There Is No Theory of Evolution

_{February 20, 2007

Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The major claims of evolution are the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. These are required to get from bacteria to baboons. No evolution of these by any means has been observed. They simply appear fully formed in the fossil record and can be observed fully formed in living things today. Given the definition of a theory as a well tested explanation there is no theory of evolution but rather only hypotheses of evolution. Until a hypothetical mechanism is observed doing that which it is claimed it can do these mechanisms remain hypothetical. Honest scientists admit this. For example:

Ã¢â‚¬Å“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.Ã¢â‚¬Â Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007, Source

On the other hand, dishonest scientists applaud suing a public school for adding the following disclaimer to a biology textbook

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

The school was even kind enough to call it a theory instead of an hypothesis. Amazing, isn’t it?

Comments

Dear Mr. Dembski or staff, A high volume site is now linking to this article. Based on google hits, I think there has been over 200,000 views in very short time. The high volume will likely continue permanently although it may not be so dramatic. Also, if Mr. Dembski or staff, could somehow "capture" the evolutionist website he links to (in case it disappears) that would be appreciated. http://mac10.umc.pitt.edu/m/FMPro?-db=ma&-lay=a&-format=d.html&id=2807&-Findconservapedian_{March 20, 2007
March
03
Mar
20
20
2007
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PST}

peanutaxis, There is a definitely a root issue that underlies this argument and that is what it is really about. Some believe that the greatest driver of atheism in the world today is Darwin's theory. It certainly drove Darwin to atheism and there is evidence from its greatest current proponents that they believe the two imply each other. The atheists have used science standards as their justification for teach Darwinism so it is on that playing field that others are competing. Nothing more, nothing less. So knocking other theories is part of the game. Good defense beats mediocre offense all the time but only if the referees call an honest game. I have not seen honest dialect on this issue in the popular or science press. ID would get a fairer hearing in the science community except it is heavily associated with fundamentalist Christian apologetics especially YEC. This forces many Christians or other non-atheists to line up reflexively with the atheists to defend bogus scientific explanations.jerry_{March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PST}

PS: All the above points are obviously open to discussion. After all, they are theories, and not facts...gpuccio_{March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PST}

Some scientists, if not dihonest, really need to understand what the scientific method is about. I don't pretend a deep understanding of the phylosophy of science by anyone who calls himself a scientist, but at least the elementary basics! After reading again shameful statements of this kind: "A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis." (from a "life science educational forum" called "What is life") or the infamous statement, so many times repeated by darwinists, even in peer reviewed articles, that: "evolution is a fact, and not a theory" and that, therefore, it is well superior to banal theories like gravitation and quantum mechanics, my spirit of tolerance is seriously challenged. Therefore, at the cost of seeming repetitive, i will state again that: 1) A scientific theory is never a fact. 2) Facts are observable things. A fact is always true, although its observation, quantification and description can be subject to errors. 3) Hypotheses and theories are of the same kind: a hypothesis is usually intended as the first phase of building a theory, to be veryfied by experimental tests, or just as a simpler form of theory. 4) Scientific theories are coordinated hypothetic models whose purpose is, by means of logical and mathematical modeling, to: a) explain as best as possible known facts. b) make previsions of new facts 5) A scientific theory can never be proved true. Indeed, such a kind of proof is reserved to logical and mathemathical theorems, and is intrinsecally deductive. Scientific theories are inferences, and can be more or less supported by facts (those already known, which caused the birth of the theory, and those which are discovered after, and which confirm the theory's previsions). 6) According to Popper, a theory can be called scientific only if it is, in principle, falsifiable. But not everybody agrees about that. 6) A single, incontrovertible fact can falsify any theory at any moment, although common sense and caution should always be used before rejecting good theories, also in consideration of possible errors mentioned at point 2. 7) Scientific theories can remain valid even if not fully explaining all the known facts, or if their previsions are not completely verified, in the sense that it is always possible to discuss them or modify them, ot just use them as inspiration for further theories. 8) The most important among known facts are those which cannot yet be explained by current theories. And I mean not in the detail, but in principle. Those kind of facts, indeed, can give rise to new, revolutionary, really important point of views. 9) No scientific theory, although supported by facts, need be accepted by everyone. In that sense, ideal "true science" can never have any dogmatic "truth" (that follows from point 5). 10) Real, historical science, instead, is never independent from the culture which generates it. In that sense, it is always more or less biased. 11) Therefore, in real science, a lot of theories can, have been and are being considered "dogmatic truth" by part, often a very large part, of the scientific community, even if scarcely supported by facts (see evolution). 12) In that sense, many scientists are not "honest", not in the sense that they want consciously to deceive, but in the sense that they are acting as scientists without understandig the nature and phylosophy of science, indeed contradicting its fundamental principles with their beliefs and actions (in other words, scientists are not perfect, and more specifically, they are not by definition objective). 13) A few scientists, obviously, may well be consciously deceiving others, to affirm their personal ideas, to defend their personal authority, to keep the echonomical power which comes from such an autority, or for any purpose you can imagine. 14) I don't know the motives, but certainly stating that "a scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world", and arrogantly discarding the correct definition as a vulgar "everyday use of the word" is really beyond any justification.gpuccio_{March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PST}

PA, et al: I was in a bit of a rush above, and now again I need to be off to chain myself to the other PC, the one at the "real" Cyber world of work . . . Kindly examine the discussion here [also linked through my name], then come back on the balance of the case, starting from the functionally specific nature of and probbailities of getting to sufficiently complex information [which is by definition contingent] through lucky noise, and how we respond to the probabilities when our worldvies are/are not at stake. Remember, too, complexity can kick in at about 500 bits worth as a reasonable criterion, given the configuration space that results, ~ 10^150. DNA systems in life forms have three or more orders of magnitude of bit space beyond that, 300 - 500 k GCAT elements. It is fair comment to note that ID supporters and others who question evolutionatry materialism are not necessarily one or more of: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. [You may even like to take a stab at the closing section inter alia on issues of incoherence of such materialism, as say Plantinga often argues, most recently in his review of Dawkins.] Heigh ho, heigh ho . . . [Or, is it "I owe, I owe . . ."] GEM of TKI. PS Hi again T-7, I have been hanging around and couldn't resist this one.kairosfocus_{March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PST}

Dishonesty is to me not about telling a lie in itself, but telling it with the purpose of deception. I think a lie is always dishonest. I'd phrase your definition as telling falsehoods only becomes a lie if you know they are falsehoods and intend to deceive. Now, I'd agree that scientists who insist that evolution is an established fact may not be lying. They may be delusional. A delusional person, of course, is every bit as untrustworthy as a dishonest one. And probably more dangerous. A simple cheat, I think, wouldn't risk everything to destroy another person's life and career just because he's expressing doubts about an orthodoxy.tribune7_{March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PST}

Hi Folks: Remember, once we are in the empirical world, we are dealing not with proof proper but with inferences to best explanation and associated comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory elegance vs simplisticness or ad hocracy. Indeed, we cannot prove beyond all dispute that design produced say DNA -- if we are willing to accept that lucky noise in some form can do somtehing so vastly beyond the probabilistic resources of the observed cosmos. But, at the same time if we accept that say the posts in this blog thread are credibly from agency not lucky noise, we are applying in effect the same sort of probabilistic explanatory filter that ID thinkers use on say DNA, with similar probabilities and digital strings. So then we are being inconsistent, driven by worldview level questions being begged? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PST}

Dishonesty is to me not about telling a lie in itself, but telling it with the purpose of deception. Granted, there are probably some scientists who are dishonest, but I think that it's wrong to generalize all who claim that evolution is a fact as dishonest.WinglesS_{March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PST}

Inunison, Ah, that is an interesting argument! Following the links I can see that the refutation will involve the first premise, and again goes back to whether information can pop out of disorder. (I am now wondering whether even the bonding of two hydrogen atoms involves information)?! Nevertheless that is indeed a powerful argument. I think I may begin praying to the ID: Vishnupeanutaxis_{March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PST}

j & bfast Many worlds and multiverse hypotheses don't pass the giggle test.DaveScot_{March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PST}

wingless LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not accuse scientists of being dishonest. If the shoe fits then yes, let us do just that.DaveScot_{March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PST}

peanutaxis, "Does anyone have any arguments for ID that donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t involve picking holes in other theories? IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d be interested." I think the core issue here is about coded information that we discovered in the biological systems in the past few decades. Perry Marchall put it this way: 1. All languages, codes, protocols and encoding / decoding mechanisms that we know the origin of come from a mind - there are no known exceptions 2. DNA is a language, a code, a protocol, and an encoding / decoding mechanism 3. Therefore DNA came from a mind. You can read further http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheoryqa.htm I can also recommend this book that can be found on line for free: Werner Gitt: In the Beginning was information http://clv.dyndns.info/pdf/255255.pdfinunison_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PST}

Jerry, I guess it makes sense that they talk past each other, since they have completely different world views. It'd be like a hindu and a christian trying to discuss the afterlife. Their underlying assumtions are so different that they're not going to get anywhere. I remember watching a Doctor Phil episode (lol) where he pointed out that many couples argue about money when money is not actually the root issue. I think the same is true of this argument. Unfortunately there is too little evidence one way or another for either to drop their fundamental premise. The ramifications for each party if they are wrong can sadly lead to the scathing, almost demoniac responses such as that of Dougs above, although perhaps this does serve to expose the underlying issues.peanutaxis_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PST}

Patrick, Thanks for the description of ID, it clears up the haziness in my understanding of it somewhat. Sadly I rather think that, largely, ID study begins with the assumtion of an ID, and Darwinism with the assumtion of no ID. It strikes me that [the search for] 'features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause' is actually the search for evidence of an IDer. To deny this would be like Newton formulating his theories, which are evidence of gravity, and then denying that gravity is the cause. So I maintain that what belies the search for evidence of an ID is the desire to prove that an ID exists, and the reverse. With this being the real debate behind the guise of ID or not, the sea shells and continents become VERY relevant. I think Darwinists are presumtuous to trumpet evolution as correct. This is wishful thinking since their premise is that there is no IDer. But IDists are stupid to think they will suddenly unnearth something which proves an ID. This is wishful thinkging since their premise is that there is an IDer. An Ider will never be proven. Does anyone have any arguments for ID that don't involve picking holes in other theories? I'd be interested .peanutaxis_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PST}

Even more magical thinking: Liberal Dawinists claim that their "Theory" (wink wink) actually is capable of making predictions! The only predictions it seems capable of making is that the biology departments at american universities will continue to dillegently work toward the destruction of our Christian America and keep us all crying and moaning over our poor treatment of rapists, murderers, child molesters and filthy arab terrorists. The only thing that Evolution allows a scientist to do is to join the crusade to rip apart the christian fabric of our country. Even I can make that prediction using my knowledge of the Theory of Evolution.Doug_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PST}

peanutaxis, In a comment on another thread last week, I made some comments about this. https://uncommondescent.com/biology/michael-egnor-responds-to-michael-lemonick-at-time-online/#comment-92306 It is comment #28 on the thread in case the link doesn't work. I do not know how to embed links in test yet. Essentially ID and Darwinists talk pass each other and rarely address the same things.jerry_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PST}

peanutaxis,
What infuriates evolutionists is that invoking an intelligent designer is akin to suggesting that an ID made africa and south america LOOK like they fitted together, that [the ID] purposefully put sea shells on top of mountains etc.
That's not a good characterization of the situation. ID is not limited to poking holes in Darwinism (notice I didn't say evolution in general)...that's not even the basic premise.
Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. Intelligent design may therefore be defined as the science that studies signs of intelligence.
Patrick_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PST}

Speaking of "facts", what is gravity? Even Galileo admitted that he didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know what gravity was, and you can ask any physicist today the same question. In Galileo's Dialogue of the Two World Systems, Salviati instructs Simplicio that Ã¢â‚¬Å“what you ought to say that every one knows that it is called gravity. But we do not really understand what principle or what force it is that moves the stones...or what moves the moon around.Ã¢â‚¬Â etc. In his well known Orthodoxy, especially in the famous chapter "discovered" some time ago by Martin Gardner, G. K. Chesterton addresses the "relativity" and "necessity" of a scientific law: "They talked as if the fact that trees bear fruit were just as NECESSARY as the fact that two and one trees make three. But it is not. There is an enormous difference by the test of fairyland; which is the test of the imagination. You cannot IMAGINE two and one not making three. But you can easily imagine trees not growing fruit; you can imagine them growing golden candlesticks or tigers hanging on by the tail. These men in spectacles spoke much of a man named Newton, who was hit by an apple, and who discovered a law. But they could not be got to see the distinction between a true law, a law of reason, and the mere fact of apples falling. If the apple hit Newton's nose, Newton's nose hit the apple. That is a true necessity: because we cannot conceive the one occurring without the other. But we can quite well conceive the apple not falling on his nose; we can fancy it flying ardently through the air to hit some other nose, of which it had a more definite dislike. ... We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the modern sceptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance."rockyr_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PST}

j quoting Barr: "As [the physicist] Peierls explained, 'The [traditional, or Copenhagen, or standard interpretation of] quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.'" There's a slippery slope to the Copenhagen interpretation. In the actual world that is out there, probabilities do, in fact, "collapse" into some definite outcome. This happens all the time. It's only when you speak of "knowledge" that an "observer" is needed. But, of course, this only makes sense since it is only rational/intelligent agents that can "know". Besides, there is the Ashfar experiment that New Scientist has a piece on either last week, or the week before, which calls the Copenhagen interpretation into question. Dave Scot: "They [body plans] simply appear fully formed in the fossil record and can be observed fully formed in living things today." My understanding is that they have found some "intermediate" forms in the Ediacaran beds in Australia. Do you have a good citation as to what has been discovered down there?PaV_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PST}

It seems to me that if evolution was blatently and obviously true - like the earth not being the centre of the universe - then everyone would believe it. Not everyone believes it, so it is not obviously true. Those who don't believe it seek to disprove it, since it conflicts with their world view. And they pick at the holes of the theory, of which there are many. If ID were blatently obviously true then everyone would believe ID to be true. Not everyone does, so it is not obviously true. Those who don't beleive in ID find it conflicts with their world view and seek to disprove it through it's holes. What annoys ID followers is that evolutionists assume evolution to be true and base so many 'explanations' on it, when it is probably the most unproven theory there is. What infuriates evolutionists is that invoking an intelligent designer is akin to suggesting that an ID made africa and south america LOOK like they fitted together, that [the ID] purposefully put sea shells on top of mountains etc. There is no way of proving or disproving this, any more than it is possible to prove or disprove that there are indetectable monkeys following me wherever I go. ID followers will presumably argue that there IS plenty of evidence for an ID - I'm going beyond my scope here - but I'd predict that most or all are not evidence but merely picking holes in evolution. I can imagine two of my friends on both sides of the argument scoffing at each other at how blinded the other is to the obvious truth. But that is why we have science: for impartial, repeatable proof. Often the causes for either world view is God vs. no God. If evolution was proved, this would not disprove a God, and God will never be proved. The net effect is that my friends may as well be viscious enemies because they differ in opinion about whether Archimedes would have preferred one or two umbrellas in his mojito if he were alive today. As a individual who genuinely sits outside the argument, what I see as dangerous and destructive is NOT the effects of believing in an ID or the effects of believing in evolution. In a self-righteous argument which will ultimately solve nothing, what debases individuals on both sides is the arrogant beleif that they have a monopoly on truth.peanutaxis_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PST}

Dave, of course there is a theory of evolution. The fact that variations happen "proves" evolution! Clearly, You Don't Know How Science WorksÃ¢â€žÂ¢. /sarcasm Don't laugh, since I have read that arguement. ReMine quotes someone in his book who says:
"Evolution is as easily demonstrable by just looking at your children".[Paraphrase]
What he was saying is that, since we are diferent from our kids, then that somehow is evidence that all biological structures in nature are the result of a totally random, unguided, purposeless and blind process. Talk about a giant leap of faith.Mats_{March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PST}

[...] From Uncommon Descent: The major claims of evolution are the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. These are required to get from bacteria to baboons. No evolution of these by any means has been observed. They simply appear fully formed in the fossil record and can be observed fully formed in living things today. Given the definition of a theory as a well tested explanation there is no theory of evolution but rather only hypotheses of evolution. Until a hypothetical mechanism is observed doing that which it is claimed it can do these mechanisms remain hypothetical. Honest scientists admit this. For example: Ã¢â‚¬Å“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.Ã¢â‚¬Â Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007, Source [...]Terminus Est » Blog Archive » Evolution critique_{February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PST}

j, I have noticed that the world of physics is much more open minded about agency. I really think that the big bang did it to 'em. I know that the philosophical war that happened in the halls of physics when the big bang was proposed was monumentous. I had been, however, unaware that all of quantum mechanics may need an active intelligence to drive it. 'Seems like the ultimate in micromanagement to me. That said, I also know that the physics department still very much holds out hope that a non-telic explanation for the big bang will come. Ergo multiuniverse theories and the like. Based upon what is understood about the balancing of the forces required to pull off an inhabitable universe, I personally pass of the multiuniverse hypothesis as so much hope.bFast_{February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PST}

bFast, Yes, if you accept the Copenhagen interpretation. There are other interpretations of QM that attempt to avoid this conclusion; for example, Barr mentions the many-worlds interpretation (which I, personally, think is unscientific, and demolished by Occam's razor). Barr also mentions Bohmian theory (which is different from quantum theory). According to Barr, it is "questionable whether all of [the successful predictions of quantum theory] can be reproduced" in Bohmian theory. But physicists open-mindedly consider cognitive agency to be a potentially indispensible part of scientific explanation. Compare this to the closed-mindedness of "official biology."j_{February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PST}

