CONTEST! Best Response to Professor Pompous Gets Free Copy of “The Nature of Nature”

_{Barry Arrington

July 20, 2011

Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design}

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

UPDATE: WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL FANTASTIC ENTRIES ALREADY. BUT THERE IS STILL TIME TO POST AN ENTRY. I WILL JUDGE THE CONTEST ON 7-26-11

A couple of months ago a young university student contacted my law office seeking help in a dispute she was having with a university here in Colorado. [To protect my client’s privacy, I am using neither her name nor the name of the university. ] The previous week she had voiced opposition to Darwinism to her biology professor, who proceeded to scream at her, denigrate her religious views, and generally demean and humiliate her in front of the rest of the class. After hearing her story I sent a demand letter to the university seeking redress. Good news. We resolved the matter on very favorable terms.

One of the terms we insisted on was a letter of apology from the professor. This is the full text of that letter:

Ms. _____________:

With regard to our conversation about your belief that evolution is not true, I apologize to you for appearing to denigrate your obviously strongly held beliefs. I had not intended to offend you in any way regarding your faith or your world view. That this was so perceived by you, I again offer my sincerest apology.

In making this apology to you, I am reminded of what happened to Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) – considered by many to be the father of modern science. In 1610 Galileo determined through his telescope and various mathematical calculations, that the Earth moved around the sun, rather than the other way around which was, according to the Catholic Church ‘false and contrary to Scripture.’

In 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found ‘vehemently suspect of heresy’, forced to recant heliocentrism, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. As he was led away to begin his confinement, he said (to no one in particular) ‘and yet it still moves’.

NOW TO THE CONTEST: Even though the legal matter has been resolved, I will not allow the last two paragraphs of the letter, which, in my view, are equal parts smug and pompous, go un-rebutted. And I have decided to let UD readers participate in the fun! Readers are invited to propose responses to the professor in the comment section below. On July 26 I will judge the responses, and the best response will receive a free copy of The Nature of Nature edited by our very own William Dembski.

Comments

Thank you, Chris. Glad you liked it.vjtorley_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Vincent, I was going to submit an entry myself, but there's no way I could follow that. Fantastic post, well done sir.Chris Doyle_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Vincent, I was going to submit an entry myself, but there's no way I could follow that. Fantastic post, well done sir.Chris Doyle_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Dear Professor, In your letter of apology, you mentioned Galileo. Evidently you consider him to be your friend. You are sadly mistaken - both in your account of Galileo's life and in your interpretation of his views. Let's begin with the trial of Galileo. It is a complete myth that as Galileo was led away to begin his confinement after being found suspect of heresy, he said, "And yet it still moves" (E pur si muove!), as you falsely claim. There is no evidence that Galileo actually said this or anything similar at his trial. The earliest biography of Galileo, written by his disciple Vincenzio Viviani, does not mention the phrase, and depicts Galileo as having sincerely recanted. The first account of the E pur si muove! legend dates to more than a century after Galileo's death. The first record of the legend can be found in the Italian Library, a literary work composed by the Italian-born English literary critic Giuseppe Baretti, 124 years after Galileo's supposed utterance. I note in passing that Galileo's trial by the Inquisition took place in 1633, not 1632 as you incorrectly assert. 1632 was the year in which Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. You also assert that after being sentenced, Galileo "spent the rest of his life under house arrest." You omit to mention that he was allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends, which were always comfortable and usually luxurious. You write that "In 1610 Galileo determined through his telescope and various mathematical calculations, that the Earth moved around the sun." Nonsense. Galileo's observations of the phases of Venus in 1610 merely proved that Ptolemy's geocentric model of the cosmos, according to which all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth, was wrong. However, they did not prove that Galileo's heliocentric model was right. There were several alternative models to Galileo's at the time: various geo-heliocentric planetary models, in which some or all of the planets went around the Sun, which in turn went around a stationary Earth. Now, one of the predictions of Galileo's heliocentric model was that the stars should vary in size as the Earth moved around the Sun, but unfortunately, Galileo was unable to observe this "stellar parallax" effect through his telescopes. Because of Galileo's failure to observe stellar parallax, the great majority of astronomers in Galileo's time supported one of the various geo-heliocentric planetary models. The best science of the day was on their side, not Galileo's. The first successful measurement of stellar parallax did not take place until 1838, nearly 200 years after Galileo's death, when Friedrich Bessel verified it for the star 61 Cygni, using a Fraunhofer heliometer at Konigsberg Observatory. You, a professor of biology, scorn the invocation of the supernatural, and you look to Galileo, whom you revere as "the father of modern science," in support of your naturalistic approach to science. Galileo is not your friend, Professor. Galileo rises from his grave to condemn you, and to vindicate the young student whom you belittled in class. First, it might interest you to know that Galileo remained a devout Catholic all his life. His famous aphorism, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go," was not intended as a criticism of the Church, but was actually a citation from the writings of a cardinal of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Baronius, who made this statement in 1598, long before Galileo ever looked through a telescope (Stillman Drake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957, p. 136). Indeed, Pope Urban VIII sent his special blessing to Galileo as he was dying. After his death, Galileo was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence. "Even if Galileo was Catholic, those were his personal views," you may object. "They have absolutely no relevance to his work as a scientist." But wait, there's more! Galileo believed in miracles, too. Want proof? Take a look at his Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany: Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science (1615). In his letter, Galileo discusses the Biblical miracle in which Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still. What is interesting is that Galileo, the father of modern science, expressly affirms the reality of this miracle. The only point on which he differs from his Christian contemporaries is in his explanation of the mechanics of the miracle:
The sun, then, being the font of light and the source of motion, when God willed that at Joshua's command the whole system of the world should rest and should remain for many hours in the same state, it sufficed to make the sun stand still. Upon its stopping all the other revolutions ceased; the earth, the moon, and the sun remained in the same arrangement as before, as did all the planets; nor in all that time did day decline towards night, for day was miraculously prolonged. And in this manner, by the stopping of the sun, without altering or in the least disturbing the other aspects and mutual positions of the stars, the day could be lengthened on earth — which agrees exquisitely with the literal sense of the sacred text. (Emphases mine - VT.)
So the father of modern science believed in miracles - and not just private little miracles, but big, public spectacles that everyone could see, and whose occurrence was a matter of public record (Joshua 10:12-14). So much for Galileo's alleged methodological naturalism! It gets worse. It turns out that Galileo was something of an Intelligent Design theorist. I am deeply indebted to Michael Caputo for the following quotes, and I would like to express my sincere thanks to him, for his valuable research. Galileo's observations and meditations on God’s wonders led him to conclude: "To me the works of nature and of God are miraculous." (Brunetti, F. Opere di Galileo Galilei. Torino: Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese, 1964, p. 506.) Poetic license, you say? I haven't finished yet; there's more. Galileo often mused on what he saw as the stunning manifestations of God’s creative wisdom. He was particularly impressed with birds and their ideal design for flight, and with fish and their perfect design for swimming in water:
"God could have made birds with bones of massive gold, with veins full of molten silver, with flesh heavier than lead and with tiny wings... He could have made fish heavier than lead, and thus twelve times heavier than water, but He has wished to make the former of bone, flesh, and feathers that are light enough, and the latter as heavier than water, to teach us that He rejoices in simplicity and facility." (Sobel, Dava, Galileo’s Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love. Toronto: Viking Press, 1999, p. 99.)
So according to Galileo, God not only personally designed fish, but He also designed the bones, veins, flesh and feathers of birds, in exquisite detail. To add insult to injury, it appears that Galileo,"the father of modern science," was what the Darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett disparagingly describes as a "mind-creationist": he believed that the human mind was not the product of Nature, but must have been specially created by God. The human mind was, according to Galileo, one the greatest of God’s achievements: "When I consider what marvellous things men have understood, what he has inquired into and contrived, I know only too clearly that the human mind is a work of God, and one of the most excellent." Yet the potential of the human mind "... is separated from the Divine knowledge by an infinite interval." (Poupard, Cardinal Paul. Galileo Galilei. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1983, p. 101.) Galileo saw himself as a man privileged by God. He believed that God, in His mercy, occasionally deigns to reveal a new insight to some chosen individual, thus augmenting the stock of knowledge revealed to humanity: "One must not doubt the possibility that the Divine Goodness at times may choose to inspire a ray of His immense knowledge in low and high intellects, when they are adorned with sincere and holy zeal." (Chiari, A. Galileo Galilei, Scritti Letterari. Florence: Felice Le Monnier, 1970, p. 545.) Galileo saw himself as the recipient of great truths that were previously known only to God, and he expressed his gratitude to God for being the first to experience these revelations: "I render infinite thanks to God, for being so kind as to make me alone the first observer of marvels kept hidden in obscurity for all previous centuries." (Sobel, Dava, Galileo’s Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love. Toronto: Viking Press, 1999, p. 6.) Seer. Supernaturalist. Miracle believer. Intelligent Design theorist. Mind creationist. This is your hero, Galileo Galilei. And he was a great scientist, too. I hope that you will be gracious enough to allow your student to freely hold and publicly defend the same views as those held by the father of modern science. I remain, Sir, Yours sincerely, Vincent Torleyvjtorley_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

I humbly withdraw my submission.SteveB_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

allanius, Bravo. -sbSteveB_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Dear Professor Candypants, Thank you for your warm and heartfelt apology. It’s encouraging to see someone who is willing to stand up and frankly admit he is wrong without having to be compelled or coerced, and without trying to, you know, weasel out of it or anything. It takes a real man to do that, and you certainly have shown me something! I completely agree with you that the whole situation is reminiscent of dear, old Galileo, may his sainted bones rest in peace, fixed in space or otherwise. Before I came to our esteemed university, I read lots of peer-reviewed articles showing quite clearly that life is based on information, is very complicated, and is quite unlikely to have popped up from nothing, of its own accord, as it were. These facts, on which everyone fully agrees, seem to suggest a role for some sort of creative intelligence in the origin of life. I was excited about coming here because I knew that universities are great places for learning new things and exchanging ideas. Imagine my surprise when I found myself violently berated and even shunned for pointing out the obvious—that life appears gives every appearance of having been designed! You are right—Galileo must have felt very much the same way! He came to Rome full of excitement about the new heliocentric theory and all the evidence supporting it, and all he got was a cold shoulder and a hot poker! Of course no one has put me under house arrest, but I have been treated like someone who is “vehemently suspect of heresy.” What could be more vehement than the way you yourself denounced me in front of my fellow students? I can see from your letter, however, that you are truly sorry about having fallen into the Inquisitorial mood. I know—it had nothing to do with me personally. It was just your tender concern for orthodoxy, very much like those earnest Jesuits of old. Now that you’ve had a change of heart and happily issued the apology that Galileo never got from the Church, I am looking forward to seeing you again and talking with you about design. I know you’re only here on Tuesdays and Thursdays. I wouldn’t want to impose on your busy schedule or interrupt your important work. Should I make an appointment, or just drop by? Sincerely yours, Curiousallanius_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

"With regard to our conversation about your belief that evolution is not true, I apologize to you for appearing to denigrate your obviously strongly held beliefs. I had not intended to offend you in any way regarding your faith or your world view. That this was so perceived by you, I again offer my sincerest apology." What a pile of ...Mung_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Momorandum To: Dr. Richard Pompous, Department of Evolutionary Biology From: Dr Hugh Miliated, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Dear Dick, While it would be easier to simply censure you and be done with all this business, because the mission of Anonymous University emphasizes education and not mere reprimand, the initial draft of your letter is being returned to you for extensive revision. Your first attempt failed to meet the requirements outlined in our previous correspondence on multiple levels. The department therefore requires that each of these be addressed according to established university standards before your essay is resubmitted. The Assignment. First and foremost, you were required to apologize to Ms. Unnamed, not provide her with a pedantic and irrelevant lecture, nor to blame her for her failure to correctly perceive the intent of your in-class rant (off the record, you and I both know her perceptions were spot on). Should this notion be too challenging for you to grasp independently, you are encouraged to consult the Department of Early Childhood Development on our campus, as the faculty there have extensive experience in the understanding and mitigation of emotionally immature and inappropriately arrogant tantrums, and in the subsequent coaching of actual apologies. Galileo. Because the references in your initial draft demonstrate an utter failure to grasp the significance of this figure from history, I offer the following questions to assist you: Who represents the entrenched authority structure in the conflict between you and Ms. Unnamed? Who held the minority dissenting view? Who was willing to challenge the entrenched authority at significant personal risk to herself? You are encouraged to think this issue through carefully before resubmission, as you initial draft demonstrated very little evidence of this. Inappropriate Religious Instruction. The department has noted with some consternation the increasing frequency with which biology faculty respond with a knee-jerk "denigration [of the questioning student's] religious views" when some aspect of evolutionary theory is honestly questioned. We therefore feel the need to remind you of our policy that religion and religious topics are inappropriate for science classes. It is distressing that we can all agree on this course of action in faculty luncheons, but then our faculty--all of whom are dyed-in-the-wool naturalists--consistently defend evolutionary biology with religious arguments. On this score, we encourage you to seek the counsel of the faculty in the Physics department, who seem to feel no need to resort to personal attacks on students' religious views when they are asked about, for example, general relativity. Finally, this episode has cost Anonymous University enough--both financially and in terms of bad press. Get your act together. Draft #2 is due on my desk before noon tomorrow. Sincerely, HughSteveB_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Flannery, "Without that awareness, modern science simply would not have happened. So Galileo should remind you, as indeed this student has, that religion far from being an impediment to science has been rather a catalyst for it." Could not be better phrased!Eugene S_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT}

