Skeptics

That someone finds it difficult to understand only tells us that they have difficulty understanding. [Argument From Personal Incredulity]

This can be explained by the Anthropic Principal. If the air, water, and other resources - not to mention the universal constants that control the formation of stars, planets, etc - that we depend on were different, then we'd either be different to match and they would still be perfect for us, or we wouldn't be around at all to wonder why the universe is so harsh. It would be an impossibility for us to be here, as we are, thinking of this if the universe were not as it was. So the idea that the universe could be NOT suited to us is an impossibility. That an impossibility has not happened should not be that amazing to us.

Yesterday: BANG! Today: "all this" Yes, THAT would be rather unlikely. 14 billion years ago: BANG! (a whole lot of stuff explained by science) Today: "all this" A far more reasonable proposition, and one well supported by evidence, theory, and mathematics.

Ignoring for the moment the word "perfect" (the universe is far from perfect - I can think of quite a few improvements to make just off the top of my head), order CAN emerge from chaos. Dirt falls into a moving river, the light particles are swept away while the heavy particles sink to the bottom... Just as a sieve works, order - the separation of the heavy from the light - has come from purely chaotic systems. Given enough time to accumulate (14 billion years), complex ordered systems can arise from disorder.

The process of order emerging from disorder provides the recipe, though perhaps only one crumb at a time, taking a hundred years to make the cake. (This is, of course, a silly annalogy, since no one thinks a cake will be created by natural rules.) A better example would be water moving over the ground in a little rivulet. It tumbles along some portion of the dirt it passes over. In time, in forms a small channel in the soil. Increase the volume of water, give the system a lot of time in which to continue this tiny process, and you eventually end up with the Grand Canyon.

Though, you must admit, if a complete mess is what you were after in the first place, and not a cake, then the given procedure would work far better than applying the batter to the walls by hand. The separation of the heavy and light bits in a clod of dirt works much better when the clod falls into a moving stream than if it falls into lava. You CAN expect order to emerge from chaos, but not ANY order from ANY chaos. The firecracker + ingredients scenario is not a chaotic system that science would expect to produce a cake. But science does predict the formation of stars out the results of the Big Bang, and the production of heavy elements from the eventual death of those stars, and the clumping of those elements into new stars and planets, and the eventual evolution of life. Not every procedure works, but science can show us which do.

The references to the existence of Abraham Lincoln are copious to put it mildly. There are numerous sources of high quality that provide many forms of evidence that corroborate each other and few to none that raise any doubts about his existence. He also no longer exists in any form except this historical information. Furthermore, should his existence in the past turn out to be purely fictional (unlikely given the above quality and quantity of evidence), the change would have little to no effect on our lives today. The Christian's god's existence is supported by one book and an oral history. The book has more than a few self-inconsistencies and holds much that most Christian scholars count to be allegorical and not factual, and oral histories of such age have little to no evidential weight. (Ever play "Telephone"?) This god is said to still exist today and could, but doesn't, self-manifest. And every day thousands of people make choices based on their god's existence that they would not make otherwise, so the question of existence in this matter IS of some import. The two examples are, quite plainly, unrelated at every point.

This won't happen since given the proposition that a god does not exist, there will be no time after death where thought occurs to realize the fact. It is a fear of punishment after death due to one's non-belief that gives this view its strength. Without a belief in such an after-death state or belief in an inevitable punishment, one would have no fear. Also, several different and non-compatible religions include punishment for non-believers after their death. A person must select which is the correct one to be in fear of, since one can't be afraid of all of them at once. Once one has no fear of all but one after-death scenario, it is a small step indeed to be completely fearless instead.

One can believe this person or not.

To paraphrase: The evidence for the belief is the belief itself. To so many, this is enough. And that... is unfortunate.

One doesn't have to look at every Mall parking space before coming to the probable conclusion that their car has been stolen. Analogies aside, what search is being done here? Reading the bible? Waiting for a sign? One has a logical conclusion, the other has no viable end.

His unsupportable statement was... his opinion?

Logical Fallacy: Argument From Antiquity http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=15

What follows is a short list of historical people known for intelligence that were theists, or became so. A similar list could be compiled showing the reverse. Logical Fallacy: Aurgument From Authority http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=38

What follows is a short list of historical people known for intelligence that were theists, or became so. A similar list could be compiled showing the reverse. Logical Fallacy: Argument From Authority http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=38

Bigot: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." The implication is that all atheists are intolerant of theists. This cannot be supported. Some are however, just as some (if not many) theists are bigoted against atheists.

Excellent advice to participants on both sides of the issue.

However, don't lose your logical, respectful attitude should they prove to be every bit as firm in their position as you are in your belief - should you be the theist in such a meeting. Taking a position in the local minority is difficult to maintain with pressure from your peers to take the easier road without conflict and conform to the larger group. Those that maintain thier minority position despite such pressures usualy have strong reasons to do so, and are not easily moved. A true skeptical atheist is open to a change of mind - a vital and necessary act in science - but they will likely be of the opinion that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

Science is not detecting things. Science is: 1) Hypothesis - "I wonder if this is true" 2) Prediction - "If this is true, then this should happen" 3) Testing - "Does this happen" 4) Conclusion - "This didn't happen, so this is probably not true" - or - "This did happen, so this might be true... make more preditions and test them to be sure." Detection might play a part in testing a prediction, but detection alone is not science.

These two words are not equivalent. There have been no testable predictions made by ID that support its explanation and exclude explantations provided by evolution theory. A challenge: Create a test based on a prediction provided by the ID hypothesis that would contradict the prediction based on evolution for the same test. Then have many groups that favor each prediciton repeatedly perform the test. Collect and compare the results. That is scientific method, and to call ID a sciecne (and to teach it in a science classroom) it should be capable of such testing. Without testing, evaluation is subjective and not science.

The "significant weight of its evidence" is important, however, in that the weight of evidence is, so far, zero. That's significant and should not be ignored by focusing on the implications of the ID hypothesis. Please do focus on the evidence, do.

Taking note of the comment at its beginning, the whole paragraph seems to be quite true.

Is this "design by natural selection" or "design by an intelligent designer" here? The wording rules out neither, but is perhaps meant to imply the later. However, inserting "intelligent" does weaken the argument for ID slightly by making testable predictions.

Straw Man - Evolution does not make the statement that living systems are created by chance. Evolution is in two parts: random variation (you look and act different than I do), and natural selection (the way you look or act may help you survive and have more offspring than I, compared to the way I look or act). For one to say that chance is a plausible explanation for the structure of living things, is to say that evolution is RANDOM selection - which NO ONE is saying (re: Straw Man).

As per an earlier comment, there has yet to be a testable ID prediction that would contradict the prediction evolution would make for the same test. That is what is needed to prove one hypothesis over another. Until that time, evolution's massive and ever-growing collection of cross-supporting evidence remains the compelling solution to the question of how life came to be as it is today.

Public education, teaching resources, and networking... ...But no scientific research.

what is "scientific evidence?" how is it different from "evidence?"

There is whole spectrum of quality when it comes to evidence, from anecdotal reports to the results of massive well-designed studies. "Scientific evidence" would imply evidence on the high quality side of the spectrum, useful for scientific purposes. However, though they claim to promote such evidence in support of intelligent design... They so have have demonstrated none. This is an example of a common litterary ploy of stating one position then ignoring it. Other examples might be: "No offense meant, but you are really ugly", or "I don't want to say I told you so, but... I told you so." Here they're saying that they want to be fair, objective, neutral, and scientific... But then are none of the above.

What is meant by *constitutional* neutrality?

I think they mean they want something (ID) that is acceptable to the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state, the very requirement that makes creationism unlawful to teach in public schools. By stripping out the overtly religious elements of creationism and calling it intelligent design, the hope is that it will be taken as neutral in such evaluations. It is a fairly weak camoflage however, and as time goes on it can only get weaker as more and more proponents slip up and reveal its true religious underpinnings.

The problem here is that the promotion of "the scientific evidence of intelligent design" by definition is counter to "scientific objectivity" (i.e. controlled observation of natural phenomena), because it is necessitated by and has grown out of a religious belief system (specifically a naively literalist reading of Hebrew scripture). The fallacy here is straight disingenuousness.

I agree Tim. It's a tautology, starting with the conclusion (as written in the descriptions of religious texts) and looking for anomalies in the science-based descriptions of reality to use as proof that science is wrong therefore ID is right [a false dichotomy].

DWR! ("Danger, Will Robinson!")

12. Non-Sequitur Nature's assertion about ID has nothing to do with the research in question.