Let's not accuse scientists of being dishonest. Many of them truly believe that evolution is a fact, while others truly believe in the people who believe that evolution is a fact. It happens to everyone at one point of another. Which kid doesn't believe what his parents tell him? Scientists are not exempt.WinglesS_{February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PST}

J, impressive quote -- yet again. The bottom line, according to Barr the quantum world needs "somebody who knows" observing it, or it is stuck in a constant state of probability rather than certainty. Right?bFast_{February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PST}

trystero57: DoesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the copenhagen interpretation simply deny the existence of the wave function? No. Not at all. Why would you think that? Without a wavefunction, you have no quantum mechanics. No quantum mechanics; no interpretation of quantum mechanics. trystero57: IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m pretty sure the agent doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need to be cognitive, in any case (whatever that means). www.m-w.com :
cognition - the act or process of knowing including both awareness and judgment.
Stephen M. Barr, "Faith and Quantum Theory", First Things, March 2007:
[F]or any physical system, however simple or complex, there is a master equation -- called the SchrÃƒÂ¶dinger equation -- that describes its behavior. And the crucial point on which everything hinges is that the SchÃƒÂ¶dinger equation yields only probabilities. (Only in special cases are these exactly 0, or 100 percent.) But this immediately leads to a difficulty: There cannot always remain just probabilities; eventually there must be definite outcomes, for probabilities must be probabilities of definite outcomes... Any mere probability must eventually stop being a mere probability and become a certainty or it has no meaning even as a probability. In quantum theory, the point at which this happens, the moment of truth, so to speak, is traditionally called the collapse of the wave function. The big question is when this occurs. Consider the [double-slit type] thought experiment again, where there is a 5 percent chance of the box collecting one particle and a 95 percent chance of it collecting none. When does the definite outcome occur in this case? One can imagine putting a mechanism in the box that registers when a particle of light has been collected by making, say, a red indicator light go on. The answer would then seem plain: The definite outcome happens when the red light goes on (or fails to do so). But this does not really produce a definite outcome, for one simple reason: Any mechanism one puts into the light-collecting box is just itself a physical system and is therefore described by a SchrÃƒÂ¶dinger equation... This is a deep dilemma. A probability must eventually get resolved into a definite outcome if it is to have any meaning at all, and yet the equations of quantum theory when applied to any physical system yield only probabilities and not definite outcomes. Of course, it seems that when a personlooks at the red light and comes to the knowledge that it is on or off, the probabilities do give way to a definite outcome, for the person knows the truth of the matter with certainty. And this leads to the remarkable conclusion of this long train of logic: As long as only physical structures and mechanisms are involved, however complex, their behavior is described by equations that yield only probabilities -- and once a mind is involved that can make a rational judgment, and thus comes to knowledge, there is certainty. Therefore, such a mind cannot be just a physical structure or mechanism completely described by the equations of physics. ... As [the physicist] Peierls explained, "The [traditional, or Copenhagen, or standard interpretation of] quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows."
(Barr is a theoretical particle physicist at the Bartol Research Institute of the University of Delaware.)j_{February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PST}

j, Doesn't the copenhagen interpretation simply deny the existence of the wave function? I'm pretty sure the agent doesn't need to be cognitive, in any case (whatever that means).trystero57_{February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PST}

Michael Tuite: "Physicists and chemists also cling staunchly to their naturalistic assumptions. Why is biology a special case?" Physicists don't. They consider the Big Bang, a "supernatural" event, to be a respectable idea. There is also the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics in which an observer (a cognitive agent) is needed to collapse the wavefunction.j_{February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PST}

Michael:"Crandaddy, Physicists and chemists also cling staunchly to their naturalistic assumptions. Why is biology a special case?" Because they are far more beholden to actual empirical evidence. If physicists and chemists make up stories about their results, people can die. If a biologist does some research to bolster the already impenetrable wall of NDE and tells another "just-so-story", there probably won't be a lot of fallout. (Other than tenure and some knee-pads for a place at the altar of Saint Darwin. But this is considered a good thing. Somebody gimme amen.)sajones97_{February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PST}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply