Cosmology News Physics

Rob Sheldon: Dark matter, dark energy, … what is the role of evidence now?

Spread the love
Dr Sheldon
Rob Sheldon

Researchers ask,

Should a discrepancy between data and the existing cosmological theory be resolved by adding new entities such as dark matter and dark energy, or by modifying the underlying theory?

Paging Dr. Ockham. Preprint.

Rob Sheldon:

Duhem said “good sense” was needed to separate “novel theory” from “novel entity”. I’m not even sure why theories can’t predict entities and vice versa. I suppose the first has more of a metaphysical impact, while the latter has more of an epistemological impact. So the question becomes “Which is more likely, that we have misconstructed reality, or that we have mis-identified some observation?”

In my mind, it is hugely more likely that we have misidentified an observation. Metaphysics is dangerous business, because it is really so very pervasive and pernicious. I’d rather find the demons and exorcize them than argue about the reality of spirits the rest of my life.

I’m working on a paper that attempts to show:

a) Dark matter is in ice grains and comets, which are hard to see, but otherwise neither mysterious nor exotic. The “disproof” that excludes ice and comets relies on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis models, which are known to be over-simplified and over 50 years old. The reason no one updates them is that they give the “right” answer, but it is a delicate balance, and should more physics be put into the models, they will no longer give the “right” answer, which is a case of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But more significantly, everyone wants to use the BBN models to exclude “baryonic matter” in order to justify the theorizing about exotic particles. Both the modellers and the “dark matter particle theorists” point to the other as their validation. It’s a scientific echo chamber, or a scientific paradigm, or a “shared metaphysics”. And it doesn’t work.

b) Dark Energy doesn’t exist for numerous reasons:

i) The need for dark energy comes from cosmological evolution models that cannot account for “voids”, large bubbles in the universe devoid of galaxies. But despite the models having millions and billions of pixels, they are “computationally limited” to simplified physics. Voids may simply be seeded at scales below their resolution. We don’t know.

ii) When dark energy is calculated from QM, the discrepancy with “void models” mentioned above is 120 orders of magnitude = 10^120

iii) The “evidence” for dark energy consists of the extinction of the light from very distant supernovae. If dark matter is ice grains and comets (see above) then dark matter naturally accounts for the dimming evidence deduced by Perlmutter, which earned him a Nobel prize some 3 years after his paper. Way too fast for a man younger than me, and for a paper with so many other interpretations. E.g., the Nobel is being used to validate the theory, and of course the theory validates the Nobel. Sound familiar?

iv) Dark energy destabilizes the universe. While it doesn’t greatly affect the dating of the Big Bang, it will mean that the universe ends “not with a bang but a whimper” This is a “time-asymmetric” solution that isn’t consistent with the flatness presently observed (and the fine-tuning it implies.) Roughly speaking, a man who makes a finely tuned Ferrari, isn’t likely to put it up on blocks and put a brick on the gas pedal to see what happens to the engine.

v) Once again, if dark matter turns out to be ice grains, then these grains will charge up and spin in the presence of starlight, which causes them to repel each other. Such effects would produce bubbles in the cosmos at early (more dusty) times that could account for the structure we see today, all without invoking new mysterious dark energy forces.

So what does history (and my analysis) demonstrate?

That novel theories are almost always wrong. That overlooked entities (observer limitations) are far more common than presently thought. That the same arrogance that wants to rework metaphysics and reality also seems to think that observations are exhaustive and infallible. That much of this theorizing is circularly validated.

If more scientists read the book of Job, they might learn the dangers of overtheorizing. Duhem was right–it takes good sense and humility to be a scientist.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

21 Replies to “Rob Sheldon: Dark matter, dark energy, … what is the role of evidence now?

  1. 1
    Acartia_bogart says:

    This is completely off topic but I thought I would throw it out there.

    I have been reading this blog for a couple months. The blog purports to be in support of the intelligent design community. Yet, I don’t remember seeing any articles talking about ID research, or discoveries, or predictions. The vast majority of articles have been attempts to poke holes in scientific theories or papers. Or to highlight scientific papers that disagree with the commonly held theory (which, by the way, is how science progresses and is very common).

    This all seems rather negative, sometimes bordering on childish. None of this supports ID. It is little better than supporting Christianity by identifying inconsistencies in other religions rather that the strengths of Christianity.

  2. 2
    phoodoo says:

    Acartia,

    What predictions do you think Darwinian evolution makes?

  3. 3
    humbled says:

    “The vast majority of articles have been attempts to poke holes in scientific theories or papers.”

    Not true Ab, we poke holes in Darwinian superstition, myth and folklore masquerading as science. There is a HUGE difference. . .

  4. 4
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Phooddo, first, let’s agree to stop calling it Darwinian, or DarwinIsm, as if there have been no improvement on the theory since the late 1800s. There are very few evolutionary biologists today that accept the original theory as the explanation for all diversity.

    The current evolutionary theory(s) are very predictive and explanatory, but I am sure that you would disagree. Antibiotic resistance is such s prediction. Genetic and molecular similarities corresponding to morphological similarities is another. And before BA77 jumps all over me with examples where the morphological and genetic similarities do not line up as expected, please keep in mind that the cast majority that have been looked at correspond quite nicely. Predicting the most likely locations to find certain fossils is done through an understanding of evolution.

    Humbled, you are free to think whatever you would like about current evolutionary theory. Nobody is going to stop you. But my comment was that poking holes in one theory is not proof of another. Poking holes in theory that the earth is flat is not proof that we live on the inside of a sphere, or on a cube.

  5. 5
    TSErik says:

    I have been reading this blog for a couple months. The blog purports to be in support of the intelligent design community. Yet, I don’t remember seeing any articles talking about ID research, or discoveries, or predictions.

    This line gets funnier every time I hear read it. This is typical strawman meme that has been shut down over and over. We generally see it pop up when Darwinists are confronted with their own bankrupt ideas.

    There are plenty of discussions of the positive case for ID (ENCODE?). However, one must understand that ID’s critics and their positions which stonewall relevant discussions need be shown to be as intellectually bankrupt as they are.

    In a debate one not only presents one’s case, but needs to show the opposition’s case to be insufficient.

  6. 6
    Acartia_bogart says:

    TSErik, it was nice of you to use the term “meme” to defend your argument, a term that was coined by Dawkins. And it was nice of you to bring up ENCODE, who’s authors even admit that the claim of 80% functionality was greatly overestimated and that, at most, it may be 20%. And, again, the original 80% claim wasn’t evidence for ID, it wasn’t even evidence against undirected evolution. If true, it just would have called into question our assumptions about the accumulation of non functional DNA.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    ab, you state:

    “as if there have been no improvement on the theory since the late 1800s.”

    And those ‘improvements’ in Darwinism (the modern synthesis, the selfish gene) have all gone down in flames:

    Care what Dawkins says?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-502873

    ab you then claim:

    ‘Antibiotic resistance is such s prediction (from Darwinism).’

    Yet:

    (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics – April 2012
    Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/h.....1-2229183#

    Moreover,

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology
    Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....s_wro.html

    ab you then claim:

    the vast majority that have been looked at correspond quite nicely.

    Yet:

    Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush – May 15, 2013
    Excerpt: ,,, One whole subsection in the paper is titled, “All gene trees differ from species phylogeny.” Another is titled, “Standard practices do not reduce incongruence.” A third, “Standard practices can mislead.” One of their major findings was “extensive conflict in certain internodes.”
    The authors not only advised throwing out some standard practices of tree-building, but (amazingly) proposed evolutionists throw out the “uninformative” conflicting data and only use data that seems to support the Darwinian tree: “the subset of genes with strong phylogenetic signal is more informative than the full set of genes, suggesting that phylogenomic analyses using conditional combination approaches, rather than approaches based on total evidence, may be more powerful.”,,,
    ,,,tossing out “uninformative” data sets and only using data that appear to support their foreordained conclusion. Were you told this in biology class? Did your textbook mention this?
    http://crev.info/2013/05/darwi.....mble-bush/

    Here Are Those Incongruent Trees From the Yeast Genome – Case Study – Cornelius Hunter – June 2013
    Excerpt: We recently reported on a study of 1,070 genes and how they contradicted each other in a couple dozen yeast species. Specifically, evolutionists computed the evolutionary tree, using all 1,070 genes, showing how the different yeast species are related. This tree that uses all 1,070 genes is called the concatenation tree. They then repeated the computation 1,070 times, for each gene taken individually. Not only did none of the 1,070 trees match the concatenation tree, they also failed to show even a single match between themselves. In other words, out of the 1,071 trees, there were zero matches. Yet one of the fundamental predictions of evolution is that different features should generally agree. It was “a bit shocking” for evolutionists, as one explained: “We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 yeast.”
    In fact, as the figure above shows, the individual gene trees did not converge toward the concatenation tree. Evolutionary theory does not expect all the trees to be identical, but it does expect them to be consistently similar. They should mostly be identical or close to the concatenation tree, with a few at farther distances from the concatenation tree. Evolutionists have clearly and consistently claimed this consilience as an essential prediction.
    But instead, on a normalized scale from zero to one (where zero means the trees are identical), the gene trees were mostly around 0.4 from the concatenation tree with a huge gap in between. There were no trees anywhere close to the concatenation tree. This figure is a statistically significant, stark falsification of a highly acclaimed evolutionary prediction.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....-from.html

    Bothersome Bats and Other Pests Disturb the “Tree of Life” – Casey Luskin – December 5, 2012
    Excerpt: Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.
    (Liliana M. Dávalos, Andrea L. Cirranello, Jonathan H. Geisler, and Nancy B. Simmons, “Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats,” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 87:991-1024 (2012).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....67121.html

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  8. 8
    Dr JDD says:

    Acartia is playing the win-win card. Heads I win tails you lose. Acartia wants some ID research and papers yet we all full well know that any such original publications are in a catch 22 situation. That is to say, if you try to publish in mainstream journals no one will touch your publication if it suggests ID support. Just look at what happened when people like Meyer did that and the Smothsonian outrage. People lose jobs and are bullied out of positions for that. Stifling science and silencing those who disagree with you.

    Then there are those journals set up to allow publication of such pro-ID publications but others and evolutionists on here will claim it is pseudoscience, biased, and largely refuse to accept the work as valid.

    Like I said, tails we lose heads you win.There are plenty of predictions made (e.g. 15 yes ago I refused to accept that 98% of the genome is junk and predicted there must be more functionality than thought at the time if a designer as did others and look what we have found), plenty of original research papers published you just refuse to recognise them.

    The irony is that many predictions have been made in the past by ID and these are now being realised so much of what you see posted is simply us IDiots revelling in the satisfaction that our predictions are coming true. Lovely jubbley. Keep fooling yourself though, everyone needs their own faith-based system.

  9. 9
    lukebarnes says:

    More garbage …

    * “The “disproof” that excludes ice and comets relies on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis models, which are known to be over-simplified and over 50 years old. The reason no one updates them is that they give the “right” answer”

    Here is an update from last year: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6955 . Here is a brief review, citing around 150 scientific papers from 1967 to 2013: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/review.....thesis.pdf . Here are some more reviews, and some computer codes for you to run your own calculations: http://www-thphys.physics.ox.a.....r/bbn.html

    Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) calculations famously don’t give all the right answers. They get 4He, 3He and D correct within the observation errors, but 7Li is incorrect, overpredicted by a factor of about three. This is known as the Lithium problem, and his driven many attempts to repeat the BBN calculations with updated nuclear physics parameters. The problem remains unsolved, but the subject of intense research.

    The claim that no-one has updated BBN calculations for 50 years is ludicrous, patently false. The claim that cosmologists holding onto outdated models because they give the right answer is similarly misinformed.

    * Contrary to the claims above, the case against baryonic dark energy also relies on the cosmic microwave background, which is sensitive to the difference between forms of matter which feels the effects of pressure from the photon gas (baryons) and forms of matter that feel only gravity (dark matter).

    * regarding ii), the “dark energy calculated from QM” is wrong by at least 120 orders of magnitude whether dark energy exists or not.

    * “iv) Dark energy destabilizes the universe. While it doesn’t greatly affect the dating of the Big Bang, it will mean that the universe ends “not with a bang but a whimper” This is a “time-asymmetric” solution that isn’t consistent with the flatness presently observed”. Garbage. Go solve the Friedmann equations for a flat universe with matter and a positive cosmological constant. Cosmology 101. No instability in sight.

    * “If dark matter is ice grains and comets (see above) then dark matter naturally accounts for the dimming evidence”. Been there, done that. Such models have been investigated and require absorbers (“grey dust”) with highly unusual, unphysical distribution and properties: http://relativity.livingreview.....lese3.html

    Such models have been published, reviewed and found wanting. There is no conspiracy to suppress such alternative models. Where is yours?

  10. 10
    TSErik says:

    TSErik, it was nice of you to use the term “meme” to defend your argument, a term that was coined by Dawkins.

    It was a criticism of your argument. And so what? Are you trying to make some sorry appeal to authority? What does this have to do with anything?

    And it was nice of you to bring up ENCODE, who’s authors even admit that the claim of 80% functionality was greatly overestimated and that, at most, it may be 20%. And, again, the original 80% claim wasn’t evidence for ID, it wasn’t even evidence against undirected evolution.

    Typical equivocation and moving the goalposts. The prediction of ID was simply that what is assumed to be junk DNA should prove somehow functional and not simply a left over relic. This was proven to be true. But now, you try to move the goalposts saying, “Well, ok, but still…” and imposing new limitations.

    And as time goes on and studies continue, I believe we’ll see that even more is functional. Even if 100% of the “junk DNA” was proven to have function, you’d still move the goalposts to preserve your broken worldview.

    If true, it just would have called into question our assumptions about the accumulation of non functional DNA.

    This doesn’t make sense. It would show a correct prediction of ID. Again, you move the goalposts. So Darwinian prediction was for a rather large portion of junk DNA, and yet when that prediction is wrong it’s still evidence for Darwinian synthesis? Where’s the falsifiability?

    Heads I win, tails you lose indeed.

  11. 11
    TSErik says:

    Format error, the passage should be in blockquote as here below:

    And it was nice of you to bring up ENCODE, who’s authors even admit that the claim of 80% functionality was greatly overestimated and that, at most, it may be 20%. And, again, the original 80% claim wasn’t evidence for ID, it wasn’t even evidence against undirected evolution.

  12. 12
    mahuna says:

    If you start with the proposal that all of the major changes in Life on Earth have been designed and produced (through mechanisms we cannot yet guess)by an external intelligence, it would be worse than guessing to propose what the external intelligence would design next.

    As for proposing theories about older, previous forms of life, such as is documented in fossils, Intelligent Design theorizes that all major advances in complexity and intelligence would be clean breaks from the older, simpler forms of life.

    So, humans should appear without ancestors, which they apparently do. And so do whales and bats even birds. And multi-cellular life. All of the major advances occur without incremental changes, and the more advances we define and exam, the more we consistently find that the new design simply appears.

    The counter experiment (negative proof) would be to demonstrate the “creation” of a new, more complex living thing through something other than an intelligent (e.g., human) external agent tinkering with its DNA or some such. And such experiments have been regularly conducted over the last 150 years and they consistently fail.

    One of the more damning points for Neo-Darwinism is that Luther Burbank, the greatest creator of hybrids in the world, solidly rejected Darwinism as it was defined circa 1900. And if a man who designed and produced new, different versions of existing life as his major life work couldn’t see “descent with (unassisted) modification” as the way to get different forms of life, I think the ball is firmly in the Evolutionists’ court to produce even ONE example of “evolution”.

  13. 13
    goodusername says:

    Typical equivocation and moving the goalposts. The prediction of ID was simply that what is assumed to be junk DNA should prove somehow functional and not simply a left over relic. This was proven to be true.

    Now this is equivocation and moving of the goalposts. I doubt there ever existed a single person on the planet that ever thought that ALL the functional DNA had been found.

    Among biologists that believe in junk dna, there have been a wide range of estimates as to how much will end up being junk.
    Larry Moran is one of the biggest proponents of junk dna, and has been predicting ~90% for years.

    If we added up all the dna where a function has been found thus far, it would probably add up to only about 3-4%. Again, no one doubts this number will go up.

    So we have many years, of many further discoveries of new functional dna (with, I’m sure, the usual headlines in the media about junk dna being discovered false) before we even get to Larry Moran’s relatively high prediction.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Inferring Functionality for Virtually 100% of the Genome
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-503441

    Optimal Metabolism and Quantum DNA repair Implicate 100% functionality in Genome
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-503451

    A Short History Of The Junk DNA Argument Of Darwinists
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/14-TXfGxPu-3YeCHtLmxTmL4UZN90Odt135c59yTIFsw/edit

  15. 15
    TSErik says:

    Now this is equivocation and moving of the goalposts.

    How do you figure? If you are stating that I am arguing a position that isn’t in dispute (that nobody truly assumed all functional DNA had been found) then you would be accusing me of a strawman.

    However, you, in that statement, are tilting at your own windmill. Where did I say every biologist ever thought DNA was entirely understood? Oh, right, I didn’t. But this point is certainly easier to argue isn’t it?

    The point is that ID predicted higher percentage of functional DNA, and now we are seeing evidence of that. Simple.

    The term “junk DNA” has been around since the 1960’s and has always been used to describe noncoding relics left over from evolution. That’s beginning to be overturned.

    And if you mean to say that it was never actually believed that junk DNA was thought to be junk, Susumu Ohno, who cemented the term, may have something else to say about that. Ohno suggested this junk DNA, when analyzed through comparative genomics have no discernible function, and the sequence itself provided no adaptive advantage.

    So, in an effort to preserve the Darwinian worldview the meaning of “junk DNA” is being changed to, “well we just didn’t know. But we never said it was actually junk.”

  16. 16
    goodusername says:

    How do you figure? If you are stating that I am arguing a position that isn’t in dispute (that nobody truly assumed all functional DNA had been found) then you would be accusing me of a strawman.
    However, you, in that statement, are tilting at your own windmill. Where did I say every biologist ever thought DNA was entirely understood? Oh, right, I didn’t. But this point is certainly easier to argue isn’t it?

    Perhaps I misunderstood, but you seemed to be claiming a “goal” for the ID side for a prediction coming true that, most likely, everyone was predicting.

    Again, I doubt that there’s anyone that doubted that we’d keep finding functions for regions of dna which had no known function.

    The point is that ID predicted higher percentage of functional DNA, and now we are seeing evidence of that. Simple.

    Higher than what? If you mean higher than what Darwinists say, well, again, it depends on the Darwinist. Predictions were/are all over the map – many say about half our dna is junk, others say a minority, and others a large majority. (According to Moran: “The idea that most of our genome is junk was never the ‘dominant’ view among biologists even though it’s correct.”)

    The term “junk DNA” has been around since the 1960?s and has always been used to describe noncoding relics left over from evolution. That’s beginning to be overturned.

    If you mean some subportion of the noncoding dna, you’re right, but it never included all noncoding regions.
    That there are functional non-coding regions of dna was known before the term “junk dna” was even coined, and is even discussed in the very paper by Ohno in which the term was coined.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    goodusername, Darwinism makes no rigid predictions in science because Darwinism has no rigid mathematical foundation in science in the first place in order to potentially falsify it. That is the primary reason Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science:

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....the-day-8/

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859.”…
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.4

    Moreover, to the extent math can be applied to Darwinian pseudo-scientific concepts, it is found that the math itself is what is forcing large percentages of Junk DNA onto the Darwinian pseudo-scientific hypothesis. The prediction does not come from any exalted Darwinian expert per se:

    Carter: Why Evolutionists Need Junk DNA – Robert W. Carter – 2009
    Excerpt: Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane’s work. Without junk DNA, evolutionary theory cannot currently explain how everything works mathematically. Think about it; in the evolutionary model there have only been 3-6 million years since humans and chimps diverged. With average human generation times of 20-30 years, this gives them only 100,000 to 300,000 generations to fix the millions of mutations that separate humans and chimps. This includes at least 35 million single letter differences, over 90 million base pairs of non-shared DNA, nearly 700 extra genes in humans (about 6% not shared with chimpanzees), and tens of thousands of chromosomal rearrangements. Also, the chimp genome is about 13% larger than that of humans, but mostly due to the heterochromatin that caps the chromosome telomeres. All this has to happen in a very short amount of evolutionary time. They don’t have enough time, even after discounting the functionality of over 95% of the genome–but their position becomes grave if junk DNA turns out to be functional. Every new function found for junk DNA makes the evolutionists’ case that much more difficult.
    Robert W. Carter – biologist
    http://creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death

    At the 2:45 minute mark of the following video, the mathematical roots of the junk DNA argument, that is still used by many Darwinists, can be traced through Haldane, Kimura, and Ohno’s work in the late 1950’s, 60’s through the early 70’s:

    What Is The Genome? It’s Not Junk! – Dr. Robert Carter – video – (Notes in video description)
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905583

  18. 18
    Axel says:

    ‘Humbled, you are free to think whatever you would like about current evolutionary theory. Nobody is going to stop you. But my comment was that poking holes in one theory is not proof of another. Poking holes in theory that the earth is flat is not proof that we live on the inside of a sphere, or on a cube.’

    You don’t understand, Humphrey. Christianity is supported by 2000 years of the knowledge/beliefs and theological analyses of many of the finest brain in every age.

    The Flying Nothing Monster, aka evolution, is a copiously, factually-refuted cult, still in diapers and facing its imminent demise; having enjoyed the life-span of a mayfly.

    There are many signs that would seem to indicate that these are the ‘end times’ (‘ene.org’). For your own sake, you need to stop looking at the implications of quantum mechanics through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe, and make your peace with the Almighty very soon.

  19. 19
    Axel says:

    Fascinating article, Mr Sheldon.

  20. 20
    Acartia_bogart says:

    @humbled: “You don’t understand, Humphrey. Christianity is supported by 2000 years of the knowledge/beliefs and theological analyses of many of the finest brain in every age.

    Well, it’s nice to know that ID is about the science and not a religion.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Acartia_bogart you state:

    “it’s nice to know that ID is about the science and not a religion.”

    I just wish we could say the same thing about Darwinism:

    Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVx42Izp1ek

    The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning – Paul A. Nelson – Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
    Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....34/?MUD=MP

Leave a Reply