Wave-particle duality is a misunderstood concept that often gets exploited for New Age mushiness. The double slit experiment was done by Young more than 200 years ago, and it doesn’t really carry any metaphysical content. It does carry epistemological content, though, which is that the microscopic world doesn’t follow the logic of the matcroscopic world, and thus constitutes a strong reminder of the epistemic limits of any human system, including science, to completely describe reality. The Uncertainty Principle and Godel’s Theorem serve a similiar caution, and they don’t necessarily imply any particular metaphysics, nor do they rule it out. That’s not as sexy as the premise of ‘What the Bleep do we know, anyway’, but there it is.

I think this is a very important point, and I would respond by asking this reader exactly where in the spectrum between “Macroscopic” and “Microscopic” does he think that Anthropic Principle stops working? I don’t think it’s enough to say, “Oh, well, the Uncertainty Principle only applies to the Quantum world, and Godel’s Theorem is just a prop for Mathematicians with no applicability in the real world.”

That’s quibbling with the facts. If science admits that the Anthropic Bias is a real phenomenon, then it’s legitimate to inquire where these biases begin and end, and to what extent they can be said to be observable in the present via Jungian Synchronicity or whatever.

I simply don’t believe this.

Darwinists will argue that Chaotic Information is not saved or even savable.

I disagree. I think that Information is in fact permanently preserved, and I think the Final Theory will show that this is true.

Darwinists will say that there is no evidence of Saved Information. They will say that there is no evidence of Purpose or Intention at the heart of any Chaos, and therefore we must assume that the universe is inherently Chaotic and un-Saved.

I disagree. I think there is mathematical evidence that Information is permanently encoded in the fabric of space-time.

I would say that, since Chaos Theory is itself a discrete field of study, Chaotic Systems are thus formal systems in the sense that they behave within predictable parameters. That makes any Chaotic System subject to Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem.

So much for “Chaos” as the Final Solution….

They implicitly revive the old manicheistic error postulating the existence of two forces acting against each other: God and an inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent design.

On Manichaeism:

Manichæism

Manichæism is a religion founded by the Persian Mani in the latter half of the third century. It purported to be the true synthesis of all the religious systems then known, and actually consisted of Zoroastrian Dualism, Babylonian folklore, Buddhist ethics, and some small and superficial, additions of Christian elements. As the theory of two eternal principles, good and evil, is predominant in this fusion of ideas and gives color to the whole, Manichæism is classified as a form of religious Dualism. It spread with extraordinary rapidity in both East and West and maintained a sporadic and intermittent existence in the West (Africa, Spain, France, North Italy, the Balkans) for a thousand years, but it flourished mainly in the land of its birth, (Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Turkestan) and even further East in Northern India, Western China, and Tibet, where, c. A.D. 1000, the bulk of the population professed its tenets and where it died out at an uncertain date.

This is also a version of the Gnostic Heresy, which, as I understand it, fumbles on the Problem of Evil, to whit: If God is so all-powerful and intelligent, then why does evil exist at all?

The Gnostics solve the problem by saying that there are two Gods (or two faces of God)– one good, the other evil.

I don’t think the Gnostic Heresy is applicable to Intelligent Design. No one ever said that “Chance” was the same thing as Evil.

In any case, if you were looking for Universal Forces in Opposition to back up your argument for Gnosticism, you might consider Entropy: the most pure example of oppositional forces in an epic contest. (Though actually entropy reminds me more of air escaping from a balloon. Not much drama there.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

And this lovely bit:

Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence’s that support the faith, as well as to “popularize” our ideas in the broader culture.

Even so, Intelligent Design stands on its own owing to the work of Brandon Carter in the 1970s and then Tipler and Barrow in the 80s, and Tipler with his OPT in the early 1990s.

All of the hubbub around the Anthropic Principle occurred long before the Wedge document was ever conceived.

In addition, the major claim against any flavor of ID is that it does not conform to the rigors of Popperian epistemology.

But has we have already seen, the best solutions for the most profound questions may not always “conform to some criteria for what is or isn’t science.”

About ISSR

ISSR was founded in 2001 under the inaugural presidency of mathematical physicist and Anglican priest Sir John Polkinghorne. The presidency then passed to Professor George Ellis and the current president is Sir Brian Heap.
Aims

Our central aim is the facilitation of dialogue between the two academic disciplines of science and religion, one of the most important current areas of debate in terms of understanding the nature of humanity. This includes both the enhancement of the profile of the science-religion interface in the public eye, as well as the safeguarding of the quality and rigour of the debate in the more formal, academic arena.

also…

Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or “scientific” creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

That last is quite a good point.

I highly recommend his book, The Fabric of Reality.

PZ Myers, is it?

He does a compelling job of deconstructing Wells’ piece…. here’s the money line:

Wells Wrote:

“Yet Mendel�s theory of genetics contradicted Darwin�s, and Darwinists rejected Mendelian genetics for half a century.”

Mendel�s work was heavily promoted by evolutionary biologists who thought saltation (mutational jumps) drove evolution. The big problem for natural selection was that although Mendelian inheritance explained how favourable traits could persist and not be diluted out, the traits appeared to be binary, you either had a trait or not (incomplete dominance not withstanding). How could it explain traits that appeared to have continuous variation? This was solved between 1918 by statistician RA Fischer and the 30�s by Sewall Wright, JSB Haldane and others, leading to the �Modern synthesis� of the 40�s which fused Darwin�s ideas with population genetics, leading to one of the most fruitful research programs in biology until the modern molecular biology era. In no sense could Darwinian evolutionary biologists be said to �reject� Mendelian inheritance. Indeed Fischer saw biometry as a way of reconciling the discontinuous nature of Mendelian Inheritance with the continuous variation seen in nature.

My response overall is…. so what? Personally, I have no problem at all accepting the mechanical nature of evolution — however it occurred. For me, I am less interested in how the pins fall than how the Bowling Alley got there in the first place.

I really don’t care what stupid people believe, but I can’t tolerate their constant lying.

The teacher of intelligent design magic would say “The Magic Man Done It.”

That would be the entire lesson.

Given a choice betwen your opinion and the opinion of a Federal judge, I am constrained to side with the judge who ruled: “We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” – Judge John Jones, Harrisburg, PA, December 20, 2005. Contrary to the title of your article, Intelligent Design is Creationism.

Judge Jones also stated in his opinion: “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.” It is a historical fact that the Discovery Institute (called by some the “Dishonesty Institute”) and its Fellows and its fellow travelers lie. They lie about evolution and they lie about biology and they lie about science. And their Big Lie – that you have bought hook, line and sinker – is “Intelligent Design is Not Creationism.”

(In an article today, Panda’s Thumb discusses how Dishonesty Institute Fellow Jonathan Wells spouts misinformation and disinformation – and lies – about a report in Science Daily. Among the commentors is the lead investigator of the article (who has a PhD in molecular microbiology), who says “I?d like to strongly support the view advocated this page.” – see http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/how-stupid-do-t.html )

Mike hallucinated a hypothesis that someone has said: “You are hereby advised that whenever you are forced to use the two words ‘Intelligent’ and ‘Design’ together in the same sentence, you must ALWAYS include ‘Creationism’ as a qualifier.”

Not exactly. Dr. Barbara Forrest’s paper, ?Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals,” available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf explains the very good reasons for this usage. Dr. Forrest is a philosopher specializing in the philosophy of science, and is a nationally-recognized speaker and expert witness.

Mike then had the audacity to write: “Conflating Intelligent Design with biblical creationism is a facial attempt to mold the minds of people…” I challenge anybody who reads this blatant lie to Google the term “cdesign proponentsists” to see who originally incompetently conflated intelligent design with biblical creationism. Wait until you realize what they were trying to do – and got caught and busted in Federal court with the scam they were trying to pull.

Mike mentioned: “I haven’t mentioned the Wedge Document because it is not relevant to the point.”

You title your article “Intelligent Design is Not Creationism” and then have the gall to claim that the Dishonesty Institute’s propaganda manifesto is not relevant? Again, I challenege anybody reading this to actually look at the wedge document – http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html – and determine whether intelligent design is based on science or religion. (You may also find this summary article useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Mike wrote: “And professor Tipler, it should be noted, has signed the Dissent from Darwinism.” So are we supposed to be impressed that the Dishonesty Institute has worked their way up to scamming 704 scientists from around the planet (or 0.07% of all working scientists) to sign a mild anti-Darwinism statement? As has been pointed out elsewhere, there are more scientists than that in detoxification centers or insane asylums.

This refers to the
Ben Stein movie:
“EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”,
which is scheduled for an April 18, 2008 release.

In the meantime,
3 “EXPELLED” movie trailers
and a Bill O’Reilly interview can be viewed
at: http://www.ExpelledTheMovie.com/video.php

.

That proof has been acknowledged and credited by a name-brand physicist in the person of David Deutsch.

And professor Tipler, it should be noted, has signed the Dissent from Darwinism.

But as usual, the critics of Intelligent Design — in their desperation to conflate ID with creationism — will stick to their text no matter what evidence they are faced with.

Perhaps we should stick to public relations after all…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEPqLKErXpI

Okay. Let’s talk about the science. Irreducible Complexity. That’s it. If there is no IC, there is no ID. I am not a biologist, but biologists that I trust say that IC is a crock. IC didn’t hold up at Dover, and it doesn’t hold up under peer review. It is an argument from ignorance. It says, “I can’t figure out how this could have happened without a guiding hand, so I’ll just accept that explanation.” It is the end of science, and it is the end of the inquiry. Godidit. The end.

So, what’s the science? What are you going to teach the kids?

Incidently, the date of the Wedge Document is not relevevant. What is relevant is that it outlines a course of action against science that would be a disaster for our country, and it is connected with the main purveyors of ID, the Discovery Institute. The guys who formulated the Wedge Strategy are the same guys who are pushing ID. To think this is irrelavent would be incredibly naieve, or incredibly dishonest.