I’m not going to read them and attempt to regurgitate them for you.
I realize you are probably depending on such resources as “Problems with the Natural Chemical “Origin of Life” (updated)” (at http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838 ), but I am obliged to remind you that that is only one side of the debate.
February 11, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
I certainly claim no expertise in abiogenesis (”the chemical origin of life on earth”), but if you go to Google and enter “THEORY for the chemical origin of life on earth” you get 131,000 hits. So it’s there. But I’m not going to read them and attempt to regurgitate them for you.
I find you quite a piece of work, Paul.
Nice way NOT to answer the question.
But of course you HAVE NO ANSWER to the very simple query, and instead you rant, cite a google search, and complain that you haven’t got time for such details.
I see.
February 11, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Paul Burnett said,
That’s a valid observation, a statement of fact. I am not a scientist, and do not have the answer. But that does not mean there is not an answer. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
In my humble opinion, science has a far better grasp of how abiogenesis came to pass than the “Goddidit” miracles of creationists, or the “arguments from incredulity” or “arguments from ignorance” of the evolution deniers.
February 11, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Alex Taylor said,
“This is despite the fact that almost all the great scientists have admitted the evidence for design.”
You know this is untrue. If it wasn’t, why would you even ask “Do you have to be an atheist to be a scientist these days?” Not just biology, but geology, radiometrics, anthropology, paleontology…virtually every scientific discipline, around the world, knows evolution happened. Evolution is not believed, it is accepted by scientists by the overwhelming weight of data and evidence.
“But of course you HAVE NO ANSWER to the very simple query, and instead you rant, cite a google search, and complain that you haven’t got time for such details.”
Citing a google search, especially on scholar.google, is a legit means of answering a question. Even scientist search with google. Why have someone unknown like Paul answer it when it’s been already answered by countless scientists who post their names, degrees, and university titles in peer-reviewed scientific journals? A large problem is that creationists do not know how to search into the scientific database or are unable to understand it.
February 11, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
So…. you BELIEVE that the answer exists… somewhere. But you don’t know really KNOW the answer. You just believe it exists without evidence.
That doesn’t sound like science.
February 11, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
Why have someone unknown like Paul answer it when it’s been already answered by countless scientists who post their names, degrees, and university titles in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
This is a disingenuous response and a dodge.
Francis Crick is a noble prize winner and the co-discoverer of DNA. He thinks ALIENS DID IT.
So did Sir Fred Hoyle.
Both are peer-reviewed scientists.
Darwin IST TOT
February 11, 2008 at 10:22 pm
amfortas said,
Personally I love science. I revel in the discoveries that science has made over the past few hundred years. They have been hoooogly beneficial. Oddly, most scientists used to be the most believing souls who held Big G and his creation in awe. Hence their searches throughout it.
I have no doubt too that in time, with the application of a lot of intelligence and effort and persistence, more and more answers will come from scientists. But to date Mike is quite correct. Scientists have not found answers to the really deep questions of origin, other than to suggest theories (explanatory structures that incorporate known facts and observations - minus the few bits here and there that inconveniently don’t fit) that are even more fantastical than saying Big G made it all.
The question that IDers and Scientists have to resolve in order to find common ground is just HOW God uses mechanisms like evolution and quarks (and no doubt many more ‘mysterious ways’) to achieve His designed outcomes. Denying the possibility, as so many scientists do, that there is a God behind it all, is to me as useless as insisting that Big G made it all from sod all just 6000 years ago in an odd fit of whimsey.
Origin is just one af many matters that have taxed the minds and souls of men for all of those 6000 years - and then some. The WHY is unlikely to be answered by scientists.
February 11, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Paul Burnett said,
The state wants to put the word “evolution” into the revised educational standards, but some county school boards (primarily in the northwest part of Florida, also known as “Floribama”) have passed “Voluntary Ignorance Resolutions,” either wanting creationism taught, or asking that the Dishonesty Institute’s code-phrase “explore the weaknesses of evolution” be inserted in the new standard, or just asking that other theories be taught. (Of course, there are no other theories that they will name.)
“But Debra Walker, chairman of the Monroe County School Board, urged passage of the new standards as is. She said the current “political meltdown over Darwinian theory” was proof that too many people had received a poor-quality science education. She noted that the school districts with some of the lowest science scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test were the ones complaining loudest about the new standards. “Do we want these boards setting science policy in Florida? I think not.” (Read the whole article at http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-evolution1208feb12,0,3927839.story )
That says a lot. Do you want to return to the Dark Ages of ignorance, or participate in the 21st Century?
The evolution-deniers are not just active in Florida and in this forum. Texas recently forced a science curriculum advisor to resign because she dared mention evolution favorably (Google “Chris Comer”). South Carolina just had a creationist almost sabotage the new textbook choosing process.
February 12, 2008 at 10:28 am
Mike LaSalle said,
….”explore the weaknesses of evolution” be inserted in the new standard, or just asking that other theories be taught. (Of course, there are no other theories that they will name.)
This thread is indeed quite telling. I have asked you, Paul, as a self-appointed representative of the Darwinian status-quo, to provide a SINGLE COHERENT THEORY to explain life’s origins.
It is plainly evident from this thread that you CANNOT DO SO.
Nor can anyone else.
“Randomness” is a cornerstone of the Theory of Evolution, but RANDOMNESS is in itself is INSUFFICIENT to explain the origin of life on earth.
Darwinism is dead.
February 12, 2008 at 10:50 am
Artfldgr said,
Complexity actually changes based on knowlege.
so to assert complexity and lack of understanding as a proof of design, is a empty and false argument
it says nothing as to whether things are designed or not… but it DOES sucker people into taking a side in an ideological (religious) battle, in which the more powerful political group can force in some way the silence of the other.
its a power issue, not a design issue.
pretty much all the arguments will end up going the way of the feminist equality argument is going once we KNOW more.
its sadly ironically humourous in the great goof sort of way that everyone is getting caught up in a over inflated argument that is based on asmimovs assertion that any technology or science sufficiently advanced will appear as magic.
basically you have two groups and the majority of arguiers are not people who are part of the core knowlege or details, but every thing else.
what was the saying?
americans dont think they have opininos and ideas….
same here
February 12, 2008 at 10:53 am
Lurk said,
That’s right aliens did it. What an interesting way to say that it is far beyond our reach to determine the origin of life, so we’ll blame some one else.
Still, the question remains (just not on this planet), “What is the origin of life?” If not here, whereever.
February 12, 2008 at 12:36 pm
jjtaup said,
Golden calves need not be declared dead. They are dead. And to their graves they drag their devotees in misery believing but one more sacrifice will appease their god. The concern is not that materialism will not survive humanity, but that humanity will not survive materialism.
The central dogma of self-pronounced atheistic science is that “Material IS.” Brief bouts of hormonal proxies of transcendental joy notwithstanding, the dimensions of the prison is knowable. The question is never asked within this church, that should those dimensions exceed every possible cardinality, what then can it possibly mean to know them? Alas, every religion as practiced–being the product of men–burns heretics. But, having peeked at ever so slender a sliver of light from the visage of God, some are charged to endure that far more meager fire. That, and not 4004 B.C., is the meaning of the article.
It bears shouting from the highest mountaintops, that while the intricacies of abiogenesis may yield an epic script, and that the spires of modern science are testament to the power of materialism, power still corrupts. One more time, please …
“The question that IDers and Scientists have to resolve in oreder to find common ground is just HOW God uses mechanisms like evolution and quarks… The WHY is unlikely to be answered by scientists.”
Or at least scientists who don’t believe the question exists.
February 12, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Paul Burnett said,
If you’ve never been to Antarctica , why do you BELIEVE it exists? Perhaps “Antarctica” (or “Hoboken”) is just an elaborate hoax.
Do you BELIEVE the Holocaust took place? Were you there?
Do you BELIEVE the sun is the center of our solar system, or do you BELIEVE that the earth does not move and everything revolves around it? What evidence do you have that you have produced yourself to prove or disprove geocentrism or heliocentrism?
Or are you willing to BELIEVE what a whole bunch of other people have said and written?
Do you BELIEVE that 100000037 and 100000039 are both prime numbers? Or do you BELIEVE what other people have calculated. If you haven’t worked it out for yourself, how can you be sure?
Do you BELIEVE in magnetism? Or electrons? Or quarks?
February 12, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Paul Burnett said,
That’s disappointing that they have an old discredited definition. Try a more thorough discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis - “…the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life. Scientific consensus is that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 billion years ago, when water vapor first liquefied, and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C ), iron and sulfur points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.”
(The article also points out at the top: “This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For religious beliefs about the creation of life, see creation myth.
So let’s stick with the more modern definition, please.
February 12, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
If you’ve never been to Antarctica , why do you BELIEVE it exists? Perhaps “Antarctica” (or “Hoboken”) is just an elaborate hoax.
False analogy. It is within my capacity to PROVE to that Antarctica exists by visiting it.
You cannot prove that life began according to “Darwinian” — that is, RANDOM — processes.
No proof. Not even a THEORY.
Not a shred of evidence whatsoever.
You appeal to ignorance.
You are credulous. You are a true believer and defender of your faith.
Aliens did it.
Darwin ist tot.
February 12, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Paul Burnett said,
Can you prove that life began according to the miracles of creationism? Or panspermia? (Tell me you’re nor serious!) What PROVABLE alternative hypothesis do you offer to the beginnings of life?
Seriously, read Neil Shubin’s book, Your Inner Fish (see comment #1 above). It explains a lot of this.
“Mike” repeats: “Darwin ist tot.” Okay, okay, I’ve already admitted that Darwin is dead. Thank you for remembering. If Darwin wasn’t dead, he would be 199 years old today. That alone would make him famous.
February 12, 2008 at 6:15 pm
amfortas said,
As the philosophers say, ITATWD*
Will the alien sludge that first made the gross error of making life - by accident I’m sure, please raise a tentacle, or bubble or something. We won’t sluice you away. Promise. We just want to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Just look at what has happened since!
*(Its Turtles all the way down).
February 12, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
Can you prove that life began according to the miracles of creationism? Or panspermia? (Tell me you’re nor serious!) What PROVABLE alternative hypothesis do you offer to the beginnings of life?
You are here because you want to defend the honor of fair Science from the ravishes of those filthy “Creationists”. Is that about it?
Your problem is that you are trying to prove that all swan’s are white (that Randomness is the First and Only Cause), without first attempting to falsify the claim, and denying without proof that black swans might exist.
I have no idea if Aliens Done It. Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle seem to think so. That’s good enough for me to say it’s possible.
The Alien Theory is not impossible.
And the Anthropic Principle punches big gapping holes in Darwinian Randomness.
Darwin. Ist. Tot.
February 12, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Paul Burnett said,
That’s true. That’s another illustration of the “Omphalos” hypothesis, sometimes called “Last Thursdayism” (”the world might as well have been created last Thursday.” - or five minutes ago - prove I’m wrong.) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
“Mike” said: “You are here because you want to defend the honor of fair Science from the ravishes of those filthy “Creationists”. Is that about it?”
That’s certainly not the way I would put it. I would rather live in the 21st century than the Bronze Age, and I thereby choose my belief systems accordingly.
But I am amused that you sit at your computer, putting your support for miracles onto the internet; you probably drive a car and watch a television; you possibly have scars of medical procedures on your body (everybody has at least one such, by the way); you possibly have in your lifetime taken a pill or an injection or two that has made you well or even saved your life; you drink clean water and eat healthy food (except for the occasional Twinkie) - and you rail against 21st century materialism. Don’t you find that the least bit hypocritical?
February 12, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Squiggy said,
There’s that vaunted scientific “open mind” again.
February 13, 2008 at 6:00 am
Mike LaSalle said,
“There’s your Minister of Science: honor bound to expand the frontiers of knowledge. Except that he’s also Chief Defender of the Faith …”
Delicious irony.
How fitting those words are for today’s arch-Darwinists who refuse to acknowledge the simple idea that Randomness is not itself a Cause.
MP3 | quote page
Planet of the Apes (1968)
February 13, 2008 at 10:06 am
Mike LaSalle said,
So which side are you on? Do you believe in Chaos or do you believe in Order?
It seems to be a question that defines your very relationship with the world you inhabit.
But if you want a “materialist” explanation for things, The Omega Point Theory is a peer-reviewed proof for the existence of God by anyone’s definition.
Many unimaginative scientists dismiss The Omega Point Theory as requiring too many improbable conditions to be true.
But of course, the Many Worlds Interpretation of the universe has become an increasingly convincing model for top scientists in the field of Quantum Mechanics.
If Many Worlds is the true condition of the universe, then — in some universes — all of Tipler’s conditions for the OPT would be true. Thus it seems obvious that Tipler’s Theory is plausible in some parts of the Multiverse.
The Omega PointTheory assumes that God (the Omega Point) will emerge as a Final Nexus of the Mulitverse. This Super-Intelligent Being would be “conscious” as-it-were of all possible universes.
In other words, if Tipler’s OPT is true, then God is “Aware” of our universe just as He is Aware of all possible universes in the Multiverse.
If the Multiverse is true, then the OPT is true.
If the OPT is True, than God is True epistemologically.
February 18, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Paul Burnett said,
THis starts off sounding you’re referring to the Yahweh / Jehovah God of Genesis. It almost sounds like you’re advocating Young Earth Creationism - 4004 BC and all that.
Mike says “The lines are between those who believe in God ? those who assume that Teleology is the explicit background condition of the universe ? and those who believe that uncharted Random Chaos is the First Cause and the Last Cause.”
That’s not a fair statement, and I’m sure you know it isn’t. From where I stand, teleology is closely related to reading chicken entrails - but then I’ve never taken a formal philosophy course.
Your bogus strawman “uncharted Random Chaos” is impossible. It would imply that the physical constants of the universe are randomly variable, which would mean nothing would work, nothing would be repeatable, nothing would last. That’s simply not the way things are.
Over billions of years, the very specific laws of physics and chemistry, at the sub-atomic, atomic and molecular level remain contant - they are not random chaos by any means. Over billions of years, random motions of atoms and molecules, acting under very specific fixed laws governing their interactions, with energy inputs mediated by sun and tide and wind and vulcanism and lightning, cause different atoms and molecules to combine in ways which remain governed by the fixed specific laws of physics and chemistry - not random chaos.
Randomly and occasionally, a unique concatenation of atoms and molecules arise which are capable of doing something never done before, of agglomerating differently in a way that lets them store energy. Over the millions of square miles of the earth’s surface, over billions of years, an invisibly small group of molecules did something that had not been done before - it became life. Granted, the chances of this happening were not one in a billion or a trillion but much less likely than that. And yet life happened.
Or do you simply think God waved his magic wand and said “Presto - here’s the Earth and Adam and all that.”
We’ve talked about “The Omega Point Theory” here before. I like time travel science fiction, too. If you’ve found your God there, I’m happy for you.
But if you’ve ever heard of Occam’s Razor, I think my fairy tale makes more sense than yours.
February 18, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Tipler_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
I don’t think you will see much in there about 10,000BC, but you’re welcome to argue it if you think it will help your position.
So… you think Multiple Universes are impossible… “science fiction”? Defying Occam’s Razor, is it?
What does Occam’s Razor say about the Double Slit experiment?
The Multiverse is well accepted in Cosmology. Richard Feynman thought it was the case. Ditto John Wheeler, David Deutsch, Stephen Hawking, and more leading cosmologists than not. But you say it’s “science fiction”.
Believe as you will. And yet it moves.
February 18, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Paul Burnett said,
I have no opinion. I am neither a physicist nor a philosopher.
Nor can I see what this has to do with religion or evoltion or intelligent design creationism.
I don’t recall saying I think Multiple Universes are impossible. The concept is a staple of science fiction, from “Star Trek” to Heinlein’s “Number of the Beast” and “Job” to Poul Anderson’s “Time Patrol” and other stories.
February 23, 2008 at 11:31 am
Mike LaSalle said,
Nor can I see what this has to do with religion or evolution or intelligent design creationism.
Two words: cop-out.
For my money, I would bet that light (photons) are not moving relative to us. Instead, we observers are moving - or rather, inflating - relative to light.
That would mean that light is a static entity that does not MOVE at all relative to us.
What is LIGHT, anyway?
Light is divisible to an observable ray (that is, half-wave, half-object) that we call a PHOTON.
From our point of view, photons are singular observable units of light that are moving relative to us and to each other.
Relative to LIGHT - which is constant in time and space - we human observers are massive objects experiencing a gravity-conquering expansion. Thus we observe ourselves living within the controlled bounds of mass and gravity here on Earth. Through the effects of gravity, this mass offers short-term relative compression against the all-powerful Inflation that we observe occurring in the outer reaches of the universe.
But this Inflation is universal, and Hubble’s Expansion of the universe is pervasive from atoms to galaxies, not withstanding the short-term effects of gravity.
From our vantage point, the universe seems to expand when we observe its far-away edges. But here in the CENTER of the Expansion, we feel safe observing this Inflation within the comfortable realm of our massive blue Earth. And light itself appears to move away from us in all directions - and always at the same relative speed.
But if - as I propose - light is NOT moving in either time or space, then its apparent expansion (ie., its light cone) is actually a measure of our relative movement in reference to IT.
Macro observations of the universe confirm that the universe is expanding.
Micro observations of light show us that light ALSO expands - and forms a light cone over time.
When we ‘observe’ a photon, we determine its exact position in time and space relative to any other photon. Thus the Double Slit Experiment confirms that observation of said photon changes its outcome. (When the particle is NOT observed, it reverts to a set of many possible outcomes. That is, it becomes a WAVE. When the particle IS observed, it takes on a definite position in time and space - which makes it a particle.)
Observation of the particle determines its relative size and allows us to confirm its relative expansion via its light cone.
When we do not observe the particle, not only do we not know its relative SIZE, we do not really know for sure if it is expanding or contracting - and by extension, we are not able to observe whether we ourselves are moving forward in time (inflating) or moving backwards in time (deflating).
Thus, in my opinion, Inflation and Contraction are subject to the Full Anthropic Principal.
But perhaps you would rather talk about 4000 BC?
Yay verily.
February 23, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Paul Burnett said,
Light photons (perceived as coming at us from all directions at once, here at the center of the Universe) are actually standing still…while we are moving (or inflating) in all directions (simultaneously), at the speed of light. That makes sense to you? No wonder Tipler makes sense to you.
I want a sample of whatever you’re smoking or injecting.
February 23, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
Perhaps you need a dose of whatever I’m smoking in order to understand the implications of this (old and repeatable) experiment.
To quote from the short film above,
Paz me zee roach. Darwin ist tot.
February 23, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
Yes.
Paul said,
In light of this response, I find it quite ironic that Paul has accused me of using a “straw man” argument.
I am fully cognizant of the fact that the universe at present contains sufficient ORDER for it to host physical laws that provide predictable results.
But that does not say anything about the existence of Chaos as a reliable mathematical model.
“Randomness” is simply the measured amount of uncertainty in a mathematical system.
This is the heart and soul of Darwinism: that random chemical processes within an otherwise closed and orderly system will — over TIME — eventuate in a self-replicating chemical machine we call life.
The trouble with this model is that our current understanding of Chaos does not permit such a complex molecule as DNA to emerge “randomly” over the time allowed — within a period of two billion years or so from the formation of the Earth 5 billions years ago.
Mathematically, it’s practically impossible for a DNA molecule to have emerged “randomly” from known physical laws within that range of time.
Oh well. It’s that darned Anthropic Principle again.
What to do, what to do?
February 28, 2008 at 12:41 pm