Do you have to be an atheist to be a scientist these days?

Paul – you never answered my question: what is the simplest explanation for the behavior of photons under the The Double Slit experiment?

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,

“the conclusion is inescapable: the single election [being fired at the double slit] leaves as a particle, becomes a wave of potentials, goes through both slits, and interferes with itself to hit the wall like a particle. Mathematically it is even stranger: it goes through both slits, and it goes through neither. It goes through just one, and it goes through just the other. All of these possibilities are in superposition with each other.”

Paz me zee roach. Darwin ist tot.

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.

Frank Tipler: Peer Reviewed papers arguing in favor of Many Worlds:
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.

In my view, the battlelines are not drawn between Intelligent Design Advocates on one side and The Virtuous Defenders of Science and Materialist Reason on the other. 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.

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.

“This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For religious beliefs about the creation of life, see creation myth.

There’s that vaunted scientific “open mind” again.

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.

“Mike” repeats: “You cannot prove that life began according to “Darwinian” — that is, RANDOM — processes.”

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.

“Lurk” said: “Why does Dictionary.com define abiogenesis as “the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.”?

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.

Re: 12

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.

the lack or actuallity of complexity is not a proof of ID or not either way.

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

For those of you who have been following the recent evolution wars in Florida, this conversation (above) is relevant.

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.

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

To be a scientist requires diligence, smarts, and excelling in exams that creationists tend to fail. Science is about knowing how to sort pass bull, knowing how to look for good data and good evidence. Religion and God-belief is utter bull, with virtually none or really crappy evidence. That is why most scientists BECOME atheists.

“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.

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.

Dogma comes in all flavors, including Nature surveys of elitist bodies.

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.

“Mike LaSalle” recycled the tired old creationist canard: “But of course there is NO THEORY to explain how chemical evolution got started on planet Earth.”

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.)

Denyse,
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.

“….despite the fact that almost all the great scientists have admitted the evidence for design.”

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.

Sorry. The grammar made me blush enough to light the room. I should have said, ‘With whom would you leave the repositories of knowledge?’

Denyse O’Leary does not understand actual science, but (like Ann Coulter in Godless) listens well to her mentors at the Dishonesty Institute’s Ministry of Disinformation, Agitation and Propaganda. Her comment “This is despite the fact that almost all the great scientists have admitted the evidence for design.” is as laughably ignorant as her ability to make predictions based on intelligent design creationism (see http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2008/01/oleary_proves_that_id_is_worth.php and http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/01/does-id-predict.html among others).

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