Fine Tuning and the Intellectual Necessity

I will try to your royal Highness,,, LOL I commend your efforts, Marshal Ney. Nakashima

I will try to your royal Highness,,, LOL bornagain77

Mr BA^77, thoroughly disrupt” is defined as – exhaustively and completely broken asunder. This kind of Talmudic exegesis of the wording of a web page is pointless. Deal with the fact that detectors detect photons in "thoroughly disrupted" states, they don't detect the lack of photons. But it matters not to me if you do so, just please try to restrain yourself in trying to convince me that your fantasies are real. If only you would do others the same courtesy. Nakashima

Seversky, "thoroughly disrupt" is defined as - exhaustively and completely broken asunder. Thank you for proving my point of yours and Naks eager willingness to deceive yourselves by word play. But it matters not to me if you do so, just please try to restrain yourself in trying to convince me that your fantasies are real. It is a bit tiring to have someone insist they are Napoleon all the time wouldn't you agree? bornagain77

bornagain77 @ 43 First, you should bear in mind that the scientists conducting these experiments or discussing them will all assume the the First Law is inviolable. If you doubt that you are free to contact them and confirm it.

Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh

Second, the very first sentence in the paper cited above reads:

Quantum teleportation is a recently discovered phenomenon by which it is possible to transfer the quantum state of one particle to another.[My emphasis]

Also, from this paper:

Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page

Rather than the excerpt you quote, you should have noted this passage:

In brief, they found a way to scan out part of the information from an object A, which one wishes to teleport, while causing the remaining, unscanned, part of the information to pass, via the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect, into another object C which has never been in contact with A. Later, by applying to C a treatment depending on the scanned-out information, it is possible to maneuver C into exactly the same state as A was in before it was scanned. A itself is no longer in that state, having been thoroughly disrupted by the scanning, so what has been achieved is teleportation, not replication.[My emphases]

Note that they describe particle A as having been "thoroughly disrupted" not destroyed. In other words, two of the papers you cite in support of your position actually provide evidence supporting ours. Thank you for your assistance. Seversky

No Nak, you only convinced yourself that no violation of the first law occurred in the discussion last November. I just shook my head and gently laughed at the eager willingness with which you lead yourself astray. The fact is that you fooled yourself into believing that no violation occured. Yet the truth is that specified infinite transcendent information is what each and every photon is made of, for that (infinite specified transcendent information) is the one and only known entity which has sufficient causal power to explain the highly coordinated origination/creation of energy in the big bang 13.7 billion years ago. That no energy residue would be left, within the system, upon teleportation of the infinite specified transcendent information of a photon, to the subject photon, is in complete agreement with all other lines of evidence, such as the completely "instantaneous" timeless nature of transcendent information, and the total disregard transcendent information has for any spatial constraint as well, as well as the complete dominion that transcendent information has clearly exercised over energy in these teleportation experiments. i.e. information tells the photon exactly what to be and do in the experiments. i.e. anything exercising dominion of another entity must possess greater qualities of existence. "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past."(Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ Unconditional Quantum Teleportation - abstract Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5389/706 etc...etc... bornagain77

Mr BA^77, The fact that zero energy residue is found at the detector, or even within the entire “teleportation system”, is what firmly establishes the violation of the first law. Are we going to repeat the entire comment string from last November? If there were zero energy residue detected at the detector, it should show a flat line, right? So go find a paper that shows that evidence. Violating the first law would be Nobel Prize, front page news. It hasn't happened. All you've demonstrated is a short memory for the outcome of these discussions. Nakashima

Nak you asked: "Are dragonflies conscious enough to cause waveform collapse, according to Dr Wigner?" That is an interesting question, and though I am surely no expert on how solid the exegesis of this following video is, I trust that it does indeed provide a rough benchmark as to where sufficient sentient consciousness resides to bring about the "materialization" of the uncertain 3-D particles from the higher dimensional quantum information waves: The Mystery Of Life - God's Creation & Providence - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4193364 bornagain77

Nak, you mistakenly say; "It only ceases to exist as a separate entity when it is absorbed by the detector." The fact that zero energy residue is found at the detector, or even within the entire "teleportation system", is what firmly establishes the violation of the first law. bornagain77

Nak, the clear implications are that consciousness must precede 3-D reality. There is no other solution. My question is why are you so adverse to what is so apparent? bornagain77

Nak, just because you deny the empirical evidence, as you do with every piece of evidence for Intelligent Design, does not detract one iota from the fact. 2 Timothy 3:7 "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth." bornagain77

Mr BA^77, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” With all due respect to Dr Wigner, there is no term for consciousness in the Standard Model. Are dragonflies conscious enough to cause waveform collapse, according to Dr Wigner? What about phosphor coated screens? Either Dr Wigner is saying that the entire universe was in an uncertain state until the first conscious being began to perceive it, or concsiousness is a base property of matter. This ain't science. Nakashima

Mr BA^77, Seversky, to make this clear, I am referring to “destroy the photon” as to the complete annihilation of a photon, and all the properties of energy associated with a photon in the quantum teleportation experiments. i.e. there is zero residue of energy to be found. Didn't you learn this lesson the last time we discussed quantum teleportation? The photon is not destroyed by the interaction that forces the distant (entangled) photon to assume the same state. It only ceases to exist as a separate entity when it is absorbed by the detector. No quantum teleportation experiment violates the first law of thermodynamics. Nakashima

Seversky, to make this clear, I am referring to "destroy the photon" as to the complete annihilation of a photon, and all the properties of energy associated with a photon in the quantum teleportation experiments. i.e. there is zero residue of energy to be found. http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/ Seversky you also stated: "Perhaps there is a problem with that interpretation since it leads to such paradoxes." With the refutation of hidden variables, the only "problem" is that materialism is completely, and irrevocably, falsified as a valid explanation for 3D reality. There is zero "chicken and egg" paradox within the Theistic framework for what we witness in the double-slit experiment: Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963 bornagain77

So doomsday, Please explain quantum teleportation in detail to the first law, which is what we are talking about, instead of talking about the absorption and release of photons from atoms. A process which clearly stays within the first law and is totally irrelevant to the topic we are referring to.

Before discussing quantum teleportation itself, are we agreed that the experiments did not create or destroy energy in violation the First Law? Our understanding is that energy, such as light or body-heat, is emitted from a source as discrete packets or photons which can appear to be either waves or particles depending on how they are measured. If a photon collides with an atom it ceases to exist as a separate entity but the total energy of the atom is increased by that amount. In other words, the photon has been destroyed only in the sense that it no longer exists as a discrete object. Its energy has has been absorbed by the atom. The total energy of the atom/photon system remains the same. As before, it is a loss of form not substance.

When that is complete, I would like for you to explain why materialists insist that consciousness arises from a 3-D material basis when “uncertain” 3-D material particles do not even collapse from the “quantum information waves” in the first place until a conscious observer is present. Please explain how in the world something can give rise to that which is a necessary condition for its own reality in the first place.

Your interpretation is problematic because it involves a paradox either way. Yes, if consciousness only emerges from pre-existing material systems, but those material systems can only exist when being observed by a conscious intelligence, then we have a straightforward chicken-and-and egg paradox. But for a conscious intelligence to have a measurable effect in the material world it must itself be material in some sense, even if it exists as some disembodied energy field. That being the case, who or what is observing the conscious intelligence to cause it to come into existence? And then who is observing the observer to cause that observer to come into existence? And so on ad infinitum. Perhaps there is a problem with that interpretation since it leads to such paradoxes. Seversky

So doomsday, Please explain quantum teleportation in detail to the first law, which is what we are talking about, instead of talking about the absorption and release of photons from atoms. A process which clearly stays within the first law and is totally irrelevant to the topic we are referring to. When that is complete, I would like for you to explain why materialists insist that consciousness arises from a 3-D material basis when "uncertain" 3-D material particles do not even collapse from the "quantum information waves" in the first place until a conscious observer is present. Please explain how in the world something can give rise to that which is a necessary condition for its own reality in the first place. bornagain77

OK, ba^77: if you know so much about QM, how is it that you don't know that photons are, really and truly, created all the time? Turn on a light: voila! You've just caused a bunch of photons to be created. And yes, Nak is right: all "man" has to do to create them is sit there and emit infrared. No light bulbs required. Do you think that photons are somehow packed in neat little stacks inside of everything and filled up when it's time to emit one? Well, they're not. Until they're emitted, they don't exist, and when they're absorbed, they are destroyed. Doomsday Smith

Nak, you are one of the last people in the world I would trust the judgment of when dealing with quantum mechanics since you can't even see, (more likely you just won't acknowledge), that quantum mechanics completely falsifies the foundational premises of the materialistic philosophy from which you work in all your hypothesis's. bornagain77

Mr BA^77, It is also interesting to note that we can only “destroy” a photon in these quantum teleportation experiments. No one has “created” a photon as of yet. I firmly believe man shall never do as such, since I hold only God is infinite, and perfect, in information/knowledge. Photons are absorbed and emitted all the time. You don't have to light a candle or turn a switch to start emitting photons, your body is emitting infra-red photons all the time. Nakashima

Seversky you are wrong on so many counts it is hard to know where to start???, But then you would not listen anyway if you were corrected for you have to much invested in chasing your lies of materialism and apparently could care less for the truth that science has currently revealed? Am I wrong? I would hope I would be but I have seen nothing in your posts of the promise to even try with you. A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck - father of Quantum Mechanics and a devout Christian bornagain77

Collin @ 23

Biologists would do well to know more about the philosophical underpinnings of science. Several philosophies heavily influence modern science including logical positivism, empiricism and materialism. The thing is, science cannot prove any of these true. I’m not saying that they are bad philosophies, but it is clear to me that science is grounded on philosophy and philosophy is grounded in human reasoning and intuition.

Yes, it wouldn't hurt some biologists to learn a bit more about philosophy, just as it wouldn't hurt some philosophers to learn a bit more about biology. But a lot of philosophy seems to be to be little more than post-hoc rationalizing. For researchers trying to find a cure for a deadly disease, discovering whether their philosophies of science are 'well-grounded' is probably not going to be high on their list of priorities. They just want to find something that works. Seversky

Joseph @ 22

How is destroying something that is useless and unsupportable a problem?

If it's "useless and unsupportable", what's the point of spending so much time and energy trying to destroy it? Seversky

bornagain77 @ 21

Lets see you are completely off the mark by how much: A complete and total transcendent origin of the universe as far as materialism is concerned (but not quantum information)

Nobody knows what the origin of the Universe was, transcendent or otherwise, so it doesn't help either of us.

A finely tuned universe that beggars comprehension of the exactness of its parameters

And, as Douglas Adams pointed out, a conscious puddle might marvel at the exact fit of the hollow in the ground in which it found itself.

A privileged planet that is “just right” by +200 parameters we have ascertained so far

In the past 540 million years there have been 5 major extinction events in which upwards of 50% of all animal species were wiped out. The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old so it's a fair bet that there have been a lot more which don't show up yet in the fossil record. A couple of days ago, just by chance, I read about an interesting star called Gliese 710. It's 63 light-years away now but in 1.5 million years it will brush past barely a light-year away. That could be close enough for the gravitational disturbance to the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt to send to send a lot more comets and other cosmic debris our way. If we're still around, we're going to need a lot better planetary defenses than we have now. We're here because the Earth is lucky enough to be in the habitable zone around the Sun. We're lucky that, in the short time we've been here, there haven't been any major catastrophes - yet. It hasn't always been this quiet in the past and it won't always be this quiet in the future. This is not a bad part of the Galaxy to be in. There are plenty of places that are far more dangerous and violent. But add in earthquakes, tsunamis, supervolcanoes or even nearby supernovae and it becomes obvious that anyone who thinks this is some sort of idyllic haven is living in a Fool's Paradise.

A simplest cell on earth that exceeds any man-made machine in complexity and that defies comprehension by “teams” of the finest minds in biology

And who was it revealed the complex inner structure of the cell? It couldn't have been those materialistic biologists that everyone is so keen to mock, could it?

Excuse me if I am less than impressed with your ability to rightly discern evidence.

Excuse me if I'm less than impressed with your opinion. Seversky

bornagain77 @ 19

Sev, in case you forgot, your materialistic philosophy predicted a “steady state” universe in the first place,

Both steady state and Big Bang theories were products of materialist science.

Your materialistic philosophy was falsified in regards to its predictions for infinite time and space and space as well.

Strawman. The origins question apparently resolves to just two possibilities: either an infinite regress of cause-and-effect or an arbitrary and inexplicable First Cause. Neither are satisfactory answers, albeit for different reasons, but then we have no reason to think the Universe was created just to keep us happy.

It is also interesting to note that we can only “destroy” a photon in these quantum teleportation experiments. No one has “created” a photon as of yet. I firmly believe man shall never do as such, since I hold only God is infinite, and perfect, in information/knowledge.

The quantum teleportation experimenters did not observe or claimed to have observed a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. As I understand it, the energy of the photon did not cease to exist. It went on to become part of other systems. What was destroyed was a quantum state. It was a destruction of form not substance. Seversky

Using multiverse theory to deny fine-tuning is a bit like using Porsches and Lamborghinis to refute the fine tuning of the Bugatti Veyron. Beyond unnecessarily multiplying the fine-tuners I can't see that it accomplishes anything. Franck Barfety

About multiverses: if there are enough universes to make ours likely, then there are enough universes to make God likely in one of them. Multiverses doesn't really answer the question. Seversky, Biologists would do well to know more about the philosophical underpinnings of science. Several philosophies heavily influence modern science including logical positivism, empiricism and materialism. The thing is, science cannot prove any of these true. I'm not saying that they are bad philosophies, but it is clear to me that science is grounded on philosophy and philosophy is grounded in human reasoning and intuition. Collin

Seversky:

I have nothing against Intelligent Design or creationism per se, other than the lack of credible evidence for either.

Translation- You cannot introduce Seversky to neither "God" nor the designer(s) and that is the only "credible" evidence Seversky will accept- well only if "God" or the designer(s) designes either a universe or a living organism while Seversky watches.

What I do object to is when they are used to advance the social and political aspirations of right-wing Christianity which could quite easily lead to atheists and agnostics being declared unpatriotic and even deprived of citizenship.

Oops Seversky exposes his ignorance:

"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."- John Morris, president of the Insitute for Creation Research

hmmmm...

When you have Jonathon Wells, one of the leading scientific lights of intelligent design/creationism, quite brazenly admitting that the only reason he entered science was to destroy Darwinism then you have a problem.

How is destroying something that is useless and unsupportable a problem?

Joseph

Sev states: "I have nothing against Intelligent Design or creationism per se, other than the lack of credible evidence for either." Lets see you are completely off the mark by how much: A complete and total transcendent origin of the universe as far as materialism is concerned (but not quantum information) A finely tuned universe that beggars comprehension of the exactness of its parameters A privileged planet that is "just right" by +200 parameters we have ascertained so far A simplest cell on earth that exceeds any man-made machine in complexity and that defies comprehension by "teams" of the finest minds in biology Exquisite life-enabling terraforming of the early earth by exceeding complex biogeochemical processes timed to coincide with the gradual increase in brightness from the sun as well as tectonic activity An explosion of + 50 phyla in the Cambrian seemingly "out of nowhere" Continued sudden appearance of forms in the fossil record with no uncontested transitional forms. And you have what evidence for evolution??? Oh yeah, finch beaks that vary and bacteria become resistant to antibiotic as long as the antibiotic is present then the parent strain recoops,,, Excuse me if I am less than impressed with your ability to rightly discern evidence. bornagain77

Paul Giem @ 15

If I understand correctly, you are approving this point of view here. Two aspects of this appear ironic to me. First, that attitude would have little or no patience for questions such as, “What is the history of life?” With that attitude one could not object to full-blown creationism, let alone intelligent design. Yet you have used considerable bytes explaining your passionate disagreement with such theories. What gives?

I have nothing against Intelligent Design or creationism per se, other than the lack of credible evidence for either. What I do object to is when they are used to advance the social and political aspirations of right-wing Christianity which could quite easily lead to atheists and agnostics being declared unpatriotic and even deprived of citizenship. When you have Jonathon Wells, one of the leading scientific lights of intelligent design/creationism, quite brazenly admitting that the only reason he entered science was to destroy Darwinism then you have a problem. I know he's a Moonie but there are many Christians who sympathize with him. It's an extraordinary thing to do. When Einstein went into science it was not to destroy Newtonian nechanics in the name of his personal faith. Like other physicists, he was well aware of the problems with Newton's theories. What he wanted to do was come up with a theory that would explain what Newton's did just as well but was not subject to the same limitations. In other words, he was just doing science not conducting some personal religious crusade. In small numbers, this sort of attitude is not a problem but, if they grow, the seeds are there for some sort of Christian version of Lysenkoism where only science that is doctrinally acceptable would be allowed. Then you would have a very serious problem. Unless you think that is actually a good idea, of course.

Even assuming that unguided evolution is true, one does not need to believe in, or even understand, macroevolution (let alone megaevolution) to do well on National Boards, or to practice what is generally recognized as good medicine.

I have no problem with that. My only observation would be that a greater familiarity with evolutionary theory might - and I stress "might" - have curbed the over-prescription of antimicrobials which has contributed to the emergence of resistant strains of a number of unpleasant bugs. Seversky

Sev, in case you forgot, your materialistic philosophy predicted a "steady state" universe in the first place, Refutation Of Steady-state & Oscillating Universe Models - Michael Strauss PhD. - video: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4169594/refutation_of_steady_state_oscillating_universe_models_michael_strauss_phd/ Formal Proof For The Transcendent Origin Of the Universe - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4170233/formal_proof_for_the_transcendent_origin_of_the_universe_william_lane_craig/ "The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science." - William Lane Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115 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 "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176 Your materialistic philosophy was falsified in regards to its predictions for infinite time and space and space as well. "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past."(Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html in fact out of all the holy books in the world only the Holy Bible has God creating the entire universe from outside time and space: Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Timothy 1:9 This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, As well the Bible predicted that "information" would be found to be transcendent and "primary to matter and energy: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Scientific Evidence For God (Logos) Creating The Universe - 2008 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995300/scientific_evidence_for_god_logos_creating_the_universe/ Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. It is also interesting to note that we can only “destroy” a photon in these quantum teleportation experiments. No one has “created” a photon as of yet. I firmly believe man shall never do as such, since I hold only God is infinite, and perfect, in information/knowledge. bornagain77

Clive Hayden @ 11

Of course, that’s your philosophy, isn’t it? It’s called Pragmatism, and it need not have any bearing on real truth whatsoever, only on functionality.

I think it's also called instrumentalism but it amounts to pretty much the same thing. I believe there is an objective reality out there but our access to it is limited to the data we can acquire with our limited physical senses augmented by such instrumentalities as we have been able to create so far. To make sense of this data we try tying it together with various explanatory frameworks or narratives. It's a bit like one of those join-the-dots drawings where bits of data we gather are the dots. The problem is we don't know what the picture is supposed to be. All we can do is try joining the dots together in different ways and see if we can come up with at least part of a picture. If we're on the right track, the picture that's suggested by the dots we have should point us towards where other dots can be found. If we find those dots where they're supposed to be then we may be on to something. Learning how the world works is probably vital to our prospects for survival as a species. Or that same knowledge could be used to destroy us.. The obvious example is atomic theory. It offered the prospect of far more energy than can be got from fossil fuels. It was also used to flatten Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Does either of those applications mean that atoms don't exist? Of course they don't. The Universe is the way it is. Whatever mistakes we make with such knowledge as we have acquired are our own fault not that of the knowledge itself. Seversky

Sev, And exactly how does The refutation of the steady state model help your atheistic-materialistic position? Methinks you are clearly barking up the wrong tree of the forest you don't see. bornagain77

bornagain77 @ 10

When Sir Fred Hoyle discovered the stunning precision with which carbon is synthesized in stars he stated: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

His theory of carbon nucleosynthesis was unquestionably a great triumph in his field. Unfortunately, the evidence is that he was wrong about the steady state universe, a theory also in his field. So how much weight should we give to Fred "Junkyard Tornado" Hoyle's opinions on questions of biology, which was not his field? Seversky

Seversky (#9) You say,

If, God forbid, you or a loved one were ever stricken with a serious illness, you wouldn’t be asking if the philosophical basis of a treatment was well-founded or if our reliance on methodological naturalism is justified. The only questions you would be asking are, ‘Does it work?’ and, if it does, ‘How well does it work?’ because, as Nakashima implied, that’s what counts.

If I understand correctly, you are approving this point of view here. Two aspects of this appear ironic to me. First, that attitude would have little or no patience for questions such as, "What is the history of life?" With that attitude one could not object to full-blown creationism, let alone intelligent design. Yet you have used considerable bytes explaining your passionate disagreement with such theories. What gives? Second, as Clive (#11) mentioned, there remains the question of what goals are worth expending energy for. How does your pragmatism deal with these questions? I say this as someone who has some sympathy with pragmatism in medicine. Even assuming that unguided evolution is true, one does not need to believe in, or even understand, macroevolution (let alone megaevolution) to do well on National Boards, or to practice what is generally recognized as good medicine. Nor is an understanding of, or belief in, ID a requirement. The editorial by Schwartz in the NEJM is simply off base. Paul Giem

Seversky:

The only questions you would be asking are, ‘Does it work?’ and, if it does, ‘How well does it work?’ because, as Nakashima implied, that’s what counts.

Nakashima is not an authority on investigations. Also "how did it come to be this way? is a very important question. Joseph

Seversky:

What is askew is the apparent inability of ID proponents to distinguish between biology, cosmology and philosophy.

What a crock. The point is that the evidence ID extends beyond biology Seversky. This debate extrends beyond biology Seversky. IOW Seversky ID doesn't just pick on evolution. Joseph

A multiverse does nothing to ID because no one says thedesigner(s) is (are) limited to designing one universe. Joseph

Seversky,

The only questions you would be asking are, ‘Does it work?’ and, if it does, ‘How well does it work?’ because, as Nakashima implied, that’s what counts.

Of course, that's your philosophy, isn't it? It's called Pragmatism, and it need not have any bearing on real truth whatsoever, only on functionality. We could turn it around and ask the same question of whether a "treatment" like lethal injection "works" to its intended purpose of killing folks, or if a biological weapon works in killing lots of folks, and if they do, then that's what counts. That's methodological naturalistic pragmatism for you. Whatever works works for the philosophical purpose of working. Is that the only question you would be asking in biological warfare? Clive Hayden

When Sir Fred Hoyle discovered the stunning precision with which carbon is synthesized in stars he stated: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Michael Denton - We Are Stardust - Uncanny Balance Of The Elements - Fred Hoyle Atheist to Theist - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003877/michael_denton_we_are_stardust_fine_tuning_of_the_elements_fred_hoyle_atheist_to_theist/ bornagain77

CannuckianYankee @ 5

It’s interesting though that the Darwinians should appeal to something for which they have no natural evidence in order to do science that is predicated on natural evidence. I find that hard to fathom. Something is askew in their thinking.

What is askew is the apparent inability of ID proponents to distinguish between biology, cosmology and philosophy. Fine-tuning is a question in cosmology. Neither Darwin's original theory nor its subsequent developments, being a theory in biology have anything to say about it. Whether fine-tuning is also an issue in philosophy is a question for philosophers not biologists, Dr Hunter's somewhat tortuous analogy notwithstanding. Philosophers and theologians can squabble about "epistemic difficulties" or whether our reliance on fallible senses is warranted but the fact is that, in science, methodological naturalism works. If, God forbid, you or a loved one were ever stricken with a serious illness, you wouldn't be asking if the philosophical basis of a treatment was well-founded or if our reliance on methodological naturalism is justified. The only questions you would be asking are, 'Does it work?' and, if it does, 'How well does it work?' because, as Nakashima implied, that's what counts. Seversky

Nakashima:

How could I deny convergence when it is as easy to prove as flipping pictures out of a coloring book? It doesn’t take venomous catfish to convince me of convergence. No sir. Ya see, venomous catfish convergence is a fact, and it is an intellectual necessity of science that facts be accomodated. Yes, there is a kind of science that does not have to accomodate facts as an intellectual necessity, the kind measured by the Baez Crackpot Index. The kind of science Dr Michael Behe testified about in Dover. The kind where reversing the polarity will make time run backwards. These kinds of science have something in common – they don’t work.

Sorry, you lost me. I don't follow what you're saying. You don't seem to understand the intellectual necessity of evolution. You also seem to have a problem with convergence, which is another example of how evolution does not explain biology very well. Cornelius Hunter

CannuckianYankee (5):

Is it necessarily an infinite number of universes, or is it a finite number?

It is a finite number, not infinite. That number is not easy to compute, but it is equal to or greater to the number required to make fine-tuning and evolution plausible.

I find that hard to fathom. Something is askew in their thinking.

Well it is entirely consistent with evolutionary thinking. Cornelius Hunter

Dr Hunter, How could I deny convergence when it is as easy to prove as flipping pictures out of a coloring book? It doesn't take venomous catfish to convince me of convergence. No sir. Ya see, venomous catfish convergence is a fact, and it is an intellectual necessity of science that facts be accomodated. Yes, there is a kind of science that does not have to accomodate facts as an intellectual necessity, the kind measured by the Baez Crackpot Index. The kind of science Dr Michael Behe testified about in Dover. The kind where reversing the polarity will make time run backwards. These kinds of science have something in common - they don't work. Nakashima

I'm stuck on the issue of the multiverse. Is it necessarily an infinite number of universes, or is it a finite number? If it is a finite number, then I could accept it if there was some concrete evidence rather than simply the necessity for evolution to be true in light of fine tuning. If it is an infinite number of universes, then I have logical problems with it. Either way, I don't see how either one is a solution to the apparent fine tuning of our present and experienced universe. It's interesting though that the Darwinians should appeal to something for which they have no natural evidence in order to do science that is predicated on natural evidence. I find that hard to fathom. Something is askew in their thinking. CannuckianYankee

Nakashima (3): So you deny convergence too? Cornelius Hunter

Stick to thylacines, Dr Hunter. If you flip the picture and squint, they do look like wolves. The same is not true of religion and science. Nakashima

Nakashima (1):

Do you think fact-hood and intellectual necessity in science are independent of each other?

If they are dependent that would be a sign of fine-tuning.

You posit universes where there might be intellectual necessities for science that are not facts.

Such as this one.

What might those be, faith commitments?

That's a good example for starters.

I agree, I don’t want to live in such a universe, where it is intellectually necessary to do fact free science!

I'm afraid you are. In fact, your soaking in it:

I’m happy living a universe where facts _are_ intellectual necessities for science, aren’t you?

Evolutionists fail to understand even basic problems with their claims. Cornelius Hunter

Dr Hunter, As in Mr Arrington's thread on the same topic, you're not starting on the right foot. Do you think fact-hood and intellectual necessity in science are independent of each other? You posit universes where there might be intellectual necessities for science that are not facts. What might those be, faith commitments? I agree, I don't want to live in such a universe, where it is intellectually necessary to do fact free science! I'm happy living a universe where facts _are_ intellectual necessities for science, aren't you? That's not a rhetorical question. Nakashima