Dear Professor, Your last two paragraphs warrant a two-fold response. First, your reference to Galileo conjures up some very bad history. Alluding to Galileo, you suggest implicitly that you feel yourself to be the persecuted victim here, championing the cause of scientific truth in the face of relgious opposition. The problem is your account renders a version of the Galileo story that harkens back to the outdated "religion vs. science" thesis presented more than a century ago by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. If you would read the latest scholarship on this, you'll find that Galileo's trial before the Inquisition was based more on politics than either religion or science. The issue is too complex to be recounted here, but I recommend John Hannam's The Genesis of Science (2011). As Hannam points out, Galileo drew much of his thinking from medieval natural philosophy. Galileo triumphed because he had solved the problems against which his deeply religious precedessors had long struggled and boldly challenged the erroneous ideas not of the Bible but of Aristotle. Indeed Galileo and the science upon which he stood owes Christianity a great debt. As Hannam points out, the natural philosophers of the Middle Ages would "make modern science even conceivable. They made science safe in a Christian context, showed it could be useful, and constructed a wordview where it made sense. Their central belief that nature was created by God and so worthy of their attention was one that Galileo endorsed. Without that awareness, modern science simply would not have happened." So Galileo should remind you, as indeed this student has, that relgion far from being an impediment to science has been rather a catalyst for it. But this raises a second and perhaps more disturbing issue. It is hoped this misplaced reference to Galileo doesn't find its way into your classroom. Science based upon bad history is never good because it clouds the context for all that is to follow. If this is a sampling of what students get in your class, maybe a little post-tenure review is in order.Flannery_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

Galileo Galilei “Professor, I knew Galileo Galilei, Galileo Galilei was a friend of mine, and Professor, you're no Galileo Galilei".RkBall_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

It would all make a little more sense if we had some more details of just what was said (on both sides). The student 'voiced opposition' and the teacher 'screamed, denigrated etc'. This is your wording. Lynch mobs are fun, but any chance we could have a little more info ?Graham_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Dear Professor, Thank you for your apology. I was deeply flattered that you would compare me to Galileo. Truly, I do feel a deep connection with his predicament. In biology, we observe all the elements of real and true design. Design is so integral to life yet the prevailing consensus is that there is no design, no teleology, no irreducible complexity. When you harangued me for stating the obvious and logical conclusions of our observations, I was like 'but it is right there in front of you, professor!?' Thank you for that and I look forward to you lecture on how intelligent design is a more productive and insightful conceptualization of biologly than chance and necessity.Steve_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Ms. _________ Apology accepted. You're only human despite our disagreement on how that came to be.lpadron_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Well, now we know why science teachers aren't history teachers.Mung_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

You might want to double-check my facts JUST TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE; the following information was pulled from (a) Wikipedia (b) http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html (c) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39440712/ns/technology_and_science-science/ That being said, what follows does fit what I recall reading/hearing elsewhere. - - - - - - - - - - - - Dear ____, Contrary to popular wisdom, Galileo wasn't punished for giving arguments for heliocentrism (in fact, Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in his upcoming book. He only reminded Galileo to refrain from representing it as more than a hypothesis, which was something Galileo already agreed to do in court). Instead, Galileo was punished for violating his agreement and ostensibly insulting those he disagreed with. (In that book, Galileo seems to represent the proponent of the geocentric view as a fool, going so far as to name him "Simplicio" [which in italian has the connotation of "simpleton"], and even put the words of the Pope into Simplicio's mouth!) This is an excerpt from the science section of msnbcnews: "The notion that Galileo's trial was a conflict between science and religion should be dead," Mayer told LiveScience. "Anyone who works seriously on Galileo doesn't accept that interpretation anymore." So, perhaps the allusion to Galilo is apropos. Like you, I'm sure IF Galileo treated his interlocutors with respect and calmly stuck with the arguments, he would have been much better off.BlakeG_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

OT: Stephen Curtis Chapman has a new song out :) Steven Curtis Chapman - Do Everything (Lyrics) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEqdDdvFXZ0bornagain77_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Hi Sonfaro, If you take what I wrote as a sort of irony, you'll understand it as I intended. Ms._______ is looking through the telescope, and interpreting the world according to what she observes, rather than acquiescing to the imposed dogma. The professor, intentionally or not, describes her situation when he invokes Galileo, and unwittingly (or not) casts himself in the role of an enforcer instead of a teacher. (Of course, one could interpret the apology as sincere, understanding the roles just as I specified.) Ms._______ may do well to publicly thank the professor for his sincere apology and his keen insight into the academic oppression of dissenters -- those who wish to follow the evidence where it leads, but come under ritual abuse of the Darwinist goose-steppers. Ironically, the apology can be almost perfectly understood in that light.material.infantacy_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

But, Sir, Galileo was right. : )arkady967_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Hi material.infantacy, You write: -"No need for a rewrite if, in the context of the last two paragraphs, Ms. _______ is understood to be Galileo, and the professor is cast as a zealot of the church. It fits quite well." I'm not sure I agree with you here - especially in context of this professors alleged behavior. I think the professor feels that by apologizing to her for speaking his mind on what he believes to be the truth, he is effectively being forced to recant his position by the school system - which would lead him to equate himself with Galileo and the school as the catholic church. The girl being Galileo wouldn't fit, as he would be admitting that she has evidence against his beliefs. As for the contest, I vote for junkdnaforlife's rebuttal. :-) - SonfaroSonfaro_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Not to enter the contest, but only to note that Galileo, being a believer in God, would be very pleased, if he were around today, to realize that modern discoveries, such as the Privileged Planet Principle, have overturned the Copernican Principle (Principle of Mediocrity) which came about by the removal of the Earth from centrality in the universe: ,,,There are many independent characteristics required to be fulfilled for any planet to host advanced carbon-based life. Two popular books have been written, 'The Privileged Planet' by Guillermo Gonzalez and 'Rare Earth' by Donald Brownlee, indicating the earth is extremely unique in its ability to host advanced life in this universe. Privileged Planet, which also holds that any life supporting planet in the universe will also be 'privileged' for observation of the universe, has now been made into a excellent video. The Privileged Planet - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV5zkifLSbc Privileged Planet - Observability Correlation - Gonzalez and Richards - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431 The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole. - Jay Richards ================ There is also a well researched statistical analysis of the many independent 'life-enabling characteristics' that gives strong mathematical indication that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe and shows, from a naturalistic perspective, that a life permitting planet is extremely unlikely to 'accidentally emerge' in the universe. The statistical analysis, which is actually a refinement of the Drake equation, is dealt with by astro-physicist Dr. Hugh Ross (1945-present) in his paper 'Probability for Life on Earth'. Does the Probability for ETI = 1? Excerpt; On the Reasons To Believe website we document that the probability a randomly selected planet would possess all the characteristics intelligent life requires is less than 10^-304. A recent update that will be published with my next book, Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, puts that probability at 10^-1054. http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1 Linked from "Appendix C" in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate ? 10^324 longevity requirements estimate ? 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ? 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236 ==================== As well, I think Galileo would be very pleased by this video: The Known Universe - Dec. 2009 - a very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4240304/ Of technical note; 4-D space-time cannot adequately explain the centrality we witness for the earth in the universe, yet universal quantum wave collapse to each unique point of observation does: This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the 'spooky actions', for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are 'universal and instantaneous': Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm more technical notes: Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.htmlbornagain77_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Prof: In making this apology to you, I am reminded of what happened to Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) – considered by many to be the father of modern science. In 1610 Galileo determined through his telescope and various mathematical calculations, that the Earth moved around the sun. But unlike Galileo, I am regretfully reminded that Neo-Darwinsim can make no claim to direct evidence in the spirit and rigor of Galileo, nor does it exist in any reasonable mathematical framework. Thus the quest for understanding how life on Earth originated and blossomed into the diverse complexity that the fossil record and our own eyes display for us, remains a mystery. A work however, in progress. Whereas an open an honest discussion of the evidence is not only welcome, but mandatory. Thank you.junkdnaforlife_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

What a beautifully written non apology!Mung_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Dear Professor, Thank you very much for your apology. I hope that these events will encourage you to engage more graciously in the exchange of ideas in the future. The next time you feel tempted to use your position of power to force your strongly held beliefs on students, please ask yourself - what would Galileo do?scribo_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

I'm quite puzzled how the professor is "reminded of what happened to Galileo Galilei". I doubt the professor could be viewing himself as Galileo here: It wouldn't merely be "smug and pompous", but incredibly bizarre - after all, he's the authority figure here. The only sense I can make of it is to conclude that he's comparing "Ms." to Galileo - which is how material.infantacy in the first response is also reading it.goodusername_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Would someone get that worked up over Atomic theory? Clear there is more than science at stake here.bbigej_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

No need for a rewrite if, in the context of the last two paragraphs, Ms. _______ is understood to be Galileo, and the professor is cast as a zealot of the church. It fits quite well.material.infantacy_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply