Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Physics prof Eric Hedin has a ticket on the Ball Street Railroad

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Hedin_Eric.jpg

An interesting piece in the San Francisco Chronicle spells out the problems assistant prof Eric Hedin is having at Ball State U in Muncie, Indiana, where he teaches an honours course exploring the nature of the universe. He is accused by atheists of promoting intelligent design, and is under investigation. Here is who is investigating him, according to John West of the Discovery Institute, who did some research:

The three other panelists [besides Catherine Pilachowski, an astronomy prof from Indiana U who has chaired the American Astronomy Society] are Ball State faculty members Gary Dodson, a professor of biology; Juli Thorson Eflin, a professor of philosophy; and Richard Fluegeman Jr., a professor of geological sciences.

West said Pilachowski was on the governing council of AAS when it issued a declaration denouncing intelligent design in 2005 and stating that it should not be taught in science classes.

He also said Dodson signed an anti-creationism petition circulated by the lobbying group the National Center for Science Education and that in 2009, Dodson was a presenter and discussion leader for a Darwin Day conference organized by the Ball State Freethought Alliance.

Fluegeman delivered the opening lecture at the same Darwin Day conference.

Some of us suspect that the problem is a bit like this: The fine tuning of our universe suggests it is designed. The only serious alternative these days is the multiverse, for which there is no evidence.

So anyone who sets forth the facts honestly could be got on charges of non-atheism.

Hey, ya gotta choose: Lies, nonsense… or just don’t teach. Call it, if you like, the Ball State Railroad.

(We’ve covered this story here. And here.)

Note: Yes, that’s the same place as just hired exoplanet hunter Guillermo “Earth is special” Gonzalez. Maybe Hedin can get him to teach a few sessions on what a real planetary “habitability zone” involves. A bit more, let’s say, than two-inch type about billions of “habitable” planets.

Comments
BA77: Can you or anyone else on this forum address the mathematical implications for Dr Dembski's definition of CSI regarding the size of the universe being larger that than the observed size of the universe? This is not a trick question. Just please address the mathematical implications based on Dr Dembski's definition and the effect on computing P(T|H).Jerad
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
BA77 - I honestly didn't think that anyone seriously questioned the idea that the observable universe is only a subset of the whole. It would be very odd if it were - it would mean we were at the absolute dead centre of the entire universe, and it just happened to have the exact radius that is observable! I had thought this was non-controversial. Does any other IDer think that the whole universe is no larger than the part we can observe? If so, can I ask why?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
Jerad claims that
"It’s rather sad that no one seems able to address your point about the universe being much bigger than what we can observe"
And your empirical proof that the inflation conjecture of Guth is true, upon which the claim that 'the universe being much bigger than what we can observe' is based, would be what exactly? Moreover, even if this inflation conjecture of Guth were not pure ad hoc mathematical fantasy, a fantasy which has nothing to do with reality but was used to 'explain away' the fine-tuning of initials conditions of the universe, this would solve local probabilistic hurdles for Darwinism how? by osmosis? i.e. Imagination is not science, and fantasy is certainly not empirical proof! Notes:
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027 Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete - Borde-Guth-Vilenkin - 2003 Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 One of cosmic (Rapid) inflation theory’s creators now questions own theory - April 2011 Excerpt: (Rapid) Inflation adds a whole bunch of really unlikely metaphysical assumptions — a new force field that has a never-before-observed particle called the “inflaton”, an expansion faster than the speed of light, an interaction with gravity waves which are themselves only inferred– just so that it can explain the unlikely contingency of a finely-tuned big bang. But instead of these extra assumptions becoming more-and-more supported, the trend went the opposite direction, with more-and-more fine-tuning of the inflation assumptions until they look as fine-tuned as Big Bang theories. At some point, we have “begged the question”. Frankly, the moment we add an additional free variable, I think we have already begged the question. In a Bayesean comparison of theories, extra variables reduce the information content of the theory, (by the so-called Ockham factor), so these inflation theories are less, not more, explanatory than the theory they are supposed to replace.,,, after 20 years of work, if we haven’t made progress, but have instead retreated, it is time to cut bait. https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/cosmology-one-of-cosmic-inflation-theory%E2%80%99s-creators-now-questions-own-theory/ The 'big bang': More data and answers, but what about why? by John Horgan Excerpt: Inflation, which was invented more than 25 years ago by the physicist Alan Guth, appealed to cosmologists because it seemed to solve various fine-tuning problems. Unfortunately, inflation comes in many different versions, and it is based on highly speculative physics that so far lack any empirical evidence. Paul Steinhardt, an early champion of inflation, now promotes a rival theory that he says can account for the observed universe just as well. String theory suffers from flaws even deeper than those of inflation. Far from making our cosmos seem less arbitrary, string theory allows for more than a googol (1 followed by 100 zeros) different possible universes with dimensions, particles, forces and other properties radically unlike our own. http://www.stevens.edu/csw/cgi-bin/blogs/scientific_curmudgeon/pages.php?p=inflation The Inflation Debate - Paul J. Steinhardt - April 2011 Excerpt: Cosmic inflation is so widely accepted that it is often taken as established fact. The idea is that the geometry and uniformity of the cosmos were established during an intense early growth spurt.,,, But some of the theory’s creators, including the author, are having second thoughts. As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations.,,, Highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-inflation-summer Sean Carroll channels Giordano Bruno - Robert Sheldon - November 2011 Excerpt: 'In fact, on Lakatos' analysis, both String Theory and Inflation are clearly "degenerate science programs".' http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2011/11/08/sean_carroll_channels_giordano_bruno.thtml The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP) - Abel - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes.",,, c?u = Universe = 10^13 reactions/sec X 10^17 secs X 10^78 atoms = 10^108 c?g = Galaxy = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^66 atoms = 10^96 c?s = Solar System = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^55 atoms = 10^85 c?e = Earth = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^40 atoms = 10^70 http://www.tbiomed.com/content/6/1/27 Programming of Life - Probability - Defining Probable, Possible, Feasible etc.. - video http://www.youtube.com/user/Programmingoflife#p/c/AFDF33F11E2FB840/8/kckv0wVBYpA Pink EleP(T|H)ants on Parade: Understanding, and Misunderstanding, the Design Inference - Closing Thoughts Liddle objects that we cannot calculate the probability necessary to make a design inference. However, she is mistaken because the design inference requires that we calculate probabilities, not a probability. Each chance hypothesis will have it own probability, and will be rejected if that probability is too low. Intelligent design researchers have investigated these probabilities. Liddle's objections to Dembski's appeal to Earman demonstrate that she is the one not following Earman. Earman's approach involves starting assumptions about what a valid theory would look like, in the same way that any design inference makes starting assumptions about what a possible chance hypotheses would look like. In short, neither of Liddle's objections hold water. Rather both appear to be derived from a mistaken understanding of Dembski and Earman. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/pink_elepthants074551.html
bornagain77
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
Neither able nor even willing, it seems, Jerad. And FSCO has exactly the same problem - any formulation that contains those 500 bits. And FSCO has the same P(T|H) problem too. So while I would agree that that F does deal with Dembski's "Kolmogorov" problem (not that Dembski seems to think it's a problem), it's the only problem the F part does solve.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
