Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Majority of One

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

1915 was a momentous year for science. That was the year Einstein published The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, in which he demonstrated that Newton’s theory of gravity was wrong or at least substantially incomplete. Newton’s theory had dominated physics for over 225 years, and, to the great surprise of many, it had fallen. With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to be complacent about the inevitable success of Einstein’s theory, but history shows that general relativity was not accepted immediately by the scientific community. In fact, many scientists clung tenaciously to Newton, and there was fierce resistance to the new theory.

Over the holidays I watched a biography of Einstein (does this mean I’m a nerd?). I learned from that program that the debate over general relatively raged for several years. Why? Because to test the theory empirically scientists needed to take photographs of starlight during a total eclipse of the sun, and at that time there were numerous obstacles to performing that experiment. Total eclipses are rare and often happen in geographically remote areas. Also, World War I was raging, making travel to the eclipse sites difficult. Finally, photographic equipment was still quite primitive. In fact, because of problems with photographic equipment, the first experiment purported to falsify the theory. The theory did not withstand its first empirical test until Lord Eddington’s famous experiment off the coast of Africa in 1919, which was later confirmed by experiments in Australia in 1921.

Newton’s theory was arguably the most successful theory in the history of science. For over 200 years there was not merely a “consensus” that the theory was correct. It was unquestioned received scientific dogma. And it was wrong. But old, widely accepted theories die hard, and many scientists resisted general relatively until Eddington’s experiments made resistance all but futile. Even then there were diehards who believed that Eddington’s calculations were wrong or suffered from confirmation bias. It was not until the 1960’s that it was definitively shown that the deflection of starlight by the sun was the full amount predicted by Einstein.

Maybe 2010 will be another 1915. The scientific consensus over global warming is unraveling if it has not already completely unraveled. On December 8, 2010 a report was released showing that more than 1,000 scientists are now dissenting from the global warming orthodoxy. See here.

What does this have to do with ID? The most successful tactic of the Darwin lobby is to recite the mantra, “The overwhelming consensus among biologists is that Darwinian evolution is an accurate theory.” That is true. Our response is that the overwhelming consensus among physicists in 1915 was that Newtonian gravity was accurate. They were wrong. Until recently the overwhelming consensus among climatologists was that the anthropomorphic global warming theory is accurate. They were wrong too.

The overwhelming consensus of biologists is that Darwin was right. Are they wrong? Obviously, the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus does not mean they are wrong. But as we saw in 1915 and 2010, it does not mean they are necessarily right either, because an overwhelming consensus of scientists can be dead wrong. Finding truth generally and scientific truth in particular is not an activity in nose counting. At the moment he discovered general relatively Albert Einstein was correct, and every other physicist in the world was wrong. The fact that he was in a minority never phased him. Einstein was once asked how he would have felt if Eddington’s experiment had shown his theory was false. He replied, “I would have felt very sorry for the poor Lord, because the theory is correct.”

So to our Darwinist friends I say, go ahead and rely on consensus, received wisdom and authority if that helps you sleep at night or makes you feel better as you whistle past the graveyard. We in the ID community will argue the evidence.

Comments
I use Newton's second law (F=ma, Force = Mass x Acceleration) on a regular basis in my work producing finite-element analysis simulations using LS-DYNA. This equation is critical for calculating such things as mass density. Given units of pounds, feet, and seconds and therefore the acceleration of gravity in feet/second^2, we get: PoundForce = Mass x Feet/Second^2 (or, lbf = Mass x ft. / sec.^2) Solving for mass, we get Mass = lbf x sec.^2 /ft. Mass density is therefore mass divided by volume (ft.^3) which is: lbf x sec.^2 / ft.^4 These equations are spectacularly useful for solving every-day mechanical engineering problems. LS-DYNA is arguably the most powerful FEA program ever devised (it was originally developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the mid-1970s for the development of variable-yield nuclear weapons) and is now used for everything from designing shaped explosive charges to simulating car crashes. It performs these remarkable tasks through the use of explicit time integration, using Newton's laws and solving massive numbers of partial differential equations. It is true that Newton's laws eventually break down at a macro level, but they are very useful within the domain of their applicability, which is low-speed, low-mass physics. The same is true for Darwinian theory (random variation and natural selection). It explains such things as antibiotic resistance in bacteria and finch-beak variation -- micro-evolution. But it clearly breaks down at the macro level, and is inapplicable to such things as the origin of digital biological information and information-processing machinery, and the origin of species within the overall history of life.GilDodgen
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
Barry at 22 and previous contributors: Barry's point is well taken: Newton's laws of gravity were opposed in their day by people who argued that he did not provide a mechanism for gravity, and all science must have a mechanism. He replied haughtily, "hypotheses non fingo" = I don't "do" hypotheses. People accepted his laws of gravity because they were useful; they led to advances. (He did suggest that there might be a particle that created gravity, and the "graviton" is hypothesized today. But his point was that his theory predicted events more successfully than any previous one. But Newton did not need to be right about everything; only to provide a way for making useful predictions. And so with Ptolemy. His work had been useful for 1200 years or so. Copernicus realized that Ptolemy's approach would also work if the Sun was put at the centre of the solar system instead of the Earth. But Copernicus knew nothing of today's universe. The things about which Newton and Copernicus were wrong could be corrected by later science. That is why it is so damaging when a science gets saddled with useless klunk theories and huge resources are expended to protect them - resources better used elsewhere.O'Leary
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
EndoplasmicMessenger, actually there is still a overriding 'flatness' to the curvature of the expansion of space-time. A flatness that when found refuted the oscillating universe conjecture and solidified the evidence for 'dark energy': Materialists also use to try to find a place for blind chance to hide by proposing a universe which expands and contracts (recycles) infinitely. Even at first glance, the 'recycling universe' conjecture suffers so many questions from the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) as to render it effectively implausible as a serious theory, but now the recycling universe conjecture has been totally crushed by the hard evidence for a 'flat' universe found by the 'BOOMERANG' experiment. Refutation Of Oscillating Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323673 Evidence For Flat Universe - Boomerang Project http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/boomerang-flat.html http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/images1/omegamomegal3.gif Did the Universe Hyperinflate? - Hugh Ross - April 2010 Excerpt: Perfect geometric flatness is where the space-time surface of the universe exhibits zero curvature (see figure 3). Two meaningful measurements of the universe's curvature parameter, ½k, exist. Analysis of the 5-year database from WMAP establishes that -0.0170 < ½k < 0.0068.4 Weak gravitational lensing of distant quasars by intervening galaxies places -0.031 < ½k < 0.009.5 Both measurements confirm the universe indeed manifests zero or very close to zero geometric curvature,,, http://www.reasons.org/did-universe-hyperinflate Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right - November 2010 Excerpt: By providing more evidence that the universe is flat, the findings bolster the cosmological constant model for dark energy over competing theories such as the idea that the general relativity equations for gravity are flawed. "We have at this moment the most precise measurements of lambda that a single technique can give," Marinoni said. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dark-energy-cosmological-constant-101124.htmlbornagain77
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
Barry, There is a difference presuming the creationist understands the source of his belief. The creationist can say that accepting the Bible as absolute truth has caused him benefit in his life so based on that he has faith that it will be found to be true on matters relating to natural history. That's perfectly reasonable. It's not science but it's reasonable. The Darwinian, OTOH, will insist a thing never observed has been observed or insist that it soon will be observed and hence is objectively true. Either, of course, is delusional.tribune7
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
Graham asks why we go on teaching and using Newtonian physics if it is wrong. Well, Graham even though it is wrong it is still good enough for most practical purposes. But that could be said about the cosmology of Ptolemy. No one believes Ptolemy is correct, but you can still predict an eclipse (as Columbus famously did) with his tables.Barry Arrington
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
Graham, Flat space is about as similar to curved space as a flat Earth is to a curved Earth. Newton was as wrong as the flat Earthers were.EndoplasmicMessenger
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
Tribune7 asks: “Now in what ways are Creationism and the faith that random genetic changes fixed by natural selection accounts for all biodiversity incommensurable?” Actually, the more important question in my mind is how the two are in fact commensurable. They are commensurable because both creationism and the belief that all biodiversity is a function of random genetic changes culled by natural selection rest more on a priori faith commitments (one to a particular interpretation of scripture, the other to metaphysical materialism) than on evidence.Barry Arrington
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
second opinion -- In what way are Creationsm and ID incommensurable? ID is a theory derived from observations of nature. Creationism is a belief derived from an interpretation of Scripture. ID is falsifiable. Creationism is not. See the diff? Now in what ways are Creationsm and the faith that random genetic changes fixed by natural selection accounts for all biodiversity incommensurable?tribune7
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
In comment 14 second opinion writes: “ID is with respect to what is relevant here the continuation of creationism” In comment 16 second opinion writes: “Well, I haven’t said anything about ID.” Typical Darwinist tactic. Expect us to believe what they say instead of the evidence before our very eyes. Though I have to admit that one rarely sees such a pristine example as this, with the conflicting evidence a mere six inches away (on my computer screen) from the statement.Barry Arrington
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Okay, let me ask this: In what way are Creationsm and ID incommensurable?second opinion
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Well, I haven't said anything about ID. The only thing I would say is that Paley predates Darwin.second opinion
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
second opinion, you demonstrate that you are not to be taken seriously when you insist on substituting a straw man of your own creation for ID. You say you don’t want to argue. I can hardly blame you; for you seem to have no argument to offer.Barry Arrington
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
I would look at the situation differently. Newton’s theory of gravity was superseded by the General Theory of Relativity because in the “end” the empirical evidence came in in favour of the Theory of Relativity. Likewise the notion that human activity does not influence the climate (which is to a large extent the position of the AGW deniers) was superseded by the notion that human green house gas emissions do change the climate also after sufficient evidence was collected. Creationism (ID is with respect to what is relevant here the continuation of creationism) was superseded by the ToE after Darwin gathered the facts and drew a plausible picture. You will certainly disagree at least with the last sentence, but I don't want to argue about it. The point is that I can't think of any example (correct me if I'm wrong) where an obsolete theory has ever been resurrected (once thought obsolete hypothesis have been) so I don't see much help coming from Einstein.second opinion
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
kylefoley, I think his point is that how does putting manufacturing out of business save those cities? I believe that studies show that even the severest measures would have a miniscule effect on global temperatures.Collin
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
Though Einstein was certainly a genius, it is very interesting to note where his 'greatest blunders' were: I find it very interesting that the materialistic belief of the universe being stable, and infinite in duration, was so deeply rooted in scientific thought that Albert Einstein (1879-1955), when he was shown his general relativity equation indicated a universe that was unstable and would 'draw together' under its own gravity, added a cosmological constant to his equation to reflect a stable universe rather than entertain the thought that the universe had a beginning. Einstein and The Belgian Priest, George Lemaitre - The "Father" Of The Big Bang Theory - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4279662 of note: This was not the last time Einstein's base materialistic philosophy had severely misled him. He was also severely misled in the Bohr–Einstein debates in which he was repeatedly proven wrong in challenging the 'spooky action at a distance' postulations of the emerging field of quantum mechanics. This following video, which I listed earlier, bears worth repeating since it highlights the Bohr/Einstein debate and the decades long struggle to 'scientifically' resolve the disagreement between them: The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 When astronomer Edwin Hubble published empirical evidence indicating a beginning for the universe, Einstein ended up calling the cosmological constant, he had added to his equation, the biggest blunder of his life. But then again mathematically speaking, Einstein's 'fudge factor' was not so much of a blunder after all. In the 1990's a highly modified cosmological constant, representing the elusive 'Dark Energy' to account for the accelerated expansion of the universe, was reintroduced into general relativity equations to explain the discrepancy between the ages of the oldest stars in the Milky Way galaxy and the age of the universe. Far from providing a materialistic solution, which would have enabled the universe to be stable and infinite as Einstein had originally envisioned, the finely-tuned cosmological constant, finely-tuned to 1 part in 10^120, has turned into one of the most powerful evidences of design from many finely-tuned universal constants of the universe.bornagain77
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
kylefoley76, if AGW was really happening would the guy leading the crusade to stop it be buying homes with 9 bathrooms and 6 fire places?tribune7
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
barry i mentioned the flood of large cities because you said we should think about our economy. if we allow oceans to destroy our infrastructure that will do much to destroy our economy. re your second point hysteria is not evidence n neither is your disbelief. i presented facts re agw u have ignored them.kylefoley76
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Personally, I'm not committed to or even convinced by either side of the AGW debate, but I always cringe when an ID advocate seems to hitch the ID horse to the same wagon as AGW denial, young Earth creationism, or even 9/11 conspiracy (which I've seen on another blog). Even though there may be some analogous aspects, as far as scientific dissent , usually the comparison doesn't end there, but rather with the declaration that, like ID, the dissenting position is correct. Even without this conclusion, the main problem I have is that I think ID has a very convincing argument (for anyone who honestly engages it) to make on a completely unrelated scientific topic, much more convincing than AGW denial/affirmation. If AGW is eventually proven to be true, this will weaken the stance of ID even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the science. I truly believe that honest discourse on ID/natural evolution will eventually win out, even if it's not in our lifetimes. We're nowhere near the end of the rabbit hole of biological complexity - we still describe conscious activities in terms of neurological chemical levels and brain section sizes/thicknesses. If consciousness does end up being describable in purely physical terms, our current understanding will be like an ancient Greek describing different computers: "Well this one has a shinier finish and a larger bundle of cables inside, which obviously causes its unique function." It will only become more and more obvious through the coming decades and centuries how unnatural our origin truly is, and they will have decades of comedic/sobering reading material that was originally scientific "fact".uoflcard
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
Barry: Newton’s theory was the most successful theory in the history of science ... And it was wrong Then why is it still taught, unchanged, in schools and universities, and why do we go on using it, unchanged, in Science & industry ?Graham
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
I think Barry brings up a good point. I'm not a particular global-warming skeptic. I'm more skeptical of the forecasts of the effects than I am of the general assertion that 'the climate is changing, man probably plays some role in this'. But people seem to think that if GW, even AGW is real, that there is a single, obvious, clear policy solution that the entire world not only should, but could enact immediately. Of that, I am ridiculously skeptical. Just look at Al Gore's recent confession about corn ethanol for a great, obvious example about how the policies aren't automatically great ideas just 'because... the environment!'nullasalus
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
kylefoley76, there is no doubt that it would be bad for big cities to flood. What does that have to do with whether the AGW hypothesis is correct in the first place? Does apocalyptic hysteria count as evidence? Or is your point that we should ignore the evidence and just do something? Do you think we should “just do something” even if that something will have no effect on the problem and bankrupts to boot?Barry Arrington
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
I have posted a comment on my blog about the Newton vs. Darwin comparison: The Model T and the Cadillac. On the global warming question, I don't see that the scientific consensus is unraveling. Many of those 1,000 dissidents are not climatologists. There's no doubt that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic. Even if there are other causes for the apparent warming, the CO2 increase should already be reason for serious concern.Neil Rickert
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
barry 7 of the 18 largest cities are next to watr. if they become disfunctional we will have zero economy. as for man being the cause for 400 k years co2 never went above 280 ppm now man starts to use fossil fuels n look what happenskylefoley76
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
kylefoley76, yes the earth has warmed up, but you are missing the larger point. The issue, which Collin hinted at, is whether man is the main cause (or even “a” cause) of the warming and whether the massive cuts in carbon output advocated by the global warming crowd (for everyone except themselves, of course) will have any effect except to ruin our economy.Barry Arrington
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Kylefoley76, Do the scientists that show that Mars is warming also receive money from exxon? Barry, Newton's theory was a very good approximate of what really happens. I don't know if it would be a victory for ID or anti-climate change people to say that Darwinism is a really good approximation or that Global Warming science is almost right.Collin
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
i passionately support id but the view that the earth is not warming up is wrong. for the last 400k years co2 has vascillated between 180 and 280 ppm. now in the last 100 years it has shot up to 380. if these facts are wrong then what evidence do you have that theyre wrong. the scientists who deny global warming receive money from exxonkylefoley76
January 5, 2011
January
01
Jan
5
05
2011
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply