The anthropic principle has a significant impact on cosmology if it is based on the observed reality, rather than "many-worlds", and "quantum uncertainty", interpretations, because our universe is specially constrained if our universe is the only possible result of our big bang. This significance is real if Stephen Hawking was right when he introduced his latest revision to our world-view this past summer in Dublin, Ireland, as he proclaimed from Newton's mobile chair that his new theory proves information is never truly lost from our universe if a true event horizon never forms. He then apologized to sci.fi writers for the fact that there can be no baby universes created from black holes because of this.

This is actually very important, but it is also something that is quite often conveniently overlooked by those using theoretical rationale when debating against the anthropic principle, because all of the "anthropic", or "cosmic" coincidences are precariously balanced...

'like finding a pencil balanced on its point'

...in the least likely possible manner that you would expect to find them. That's because the conditions for "life as we know it" would accelerate far away from this fine-range of potential if even the slightest amount of drift were to occur. For a popular example of how this applies to one cosmic coincidence, the big bang resulted in a predominant inclination toward expansion that is near exactly counterbalanced by the opposite effect of gravity, and so the universe is near-perfectly flat, which is critical to support life. If either tendency was any less or greater, then universal expansion would have either, accelerated rapidly far beyond the conditions that are necessary for life before it had time to evolve, or it would have recollapsed in on itself long before star formation enabled carbon-based life to exist.

The commonly missed importance of this is that any change would cause the universe to run drastically far away from anyone's wildest dreams for life, and so the argument that different forms of life might have evolved under different circumstances doesn't hold practical water any more than the lame idea of "alien manipulation" of ID theory does, as arguments against specialness include the same kind of"what-if things are different elsewhere" stuff that attempts to explain-away the obvious strangeness of the anthropic coincidences with speculative possibilities that aren't actually evidenced... just like ID theory.

Another very important point has to do with the fine-range of potential that is present with every anthropic coincidence, because, in every case, life appears almost exactly between this relevant spectrum of potential, like Earth exists "betweeen" Venus and Mars, our closet potential life-bearing sister/brother planets that almost made it, but didn't quite make the grade. This is what the so-called, "fine-tuning" is about, but there isn't any "tuning" to it, the "range" or spectrum of potential derives a precariously necessary ecosytematic balance, in every case. Robert Dicke realized that a even a slight change in these relationships and life could not exist. Stars of the right type for sustaining life supportable planets only can occur during a certain range of ages for the universe. Similarly, stars of the right type only can form for a narrow range of values of the gravitational constant.

This point is important becauses you can use it to predict stuff like Robert Dicke did. For example, these constraints derive where else might life be likely to appear in our universe, because it points out that life would be more probable on the bands of spiral galaxies that are about the same age as ours, and looking in the older or newer formations is more probably just a waste of time, so in every case, you should look approximately between whatever relative extremes for the balance or plane of life.

A third argument for Intelligent Design is the so-called "Fined-Tuned Universe" argument. If certain physical constants were different, life would not exist, it is argued.

The statement is true, but design doesn't require intelligence if some higher level physical "need" brings it into existence, just like every other functional system in nature, "efficient" energy dissemination is the primary contribution of complex systems in an expanding universe, and this defines "good reason" for all of them to be required by the thermodynamic process.

For example:

If the strong nuclear force were to have been as little as 2% stronger (relative to the other forces), all hydrogen would have been converted into helium. If it were 5% weaker, no helium at all would have formed and there would be nothing but hydrogen. If the weak nuclear force were a little stronger, supernovas could not occur, and heavy elements could not have formed. If it were slightly weaker, only helium might have formed. If the electromagnetic forces were stronger, all stars would be red dwarfs, and there would be no planets. If it were a little weaker, all stars would be very hot and short-lived. If the electron charge were ever so slightly different, there would be no chemistry as we know it. Carbon (12C) only just managed to form in the primal nucleosynthesis. And so on." (McMullin 378)

It may seem on the surface that the likelihood of a universe in which all of the constants are right for life given an intelligent designer is much higher than the likelihood that the constants are right given random chance.

You don't need intelligent design for the constants to express a specific increasing need for a specific means to a thermodynamic end that can only be satisfied by intelligent life.

When we add in the fact that we are here to observe the universe, however, we find that the likelihood of a fine-tuned universe is one either way. If we are here we must be in a universe which is tuned to our existence. The likelihood of a fine-tuned universe given that there is an intelligent designer and that we live in a fine tuned universe is equal to the likelihood that we live in a fined tuned universe given that it was created by random chance and that we live in a fine-tuned universe.

Say what?!?

Here's an FYI that you've neglected to consider:

1) The fine tuning is precariously balanced in the least probable manner, and would run drastically far away from our wildest dreams for life, so the argument that other forms of life *could* have formed under differing circumstances, is garbage.

2) These coincidences appear to be uncountable, a new one is discovered every year, and if you combine that fact with number 1, then the likelihood that chaotic infinities and random chance events is responsible becomes less probable by magnitudes.

3) Fine tuning isn't fine tuning, the entire "fine-range" where life is possible is also necessary, because it derives the afore mentioned precarious balance.

What commonly isn't understood is that this is an ecosystematic balance, and that's a real clue as to what it's really all about.

An omniscient and omnipotent God doesn't need to tamper with the universe to set it up after He created it, so He could perfectly let things evolve to a result he knows in advance, and wanted in advance. I personally think evolution explains things better than intelligent design but it's not a matter of denying or proving God, it's just speculation until science discovers more answers.

Pushing for intelligent design, IMHO, is a sign of zealotry , absence of respect for a God that being omnipotent and omniscient, doesnt need to "set up" the universe after it has been created. IMHO all this debate is fueled by somebody who wants people do sheepishly ignore science and logic and follow "The truth as I say it is"(tm).

Since most forms of foundationalism and coherentialism abandon the need for the deductive transmission of justification and absolute certainty, they will typically allow for some form of induction. However, an alternative to induction has been suggested in this century, and I believe the critique of it may prove pertainent to the discussion of the foundationalist/coherentialist-debate. This alternative to induction is Karl Popper's Principle of Falsifyability.

When I presented the self-referential argument against Logical Positivism, I pointed out that the argument could not be used against Popper's form of fallibilism, but I did not offer a critique of his view at the time. I will be offering it here in defense of induction and in defense of view that corrigible propositions should be allowed into an epistemic system.

Karl Popper states, "Now in my view there is no such thing as induction. Thus inferences to theories, from singular statements which are 'verified by experience' (whatever that may mean), is logically inadmissible. Theories are, therefore, never empirically verifiable...

"But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation. In other words: I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific sytem to be refuted by experience," (Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," 2nd ed., 40-41).

Now these statements, taken together, require some analysis. Induction, at the simplest level, is normally taken to use the truth of singular statements which are verified by experience to provide justification for general statements. And when the justification for a given general statement is regarded as sufficient, the general statement is regarded as true. This is the general nature of induction. However, Popper is opposed to this view.

Popper states his opposition in terms of using induction to justify theories rather than individual statements, but this makes little difference. Theories are composed of statements, and to say that one cannot ever regard a theory which has stood the test of induction as true is to say that one can never regard the statements which compose the theory as being true: if all of the statements which compose the theory are true, then one would have no reason to deny the status of truth to the theory itself. To see why, let a theory be expressed by the set of statements {h1,h2,h3,...,hn}. Assume that each of the statements in this set is true. Then the theory may expressed by the statement h1&h2&h3&...hn. The truth of this statement necessarily follows from the truth of the statements which compose it. Thus Popper's Principle of Falsifiability is wide open to a criticism stemming from what is called "Duhem's Thesis": the principle of falsification runs into problems since scientific statements are presummably never regarded as true.

According to Duhem's Thesis, no empirical hypothesis H can be used to make empirical predictions unless it is conjoined with one or more auxilary hypotheses A. Thus when we use an experiment to test H, where H&A is used to predict an experimental outcome S, the failure to obtain S falsifies H&A. But an isolated experiment does not allow you to determine whether H is false, A is false, or whether both H and A are false. Thus no single test can falsify H by itself. However, we can state this even more strongly in the case of the principle of falsification. Since no hypothesis is ever regarded as true, no hypothesis can ever be shown to be false. And if one takes as one's unit of meaning to be theories instead of hypotheses, one will find that present theories are generally tested by presupposing the validity of theories which have stood the test of time. Unless one assumes that one's background theories are true, one cannot falsify the theory which is in the foreground, i.e., the theory which one is presently testing. However, the above analysis calls for some examples. I will provide three.

In my first example, I will be considering a problem involving Newton's gravitational theory. In his day, the explandatory power of his theory was considered amazing. Given the highest degree of accuracy available in the 1600s, his theory was able pin-point the trajectories of all the planets but one: there existed a minute discrepancy in rotation of the perhelion of Mercury. This one fact was not regarded as in any way falsifying Newton's theory, though. To test his theory, it had been necessary to bring in other assumptions. For example, when his theory was first checked against the orbit of Mercury, it was assumed that Mercury was the closest planet to the sun. Rather than throwing out Newton's theory, this assumption was modified. For a while, it was thought that there existed a planet Vulcan inside Mercury's orbit which disturbed this orbit in just such a way as would account for the discrepancy between the original theoretical prediction and the experimental observation. On the basis of this hypothesis, astronomers searched the heavens for the hypothetical planet. As things happened, the additional hypothesis that Vulcan existed turned out to be wrong and Newton's gravitational theory was abandoned in favor of Einstein's gravitational theory, in part on the basis of this early experimental evidence, but also on the basis of additional experimental evidence which came after the formulation of Einstein's theory. Does this mean that Newton's gravitational theory should have been abandoned in the first place rather than being saved by means of an "ad hoc" hypothesis?

The Principle of Falsifiability not withstanding, no it does not. A similar proceedure was used to predict and ultimately discover the existence of Neptune on the basis of how this outer planet disturbed the orbit of Uranus. Newton's gravitational theory simply proved to powerful to abandon as hastily as the Principle of Falsifiability would have required. Besides, other explanations of the failure of this one prediction were still possible even once planet Vulcan failed to turn up. For example, a hypothetical oblateness of the sun, and if measurements of the sun's profile disproved this, then one could hypothesize a rotation in the sun's interior which would give rise to an oblateness of the distribution of the sun's mass that would exist only within the sun's interior, leaving no appreciable evidence at the sun's surface. Or would it? One might have to ask a student of stellar dynamics.

When the original conflicts were discovered between Newton's gravitational theory and the experimental evidence, its discovery was the result not only of Newton's gravitational theory, but also certain implicit assumptions, assumptions which were not necessarily even stated, but were, in effect, a kind of theoretical background to Newton's theory. As a result of the predictive power of Newton's theory under a wide range of circumstances, the scientists of Newton's age thought it best to modify the background assumptions rather than abandon this powerful theory. With the hindsight made possible by our own advanced age, we may conclude that with respect to Vulcan they were wrong, but in the case of Neptune, they were right. But in both cases, their approach was most reasonable.

Now I will begin my second example. Roughly at the time that Darwin, it was considered a recognized fact that the earth and the sun couldn't be more than a few million years old: the only fires known were chemical fires, and it had been calculated that the sun would have already burned itself out if it were much older. This required evolution to take place at a rate which seemed unlikely. Similarly, a geologist discovered evidence that the rocks of the earth were in many cases older than the limit on the earth's age based upon the calculation involving the sun. In addition, the theory of continental drift was proposed to account for similarities in the shapes of the continents: these enormous land masses seemed to have shapes which could fit together like pieces of a puzzle, but the fit was not perfect, and once again the apparent age of the earth seemed to count against the theory. Another problem with this theory was that there existed no known engine for the hypothesized movement of the continents: as far as scientists of the time knew, the earth was essentially one giant, solid rock. Volcanos were simply a small, irrelevant side-issue.

However, special relativity, which was originally put forward to account for experimental results involving the motion of light, required an equivilence between mass and energy which suggested that chemical fires were not that efficient. The study of subatomic particles lead to the recognition that nuclear fires could exist which would be much more efficient than chemical fires. Nuclear fusion made it possible for us to recognize that the sun is much older than we originally thought it was. Nuclear fission explained the generation of heat internal to the earth's surface, and this made it possible for us to recognized the fact that the continents are afloat on a sea of molten rock which exists beneath the earth's crust. This provided us with a means to explain continental drift. In addition, both botany and zoology discovered similar populations at just the places the theory of continental drift argued were where the continents had once been together. New evidence and once highly-controversial theories were fitting together like the continents once had. They were providing us with a unified view of our world. Whereas Karl Popper's fallibilism viewed distinct theories as being tested against evidence independently of one-another, the history of science has shown a remarkable degree of interdependence between distinct theories existing in highly disparate areas of human knowledge.

With my last example, I will be considering Newtionian mechanics. If one stead-fastly held to Popper's Principle of Falsifiability, one result contrary to prediction would be enough to falsify this theory. With this in mind, one could easily conclude that Newtonian mechanics has been falsified many thousands of times over in high school physics classes. Students perform experiments which quite regularly "falsify" this theory every year. But why is it that whereas this would be enough to discount the theory if the experiments were being performed by expert experimental physicists, this is not enough when the experiments are being performed by young students? When one explains this difference in terms of the different levels of training and reliability, one is bringing in psychological considerations to explain the results of physical experiments. Thus one can argue that there is a sense in which the science of physics depends upon the science of psychology.

I will draw from this analysis three conclusions. First, if one accepts induction, some element of coherentialism is required: there exists an interdependence between the justification of the distinct statements which compose a theory. Second, there exists an interdependence between the justification of a foreground theory and its background theories. Third, in science, one must regard many statements as true even if the justification of these statements does not admit of absolute certainty. Much of our knowledge is corrigible.

Well, no, sorry to say, but it does matter.  Otherwise, even if evolutionary processes were an experimentally verifiable fact (which they're not), it would be just as scientifically rigourous to assert that the Earth was created 6000 years ago with all life present and that evolutionary processes have accounted for only incremental changes since.

And as for the traditional canard about "ID doen't predict anything".  Well, yes, it does.  And some of its predictions are experimentally verifiable.  For example, the idea that like begets like; or, "breeding dogs will give me dogs", which we have been verifying for the last 5000 years or so with no change in sight.

"Either multicellular creatures have ancestors, and those ancestors at some point were of different species than today's generation, or it is possible for a multicellular species to appear without a parent generation. Let's call these the evolutionary and sudden appearance hypotheses, respectively. Of course, one of these (the evolutionary hypothesis) is supported by observation so at least some version of it qualifies as a theory. There has never been an observed instance of sudden appearance.

"The intelligent design hypothesis must be tied to one of the above hypotheses; it could never stand on its own. Combine it with the sudden appearance hypothesis and you get traditional creationism. Tie it to the evolutionary hypothesis and you get a weird hybrid (guided evolution).

"In order for guided evolution to work, we would require that one of the following is possible: (a) intelligent life evolves under the guidance of a lesser intelligence than the greatest intelligence that can be produced through that evolution, or (b) intelligent life evolves under the guidance of an intelligence greater than or equal to the greatest intelligence that can be produced by that evolution. (b) is flawed because there is no explanation of the origin of the greater intelligence (it can't be the product of guided evolution without creating an infinite regress, and if it came about unprecedentedly then you are back to sudden appearance). (a) is more believable but it is no better than traditional evolution in addressing the purported concerns of intelligent design proponents (i.e., how can advanced features evolve from less advanced features?), and has the added burden of externalizing the intelligence."
--------------------------------------------------

Many people on this thread have claimed that Intelligent Design can't predict anything. That is completely false. Intelligent Design provides a powerful method for learning about the designer and their intention for humans and Earth.

Put yourself in the place of chickens. Upon contemplation, they will notice that they produce eggs even when they are not fertilized. Therefore, the chickens know that the eggs have use even when they will not produce chicks. So, based on the that information, the chickens could correctly deduce that humans use eggs for something. Similarly, grain could determine that it is designed for humans since it cannot produce on its own (the grains are too tighly bound to the head to scatter to the ground).

So, what is the purpose of humans? Humans have two useful unique features among the typical animals on Earth. First of all, we have rather significant brains. Second, we have the best ability to run for far distances without overheating due to our lack of hair and ability to sweat. However, neither of these abilities make our purpose obvious. Of course, using our mind to contemplate the Intelligent Designer and our feet to spread this message has been frequently suggested and is consistent with humanities special abilites.

The most fertile areas for learning about the intelligent designer is not the designer's obvious successes, which primarly prove that the designer exists and is clever, but rather the features that seem mysterious to us. For example, why do humans have funny bones? Such an easy way to create pain by hitting the elbow on a hard surface might possibly be a manifestation of a divine sense of humor.

Human birth has been used for millenia to think about designer intention. Genesis 3:16 NKJV "To the women He said: I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children." If the intelligent designer had wished for human birth to be easy, the child would not have to come through the pelvis, a method dangerous and sometimes fatal to both Mother and child. Instead, humans could be born by coming in a natural analog of the cesarean, or could be born similar to kangaroos and do most of the development in a pouch. The intention of the designer causing birth like this must be contemplated, as the Hebrews rightly realized.

Another unique aspect of humans is that sex is pleasurable without possibility of procreation. Most female mammals have obvious signs of ovation such as scent or different colors, but human females have no such signs. Obviously, the designer intented sex to occur among humans without procreation, otherwise the designer would have made it obvious when sex will not create children.

And now with the mind that the designer has given you, I leave you to discover what the designer wishes of you.

Evolutionary theory is not a "theory" like so many of you think it is. Evolution is fact. It falls in the same category as Gravitational theory (or do you still doubt gravity?). The scientific term "theory" does not mean "current best guess". "Scientific theory" is a set of principles that have been thoroughly tested and are accepted as fact.

We have solid fossil records, and factual understanding of genetics, DNA, chemistry, and biochemistry. All of the evidence that we have unambiguously points directly to evolution. The fact that you cannot grasp the concept of evolution, does not revoke its' truth.

A very good link site I visit every day.

plep

And the link was

http://www.feynman.com/

One bit of Feynman's lecture I can add to - about three quarters of the way through his lecture, he states.

This has been called time-binding. I don't know who first called it this. At any rate, we have here [in this hall] some samples of those animals, sitting here trying to bind one experience to another, each one trying to learn from the other.

The person who came up with the concept of "time-binding" was Korzybski, google 'General Semantics' for more info.

They use "energy" to replicate, and can gain energy by performing any of nine logic functions. The more complicated a logic function was, the more energy an organism would gain by performing it (Lenski et al. 140).
The population in the experiment started as 36,000 identical digital organisms, which could not perform logic functions but could replicate.

So what you're trying to do here is to draw a parallel between a closed-loop computer program (with specific, finite, well defined goals) Designed by Intelligent individuals and ...wait; evolution?

Honestly, when I went through public schools they taught:
-Creationism
-Evolution
-Space Seed
-And I think one other one, but I was busy laughing about the "Space Seed" idea and missed it.

I didn't and don't see a problem with offering a variety of ideas where there are no facts.

Evolution, to me, and admittedly I don't keep up with any of them, is as bad of science as the other two.  Instead of explaining how creation happened, it spends it's whole time explaining what happened after creation.

Our creation theory should explain how life originated, not how we moved from being monkeys to being humans or why giraffe's have long necks.

As I understand we have yet to create any life in the laboratory, as such evolutionists should be busy figuring this out instead of railing against any other theorys.  Last I heard the best they had was that the "primordial ooze" might have washed up on the shore and got squished onto a crystaline structure on a certain type of clay and "came to life".  Sounds kinda weak to me.  Not much better then "God did it" or the recursive "Life fell from space".

I'm not a religious man (The results of a Jehovah's Witness mother and a Catholic Father (argh!)) but I don't see that creation vs evolution is even necessarily a problem for religious people.  Sure, maybe evolution happens, but like I mentioned before, it fails at it's biggest task, explaining how life got started in any reproducable manner.  So the religious of the world could just say "Ok, God started evolution, problem solved."

Rabid evolutionists are as blind as the faithful, the other night I was watching some Discovery channel show about thermal vents on the ocean floor.  Some "scientist" said, "If life can exist here it is proof that life could exist on other planets"...This makes as much sense as saying "If life could exist here it is proof of God".  If life could exist there all it proves is that life can adapt to a new environment when it is already well entrenched in all of the neighboring environments.

Finally:
"The intelligent design movement is an attempt to bring Creationism back into the schools, something that has been outlawed by the Supreme Court, due to its violation of the separation between church and state."

I'd care if you showed me where in the U.S. Constitution there is:
-A guarantee that church and state are to be completely seperated
-Any grant of jurisdiction to the Federal govt over education institutions public or private

Courts don't write laws in this country, some of them are out of hand and think they do, but that doesn't make them right.

Alot of the venom that is tossed around on this topic seems to be more a matter of athiests with chips on their shoulders trying to enforce THEIR religious beliefs on everyone else.  If you can find your "church and state" doctrine, try to think on how it should fairly be applied when deciding on a case between two competeing belief systems; one with a god, and one without.

I have to think that our system is supposed to be one of religious tolerance and acceptance, and not one in which the government mandates the athiest viewpoint.

if you are a scientist, and you see a conflict between science and religion, then you don't understand what science and religion really are about

that's the ultimate truth

all other arguments are merely waystations towards achieving this understanding about the true nature of science and religion in your mind

to take the bait of simpletons who see a grave conflict between the two is not instructive towards a truly rewarding life of faith, or a truly instructive line of scientific inquiry

there is simply no conflict, period

you are a half-formed scientist, or of weak faith, if you see this conflict, for there really is none

furthermore, it is an old, old battle

perhaps old news from the frontline of the old battle would be instructive for some:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

Nevertheless it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus, who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis. His great work, "De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium", was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished churchmen, Cardinal Schömberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained, that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the "mathematicians" (i.e. philosophers) for its apparent contradiction of the evidence of our senses, and even of common sense. He added that he made no account of objections which might be brought by ignorant wiseacres on Scriptural grounds. Indeed, for nearly three quarters of a century no such difficulties were raised on the Catholic side, although Luther and Melanchthon condemned the work of Copernicus in unmeasured terms. Neither Paul III, nor any of the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm, and, as has been seen, Galileo himself in 1597, speaking of the risks he might run by an advocacy of Copernicanism, mentioned ridicule only and said nothing of persecution. Even when he had made his famous discoveries, no change occurred in this respect. On the contrary, coming to Rome in 1611, he was received in triumph; all the world, clerical and lay, flocked to see him, and, setting up his telescope in the Quirinal Garden belonging to Cardinal Bandim, he exhibited the sunspots and other objects to an admiring throng.

It was not until four years later that trouble arose, the ecclesiastical authorities taking alarm at the persistence with which Galileo proclaimed the truth of the Copernican doctrine. That their opposition was grounded, as is constantly assumed, upon a fear lest men should be enlightened by the diffusion of scientific truth, it is obviously absurd to maintain. On the contrary, they were firmly convinced, with Bacon and others, that the new teaching was radically false and unscientific, while it is now truly admitted that Galileo himself had no sufficient proof of what he so vehemently advocated, and Professor Huxley after examining the case avowed his opinion that the opponents of Galileo "had rather the best of it". But what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture, the letter of which was then universally believed to be the supreme authority in matters of science, as in all others. When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical. It is evident that, since the days of Copernicus himself, the Reformation controversy had done much to attach suspicion to novel interpretations of the Bible, which was not lessened by the endeavours of Galileo and his ally Foscarini to find positive arguments for Copernicanism in the inspired volume. Foscarini, a Carmelite friar of noble lineage, who had twice ruled Calabria as provincial, and had considerable reputation as a preacher and theologian, threw himself with more zeal than discretion into the controversy, as when he sought to find an argument for Copernicanism in the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Law. Above all, he excited alarm by publishing works on the subject in the vernacular, and thus spreading the new doctrine, which was startling even for the learned, amongst the masses who were incapable of forming any sound judgment concerning it. There was at the time an active sceptical party in Italy, which aimed at the overthrow of all religion, and, as Sir David Brewster acknowledges (Martyrs of Science), there is no doubt that this party lent Galileo all its support.

In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any advocating the Copernican system. In this decree no mention is made of Galileo, or of any of his works. Neither is the name of the pope introduced, though there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided. In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. Galileo and Foscarini rightly urged that the Bible is intended to teach men to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

the lesson for everyone:

the Bible is intended to teach men to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

More to the point, students (children) should not be held hostages to our stupid politicking. Let them learn about both theories, and why scientists don't accept ID (and vice-versa).

Instead of stuffing their brains with the "right" theories, we ought to be teaching them how to use said brains. We'll need citizens- open-minded but critical thinkers, not PC-drones.

next time you find yourself confronting a creationist, simply ask then to look at their feet

it is absolutely inconceivable to me that a creationist, if their mind is open and honest and functional, can look at a human foot and not see that it evolved from a hand

i mean just look at the farking thing!

now look at your hand

see the fingers are toes

the long bones in both

the shape of the palm, the shape of the instep

etc.

if these simple demonstrations that a kindergartener can appreciate doesn't shut up a creationist, nothing will, and you can safely dismiss them

because if they can look at the human foot, and not be impressed with the obviousness of its evolutionary source, then they have successfully moved beyond the realm of reason, and therefore, they are no threat to rational men

"intelligent design" my ass!

your average cow has a better designed foot

so it is the creationist's assertion that god spent more time and attention on designing ungulate hooves than his own darlings, us, who are supposed to be in his image?

I much enjoyed the post. A great many scientists are religious -- they simply do not permit their religious beliefs to interfere with the pursuit of empirical knowledge.

Please see for one example:

"Science and Religion" interview with Kenneth R. Miller
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html --

Much of the time, in the middle of a debate or joint interview, a creationist will argue that there is no proof (which is applicable to a prioristic knowledge, not empirical knowledge -- demonstrating an inability to grasp the difference) or evidence for macroevolution, and a defender of evolutionary theory won't have the time or space to present it. Here are a eight links to some pretty dramatic stuff and links to their associated home pages where you can find out more...

(I am also including links to the homepages, as the websites are well worth exploring and provide additional ammunition for defenders of evolution.)

Whale Evolution/Cetacean Evolution (Atavistic Hind Limbs on Modern Whales)
http://edwardtbabinski.us/whales/
from
Edward T Babinski
http://edwardtbabinski.us/

Smooth Change in the Fossil Record
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossil_series.html
from
Don Lindsay Archive
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/

Transitional Fossil Species
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
from
Darwinians and Evolution
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/indexpage.htm

Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
from
The Talk.Origins Archive
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
(Homepage given above)

Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
from
Action Bioscience.Org
http://www.actionbioscience.org/

The Evolution Evidence Page (homepage for website)
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

1. Natural objects do not appear to need a creator.
2. Man-made objects do appear to need a creator.
3. Therefore, nature needs a creator.

Basically, there are two things. One is the origins of the Living, and second is the origin of the non-living.

We explain "evolution" of the living by Darwin's theory. We dont have a good enough theory to explain the "origins" of life.

We explain "evolution" of the non-living by using various scientific laws(big bang, physics, chem, basically all of science). But again, we dont have good enough theory to explain the "origins" of non-living.

So we can explain "how they change" using current scientific laws, but we cannot explain the "origins: how they began" of living and non-living.

It is there where I find the scope for "Intelligent Design". For example, I believe that there might be an intelligent creator behind the existence of primordial ball which exploded with a big bang.

And there might be a hand in creating life as well, but I dont personally belive so -- I believe that life is just "another" complex non-living thing (But I, or for that matter, scientists, cannot claim this as verifiably true)

And secondly, for logic sake:

• The theory of evolution is a set of ideas that inter-relates the observations, both direct and indirect, that humans have made concerning the ways the composition of groups of living things changes over time.
• The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain or describe how living matter arose from non-living matter, or how planets or solar systems or galaxies or the universe came to be.
• Evolution is a fact in that humans have observed changes in the makeup of populations of living things, up to and including the formation of new species.
• Evolution is a theory in that it is a set of ideas which explains how living things have changed over time over spans greater than those covered by human observation.
• The patterns of differences and similarities we see in current and past living things shows a pattern of twin nested hierarchy that is consistent with living things having descended from common ancestors.
• We only have speculation as to how abiogenesis (life from non-life) happened, but our knowledge of physics and chemistry allows us to come up with what appear to be plausible scenarios for how abiogenesis happened.
• We only have speculation as to how the Universe came to be, but our knowledge of physics allows us to create theories as to how the universe changed from about 10^-30 seconds after its beginning to the present day, and our observations of the present day universe are consistent with those theories.
• It is certainly possible that some Intelligence was involved in the creation of the Universe, or the beginnings of life, but our current understanding is also consistent with their having been no starting Intelligence.
• There is no independent evidence of an Intelligence capable of having created the Universe or started life on this planet.

We know they mean God; they know they mean God. What the heck is going on?

What is going is that they want to dress up this malarkey as science and weasel it into school science curricula?

You cannot teach religion as science so they wanna get around that rule.

But, since they've started down that road, we can go along with them for a short while. Just ask the question that I've asked before: "If there was a designer, who designed the designer?

Of course, from a religious point of view, this is a sacrilegious utterance. But I dont mean to be sacrilegious nor do I mean to be flippant. It is a valid question if you are not a Believer: How do you know that there is not a pantheon of gods up there and our god was in charge of creating our universe and there are other gods in charge of other universes we are not aware of and all these first layer of gods were designed by another bureacratic layer of gods in charge of the lower layer? And so on.

Well, you dont know because we just passed into metaphysics.

You have replaced the quite difficult question of where we came from with an impossible metaphysical one.

On the other hand, you can make some progress with science. We have Darwin, we have evolution, we have the Big Bang and so on. And we have evidence for all these everywhere. All of this is work in progress but it is solid and it is science.

Famous physicist Steven Hawkins has said that there is a way reconciling science with religion. You may wanna believe that all this geological, astronomical observations, all the fossil record and such were placed here by God to test our faith. And I accept that as a hypothesis; if u wanna put that into the curriculum, as far as I am concerned, be my guest. But I have a feeling you will not want to because it smells so strongly of Man inventing God in His (Man's) devious image.

This is no idle discussion about esoterica. It is about the future our society.

Once you inject fairy tales into science, science will have no integrity left. That is why we on my side are so concerned about the growing influence of superstition in the affairs of society. If you have a few people believing in fairy tales, well, that is quaint and harmless and part of the color palette in the makeup of the society. But when these grow in number, idiots like Bush get elected; their unscrupulous backers get control.

Yes, monkies gave birth to humans, that sounds so much more factual than God made man in his own image. Granted that it cannot be proved than monkies gave birth to humans, but fossils say that at one point humans resembled monkies, minus the tails of course, and that they had less body hair, opposible thumbs, etc. Evolutionary scientists would like to show you the fossiles that prove this, but they went missing. Therefore, you will have to take their word for it.

The lot of you.

--
'My god...it's full of blogs.' - ktakki
--

The authors of the "Wedge" document may well believe that ID is a means to sereptitiously reintroduce biblical creationism into the public school curriculum, but ID (or as it has traditionally been known, the Argument from Design) has historically been closely associated with narrowing the scope of theological doctrines to exclude claims which fall within what we regard as the proper domain of the natural sciences. ID is an early step in affecting a reconciliation of evangelical dogma with scientific theory insofar as it allows an evangelical to accept the biological sciences without the concommitant demand that they abandon their faith (they just need to adjust the tenets of their faith a bit).

To be more precise, ID is a metaphysical critique of the physicalist assumptions commonly paired with the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Importantly, physicalism--the doctrine of the causal completenenss of physics--is not a scientific theory, but a metaphysical one. It's a conflict between two metaphysical doctrines, but thankfully science will continue to operate in the mean time and has no real need of metaphysical foundations

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera

Compared to the cutting edge of science at the time, the idea that stars were suns like our own sounded much to them as Intelligent Design does to you.  Put simply, it fails the test of falsifiability, to the scientist of the 1500s.

Today, it does not fail the test of falsifiability.  Our technology has reached a point where we can prove that many stars are indeed like our own.

Suppose that our universe is too complex to have arisen spontaneously from evolution. This would entail an intelligent designer. OK, now lets ask from whence that intelligent designer sprung. Should this designer be sufficiently brilliant to design something as complex as our universe then surely he too would have to have been designed, right? Presumably he would also have to have been designed by some other intelligent designer so as to bootstrap the whole process. And then... Oops! We've just evolved an intelligent designer!

Fortunately for the proponents of intelligent design they are too obtuse to recognize the pit of infinite regress into which they have fallen.

Once you recognize these simple truths, there will not be any debate over "evolution" and its magic hand-waving "and then a bunch of time passed, and it came to be so"; everyone will see it for the simple-minded scam it is.

Start educating yourself by reading these links:

Marshall Hall's Fixed Earth site
The Geocentric Bible, by Gordon Bane
The Official Geocentricity Website of the Association for Biblical Astronomy

(Luke '22:36 '19:13) => ("Sell your coat and buy a gun." . "Occupy until I come.")

I really don't get why creationists feel so threatened by evolution. Why should they care that there are people in the world who don't believe in their particular brand of religion ? If some people choose to believe in a religion, how are they affected by others choosing not to ?

If you believe that accepting creation is a requirement for getting into heaven, good for you, you get to go to your heaven. How is me not believing in creation (at least not literally as it is written in the Bible, I really have no idea what started evolution, might as well be a god) keeping you out of heaven ?

And why is it a bad thing that people who already believe in creation are exposed to other views ? If they really have faith, just knowing that there are other views won't make them any less religious. They will still keep their beliefs.

I know I'm being naive and that it's all about power, but there must be some religious people out there who realize that this just doesn't make sense.

I am reminded of Monty Python's "The Holy Grail"'s observation that most revolutionary groups tend to hate those competing with them (ie: other revolutionary groups) moreso than their common enemy. Perhaps we should use this as a "wedge" into teaching children the many and varied forms of religion around the world - after all, what would these uber-christians hate more? - that Creationism isn't taught at all, or that we are taught to place the Christian God on the same pedestal as all other Gods, including Allah and Xenu? If they start the slippery slope of justifying a pseudo-scientific theory based in sophistry, then maybe we should grease up this pole and let them fall in their own swords.

The strategies of religion have themselves evolved over millenia, and they Just Work. Perhaps its time we learn to use them.

1. we evolved from monkeys
2. monkeys live in social groups dominated by an alpha male
3. fear and respect of the alpha male became a deeply embedded element of monkey psychology in monkey genes, or else if you went up to the alpha male and stuck your tongue out at him or threw your feces at him you were smacked off the tree by the alpha male and eaten by the stegodonts or trilobytes below and your genes would disappear
4. many years later, we evolved from monkeys but we still had some vestigal monkey psychology left in our brains, like toes on a foot (seriously, how can a creationist look at a human foot and not see evolution in action? it is "intelligent" to design a foot with TOES on it?! how farking useless are toes!)
5. proof of the vestigal monkey psychology is that some humans still need to believe in the UAM- the ultimate alpha male, aka god, or yahweh, or allah... that even if no alpha male is around, the deeply embedded fear and respect of the alpha male in their genes forces some people to conjure him out of their imagination to explain their monkey-like urges to tremble before the alpha male
6. to such humans, the idea that life can evolve without the guidance of a UAM is a deeply troubling thought, much like the serpent in the tree in the night while the monkeys sleep
7. therefore, evolution is proven by the existence of creationists: their deeply embedded monkey psychology derived need for belief in a UAM is direct evidence that we evolved from monkeys

That's perhaps not the kind of image ID proponents have in mind, but it illustrates the point: why would such beings have any kind of moral authority? Why would we have any special relationship with such beings?  Why would we assume that they are even still around?

According to the Bible, the Christian God has committed murder, genocide, torture, infanticide, and commanded others to do those things on his behalf; he is vengeful, prone to anger, unpredictable, and can be unforgiving.  Why does such an entity deserve our respect and admiration?  You can, of course, say that you buckle under because otherwise you'll be eternally punished, but that's an amoral, pragmatic decision driven by fear of pain and punishment.

Many scientists would find the idea of man being created by extraterrestrials fascinating.  Unfortunately, the closest we have gotten to that is panspermia.

And humans wouldn't need sleep, wouldn't have appendixes, would be able to grow new teeth once an old is pulled or falls out as many times as needed, would even allow for regeneration of more complex systems: hands, legs, whatever.  There are plenty of things I would do to humans to make them more indistructable, more powerful, whatever.  I mean - if I was god and building something as bizzare as a human, why would I build it so poorely especially if the humans were to be my own reflections?

Or should we draw from this that perhaps religion, in oppostion to the systems of scientocracy and technocracy Lewis Mumford called the 'megamachine,' is now migrating to the left? Are Al Queda, the Chechen rebellion, liberation theology, and various red-states grassroots movements(yes, kids, right-wingers can be grassroots too. Not all of 'em are bankers) movements that are now advocating 'down with the meta-narrative!' all examples of a some sort of post-new-left or new-new-left? Are the terms "left" and "right" even helpful anymore? How about local communities, including Native Americans (all over the Americas) who wish to have rights to extract resources in defiance of environmental policy and often laid down by governments, under pressure from national or multinational advocacy groups? These folks all want truth (and power) kept local, not as some supersystem of knowledge that makes either right or wrong, whether you live in Nepal or Naples. Meanwhile, what are we to make of Michael Crichton's attack on 'Global Warming' theory? Wow, and all of us who still say "Go science!" or "Go capitalism!" or "Workers of the world unite!" and "Save the whales!" find ourselves next to each other in the trenches. We defend the idea of a 'big democracy' (or proletarian dictatorship, however you like) supported by a 'big technocracy' of experts?

The Cold War is truly over. Now, it's those who wish to save the house that Louis XIV, Karl Marx, Franklin Roosevelt, and Mao Tse Tung built (The nation-state? The Capitalist World System? International Worker's Movements? Or even meta-states like the EU?), against those who would rather leave, get their own apartment, and live as they damned please. Wow, this is exciting!

Marly's Artist

but the net.atheist cannot have that. it is not good enough for the talk.origins kook to simply leave well enough alone -- after all, it doesn't really matter where we came from in fact, only what models of that origin are useful in the study of biological problems. this, by the way, is the standard of truth a responsible scientist will give you: does the model produce correct or at least useful results? -- but again, the talk.origins kook is interested no more interested in science than the creationist or intelligent design evangelist. they want a negative response to christianity -- that is the existential drive behind the millions of pages of vapid commentary internet users have written on this matter and continue to even now.

ultimately, this is a failure of western theology. the conception of god as a juridical figure whose primary function after the contested creation is to deal out hot bowls of creamy justice to the sinning masses demands a strong reaction from many, particularly from the embittered sort you'll find on the internet. the tragic fact is, the catholic theologians got this completely wrong, or so it is argued in some quarters.