Lizzie, It's rather sad that no one seems able to address your point about the universe being much bigger than what we can observe and what implications that might have for Dr Dembski's definition of CSI. Carrying through the mathematics isn't hard after all. Although there is still the matter of computing P(T|H) which, unless I'm mistaken, we have not seen calculated for any real, meaningful example.Jerad
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT
I am going to have to contradict myself on CSI. I looked at the comments policy and the references to CSI and think I have resolved my problem. Namely that the "specified" part of CSI is unclear. When one adds the concept of "refers" to the idea of specified to mean a reference to something specific outside of the CSI instance it becomes clearer. In other words CSI is a characteristic of an entity when the entity is complex, contains information and either specifies or refers to something else outside of itself. Anyone have a better definition. I am sure there must be one.jerry
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
I put the link to the file on my Mac. Here is the proper link for the internet discussion https://uncommondescent.com/biology/michael-egnor-responds-to-michael-lemonick-at-time-online/#comment-92381jerry
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
It’s because there is something wrong with the concept of CSI
I have to agree with this. here is a discussion 6 1/2 years ago on how to define CSI and no one could explain it or define it then. Any better definition today? file:///Users/jerrycosgrove/Documents/Personal/Discussions/Evolution/Evolution%20Old%20IMac/UncommonDescent/Content/CSI/UD_070217_Egnor_CSI.html#comment-92381 There is a long discussion after this comment on the problems of defining CSI. I referred to this post a couple months ago for the same reason. It is also the post where kairosfocus appeared for the first time. It led to a definition of FCSI which has an easy and intuitive definition. FCSI is a subset of CSI but maybe CSI is to generic to have a good "specified" definition. If anyone attacks CSI then send them to the definition of FCSI which is more compelling.jerry
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
It’s because there is something wrong with the concept of CSI...
The only thing "wrong" with the concept of CSI is people like you.Joe
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
'There’s no real reason to believe parallel worlds exist.' When they have nowhere else to go, Barb, reason is not an option.Axel
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
Alas, he fell into bad company. The man robbed of his integrity by shameless blaggers, and likely Good Samaritans as yet unborn. The atheists (certainly, Old Nick) seemed to have immediately recognised what a turning point his ideas could be for their campaigning.Axel
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
Joe:
So to recap- Lizzie’s position cannot explain CSI so she is forced to try to find something wrong with the concept.
No, Joe. It's because there is something wrong with the concept of CSI that trying to explain it is bootless.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Re your#3, Denyse (if I may presume), quoted below: 'Actually, Axel, that is what pop science writers often sound like when writing about it. It holds more attractions for them than one might at first suppose. – O’Leary ... in view of their resolute refusal to distinguish between empirically-proven paradoxical truths/mysteries, and plain oxymorons and gratuitous conjectures, I can imagine a book being written by an atheist author setting forth how, in the natural word, truth is often stranger than fiction - mixing the latter with the former; indeed, with a preponderance of fantasy, even expressing a fanciful concluding conspectus. Oops, I think there was one - called the Origin of Species, or some such. Although I don't believe Darwin's atheism prevailed, either when he wrote the book or later in life. He was a scientist manque (dropped out of his medical studies) and a stamp-collector who had turned to pressed plants and the like. How different history might have been, had William Lane Craig or John Lennox been able to take him under their wing, when he was studying theology (in which he graduated successfully). His mind seemed sufficiently unworldly for him to have been much better attuned to spiritual truths than a study of the physical world.Axel
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
So to recap- Lizzie's position cannot explain CSI so she is forced to try to find something wrong with the concept. Lizzie's position cannot be tested at all so she is forced to try to show that ID cannot be tested either. Pathetic but still hilarious...Joe
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
Well, no, Joe: if the definition of CSI includes a parameter that is wrong, then we can’t even tell whether a thing has it or not.
CSI exists, Lizzie. We use it every day. And it is very telling that your position doesn't have any explanation for it. Heck your position doesn't have an explanation for anything beyond disease and deterioration. And I understand that bothers you.Joe
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Well, there is some reason, Barb. Some good mathematical models of the universe predict them, e.g. eternal inflation, or the "ekpyrotic" universe. And some of the predictions of those models are testable. But I don't see why that should be a bar to the idea of a Designed universe. It would just be even more amazing than it already seems to be.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 16, 2013
July
07
Jul
16
16
2013
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT
If ours is the only universe in existence, then the fine-tuning argument is powerful (and conclusive). It would be evidence that an intelligence has "monkeyed with the physics" to paraphrase Fred Hoyle. There wouldn't be any other reasonable possibility. But that conclusion evaporates once you bring in the concept of the multiverse: that our universe is simply one of many, and it's the luck of the draw that it's just right for human life to flourish. Belief in a multiverse is pure metaphysics. There's no real reason to believe parallel worlds exist.Barb
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
Fair enough, BA.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Liz, I just as soon go back to you ignoring me and me ignoring you since you don't listen to anything I say anyway and I cringe when I read your posts..bornagain77
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
OK, BA77, so what is the rationale for basing the number of atoms on only the parts of the universe we can see?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Of note: The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP) - Abel - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes.",,, c?u = Universe = 10^13 reactions/sec X 10^17 secs X 10^78 atoms = 10^108 c?g = Galaxy = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^66 atoms = 10^96 c?s = Solar System = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^55 atoms = 10^85 c?e = Earth = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^40 atoms = 10^70 http://www.tbiomed.com/content/6/1/27 Programming of Life - Probability - Defining Probable, Possible, Feasible etc.. - video http://www.youtube.com/user/Programmingoflife#p/c/AFDF33F11E2FB840/8/kckv0wVBYpAbornagain77
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Actually postulating a much larger universe, mass-wise, makes the Penroses entropy problem worse:
How special was the big bang? - Penrose ,,the number of protons and neutrons, taken together-in the universe is roughly given by B = 10^80. ,,, If B were taken to be larger than this then the figures that we would obtain would be even more striking than the extraordinary figures that we shall be arriving at in a minute!,,,
and that extraordinary figure that would be much worse is,,
This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. Penrose
Furthermore, we now know that the universe cannot be much larger than it is, as far as mass is concerned, for the simple fact that the amount of mass in the universe is constrained by the mass density at the big bang:
Fine Tuning Of Dark Energy and Mass of the Universe - Hugh Ross - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007682 Where Is the Cosmic Density Fine-Tuning? - Hugh Ross http://www.reasons.org/where-cosmic-density-fine-tuning To clearly illustrate the stunning, incomprehensible, degree of fine-tuning we are dealing with in the universe, Dr. Ross has used the illustration of adding or subtracting a single dime's worth of mass in the universe, during the Big Bang, would have been enough of a change in the mass density of the universe to make life impossible in this universe. Evidence for Belief in God - Rich Deem Excerpt: Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html
Thus there are very principled reasons for supposing limits to the amount of mass in the universe (observable or otherwise). supplemental note
Anthropic Principle - God Created The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661
This preceding video, at the 6:49 mark, has a very interesting quote that highlights the absurd levels of insanity that atheists are willing go to to deny God:
"So what are the theological implications of all this? Well Barrow and Tipler wrote this book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and they saw the design of the universe. But they're atheists basically, there's no God. And they go through some long arguments to describe why humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. That's what they believe. So they got a problem. If the universe is clearly the product of design, but humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, who creates the universe? So you know what Barrow and Tipler's solution is? It makes perfect sense. Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs) Hey these guys are respected scientists. So what brings them to that conclusion? It is because the evidence for design is so overwhelming that if you don't have God you have humans creating the universe back in time for themselves." - Michael Strauss PhD. - Particle Physics
bornagain77
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
'Nah the universe is as big as it is because the stars Display His Glory.' ... and how much He thinks of his adoptive brothers and sisters. In terms of that kind of metaphor, as a young child, I was more Godlike than my brother, as I wanted, when I grew up, to buy our mother a fur coat, diamonds, pearls, etc... the sun, the moon and the stars, while he offered her the promise of a broom, saucepan, frying pan, etc. In life, in reality, as opposed to metaphor, however, as far as I'm aware, he remained an agnostic, but he taught me more about the essence of our faith than any other person, and I'm sure took a lot more with him than I'll ever learn. He did have the advantage of getting confirmed when he was about seven, while I had to wait until adulthood and reconversion. But I've never achieved the level of commonsense that seemed innate in him. A maudlin digression, but there it is.Axel
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Well, no, Joe: if the definition of CSI includes a parameter that is wrong, then we can't even tell whether a thing has it or not. So that's pretty undermining. It means it can't be used at all.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
BTW Ball State's investigation has concluded- no word on what it found...Joe
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Dear Elizabeth, The ONLY thing that can undermine CSI as a design indicator is if someone, anyone, demonstrates that nature, operating freely, can produce it. To date no one has. And that means CSI stands as a design indicator.Joe
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Indeed, they are almost certainly subject to revision. But what is not in serious doubt is that a) the unobservable universe larger, probably by many times, than the observable universe and that b) Seth Lloyd based is estimate on the volume of the observable universe. That means that at best we do not know the upper limit on the number of bit operations that could have occurred since Big Bang, and that therefore Seth Lloyd's estimate is not a maximum (and was not intended to be - he was explicit about what he was calculating, namely the maximum number of bit operations in the observable universe). That completely undermines the concept of CSI, which actually contains the a similar figure as a parameter. Dembski's figure is more generous than Seth Lloyd's, but I just checked and his, too is based on an estimate of the number of particles in the observable universe. I had not realised this until today. So would anyone like to defend a Universal Probability Bound calculated on the size of the observable universe?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Those are estimates that are as of yet not testable, we don't know the boundaries sure but we also don't know if the estimate is even close to that..... Lets explore and see where the actual evidence takes us.Andre
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
BA77
Oh I see the highly questionable transformed into an unquestioned assertion and then back again when called on it. I’ll guess I’ll add insane to pathetic and typical (or ‘wicked’ but we would not rather think about that would we?)
That's right, BA, I wrote post 5, giving the "estimate" after you "called" me on my "dogmatic assertion" at post 37. sheesh.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Careful, Joe, you are sounding a little dogmatic there :)Elizabeth B Liddle
July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply