Anology on Creation/Evolution

I've been thinking about the whole "evolution vs. creationism" thing for a while. Since I am a science teacher, I have to consider it.

What it boils down to is simply this: someone wants to play ball on our field, using our equipment, but they don't want to play by our rules.

Say you have a baseball field. Your teams are made up of players (scientists and teachers) who play a game (science) for a crowd of people (the general public and school children). The games are played every week or so, so there's always something going on someplace.

Now in comes a new team. They demand to play in your league. They haven't played in the minors, or they played minor league football, basketball, or some such sport (think of all those people posing as scientists when their area of study is philosophy, language, or something outside the sciences), and they claim to be as good at the sport (science) as the professionals, so they demand to be included. Their argument? It's only fair that you open up your league for new teams to play.

Of course, since this is played for the general public, they get to try out. Someone steps up to the plate and claims he gets as many strikes as he needs, until he gets a hit. Then he gets to run to whatever base he wants to in any order, until he stops. He can stop on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or he can go all the way home on any hit he makes. This is similar to the idea that, because creationism is based on religion, it doesn't have to meet the same criteria as every other scientific theory. Of course, he gets laughed right out of the ballpark, but some people listen and think, you know? It would make my life so much easier - so he gets some followers who want to play, too.

Switch sides now. Their pitcher claims that none of your players can hit his pitches, and that every time he throws the ball, no matter where it goes, is a strike against your team. So if the pitcher decides to throw the ball into the outfield where your player can't hit it, it should still be a strike. All they are trying to do is win by saying your team can't hit, so the other team wins by default. This is comparable to all of the straw man arguments set up that have little or nothing to do with whether or not creationism is a valid sicentific theory. He gets laughed out of the ballpark, too, but, again, some people listen and think about how easy their life would be if they didn't have to follow the rules, too, so they want to play, too.

On top of that, consider that all of these players are playing from an hidden, outside rulebook that they all follow. The rulebook is open to everyone, but it has nothing to do with baseball. And the players pick and choose what they want to follow. Even so, they all insist that you follow their rulebook. This would be the Bible.

Not one of their players can completely follow the rules of the game, or follow the basic ideas of good sportsmanship. Some pick and choose what rules to follow (present some evidence, but they get that from places without any scientific background or from people who choose to ignore the scientific method), and some play by all of the rules and get angry when they can't hit or catch the ball (these people who try to argue scientifically, then get petulant when they lose the argument).

I think the next time some creationist claims that it's not fair they don't get to teach their "science", I'm going to agree with them that it's not fair - because they won't play by our rules, and yet they still want into the ballpark.

(Hidden rulebook from iceberg_303, on the Yahoo! Message boards)

Very well developed and appropriate.

Often sports analogies go awry by getting into too much detail, but this one really works.

HH, have you ever taken science students on a field trip to the ICR Museum in Klantee? It's a hoot, and I think it would make for some great exercises in critical thinking.

http://www.icr.org/museum/

I was quoting a Yahoo poster, who's post name is at the bottom of the screed.

I'm a librarian, not a teacher.

And yes, I went to the ICR museum in Santee. Me and my Father, HawkerTyphoon, went there with the agreement that we wouldn't make a fuss or laugh until we were in the car, away from the building.

Is this Santee as in the place near El Cajon, or is it like Santee, Alabama. If it is the California one, I find it "great" I love only 5 miles from such a wonderful insitute. At least I know I don't have to drive if I ever need a good chuckle.

Or 'Klantee' as it's called for it's wonderful civil rights record. East of San Diego.

credentials of some of the scientists who posit the notion that either:

1.There is an inherent capacity for Intelligence/Information in Nature
2.The basic, primary stuff of the Universe is Consciousness

Having the Universe proceeding from the starting point of Consciousness, Intelligence, Information answers many more question then using Physical matter as the starting point.

Reality is Non-Local.

Establishment Science is trying desperately to protect its turf and using tactics much like Rove and the GOP.

Not surprising.

Many creationists fall for the fallacy of authority.

academically seated Scientists in various fields have postied the theories I mentioned and are forming and performing and refining experiments.

Most people who try to 'debunk' the notion that the Universe has an inherent, preconditioned capacity for Intelligence really haven't even explored the work of many cutting edge Scientists.

When you say "Having the Universe proceeding from the starting point of Consciousness" I think it pretty clearly establishes you as a creationist.

in fact non-local.

YOU are the one insisting on a "Creator" or a Being that mimics your own limited concept of self.

We dont even know what consciousness is yet.

I just understand how science works. There are lots of fun philosophies revolving around experimental physics, many even postulated by scientists, that doesnt make them science.

then creating experiments to prove their validity?

Or should all Scientists bow down before Materialism and Neo-Darwinists and say 'stop here' in front of the sacred cow?

so im not sure where we disagree here

Show us what we've all been missing. If what you say is true it will undoubtedly appear somewhere in the very many and the very good science resources on the 'net. And please, no links to rense or reprints of world net daily articles. Articles from the mainstream science portals should be fine since it is such a prevalent theory. They may not agree with the theories but surely they will have provided some coverage.

Basically, my interest is reading up on Science that isn't bound by the philosophy of Materialism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=245x4467

Also, check the website Internatinal Society For Complexity, Intelligence and Design. Theorists post their papers there and get peer reviewed. You can post there for free and argue with Intelligent Design theorists in person :)

I will also start a thread in the future to websites.

Biocommunication is a really interesting field that touches on Consciousness.

What's truly bizarre is sometimes I find myself reading stuff that the Far Right is grabbing onto as well. Maybe it's like sometimes on a rare occassion I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan.

Are these guys really in the minor leagues yet? Quite frankly Dean Radin is a quack but the only other one I am familiar with is Fred Alan Wolf. Philosophy is a better description of his views, not science. That's all well and good to look at the information we have and try to develop conceptual frameworks for it but it isn't really science. It is possible though that some time in the future his ideas could enter the minor leagues and lead to some serious results.

By the way. What in the heck does any of this have to do with Evolution/Creationism? Not even any of these far out thinkers seriously question evolution do they?

on the whole, is based on the directional transfer of physical material ... there is nothing 'un'physical about it ....

:-)

it could establish one as a quantum person. Nature STINKS with reality following consciousness rather than vice versa.

since all of this is highly theoretical, and simply interesting ideas at this point.

What's happening is that science and philosophy are once again being confused. Not by the scientists and philosophers, but by the audience.

We observe that consciousness, will, and design exist because we have consciousness and will and we design things.

What we don't know is who or what else has these qualities. We don't really know what is unique, if anything, about them.

To be a "creationist," one would be touting answers to these currently unanswerable questions.

There need be no debunking, your claims are outlandish and completely unsupported by science.

please... cite an experiment that proves that unequivocally.

You and only you must prove your claims. I have made no claims, I have no burden of proof on me.

it doesn't prove the opposite.

cryingshame, this is the fallacy used by Creationists and the ID crew: that if they disprove evolution, it proves Creationism, when it does nothing of the sort. You can disprove theories all day, but disproof of one is not automatic proof of another.

You need to prove your claim.

A negative hypothesis incurs the burden as affirmatively as a hypothesis.

The other poster is arguing that there is an inherent intelligence in the universe. The burden of proof lies on that poster to prove that this is indeed the case.

Im not sure where you got lost, but I get burden just fine thanks.

The argument is about consciousness and physicalness. Science is currently operating from an assumption that consciousness follws physicalness. At least, that is the way I see the argument.

And there is ome evidence to support the contrary notion, that consciousness precedes physicalness. While it is not yet to the level of absolute proof, the evidence is accumulating slowly as scientists come to grips with how to prove these sorts of things empirically.

It is not without evidence. Perhaps the evidence has not reached critical mass. Perhaps it never will or perhaps it will tomorrow. I don't know. But to equate the very serious inquiries made from academic heavies, well designed experiments that meet all the tests of 'science' to the wild rantings of some jake-legged hillbilly preachers speaking of things of which they have no knowledge, is seriously in error, both intellectually and morally.

Science isnt operating under any assumptions, and as far as I know concisousness is a psychological phenomenom, so I am quite confused by your use of the word. Are you arguing that the universe is really a giant brain?

What HARD science is coming to, experimentally, is the effect of concentrated consciousness on physical reality. Nothing philosophical about it. Experiments have been devised, objective measures conceptualized, and then conducted. Are you familiar with Professor Claude Swanson?

On edit: it's actually pretty damned exciting, I think.

You really don't want your claims subject to any scepticism or to actually have to defend your assumptions. Yes, you are making assumptions, you don't fool anyone.

Religion hands people a set of opinions fully formed, ususally when they're children so they're simple opinions. Those simple things explain everything (god did it) so that there is no need to inquire, research, study, test, or do any of the other things science does.

Science is the process of finding out how things work through study and diligence.

Religion is the process of declaring that study and diligence are irrelevant, since there's such a simple explanation for all of it.

If you want to believe the explanation for everything is your god, so be it. Just don't pass yourself off as a scientist. You haven't done the work.

you can fight with the big boys:

http://www.iscid.org/

Go the message forum on the website WHICH IS FREE and you can find Intelligent Design theorists posting their papers and rebuttals.

Find the holes in their work. It's a form of peer review after all.

And please, provide us here on DU with a link so we can all admire your intellectual prowess.

Since they haven't proven it yet. Once they get something provable, let me know.

cryingshame is talking about. More along the lines of Professor Claude Swanson's work.

discourse than I (remember your thread on Logic?)

And really, I have no wish to posit the notion of a watchmaker sitting in the clouds.

our friends are sometimes quite defensive. It's alllll good. :D

Since when is asking someone to prove their claim "defensive"?

If only creationists could provide as much evidence as they do insults, their case would be made.

Not from me.

Try to prodice evidence rather than smears on people who ask fair questions, thanks. :-)

If it doesn't, ignore it. I am making no accusations.

Not a compelling case.

"BTW, For All Those Wishing To "Debunk" Intelligent Design - Go Here"

See?

He provided a link to a ID website, and said we should go there to 'debunk' it. So, what is he talking about if not ID?

consciousness derived from physical matter.

Although some great science is being done on the brain that sheds some great light on what happens when you gain and lose conciousness.

You are making purely philosophical arguments. Consciousness as we understand it is a condition of the human and animal brain. It is not derived from anything, it is just a description of an observation.

Go ahead, prove them.

so it is impossible to debunk. That is why it isnt science, thus the point of the original post in this thread. Creation science is not science, it is philosophy. It is taking the facts and spinning them to fit a conclusion you already made.

They really do not play by the rules of science, although it can be fun to read thier tortured logic.

Creationists always get confused about that.

That reeally doesn't advance the dialog and in this instance, the labels do not describe the position of anyone with whom you are discussing this matter. I haven't seen anyone advocate a creationist position nor actually a true ID position either.

What cryingshame and I are both discussing has nothing to do with either of those notions.

rather than criticizing the people asking for it.

I am having above with K-W?

That will tell you more about where I am coming from.

:D

Cryingshame: "BTW, For All Those Wishing To "Debunk" Intelligent Design - Go Here"

Pepperbelly: "What cryingshame and I are both discussing has nothing to do with either of those notions ."

That was the conversation. What do you think I missed?

Jebus, if you are a scientist, I am trying to steer you toward some pretty substantial work that's going on right now. Some of the most exciting science ever. Check out the discussion above. If you are just wanting to argue and flame, go fuck youself. That is not what this is about.

Go argue with the fence post if that's what you want but I don't have time for juvenile games.

on edit: please check out Professor Claude Swanson. The work is interesting and important.

First you ask people to prove things they never claimed.

Then you tell people they're not following a conversation, though they demonstrate they are.

Then you ask people to justify their position as a scientist - though they've never made such claims.

Please try to get the next thing right.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

1. You posit a sort of consciousness driven universe (but it's not intelligent design, though the distinction is not explained) which is really cool because you find it exciting

2. Anyone who asks for evidence to support your claim is defensive

3. You don't need to provide evidence, others need to debunk it, or it's true

Why are you even arguing?

Do you object to scientists conducting experiments to see if there is a connection between consciousness and physicalness?

Do you not think that it is exciting?

I'm sorry that seems to upset you, but I think it's a fair request.

What claim are you talking about?

You know - the one you jumped to defend:

Having the Universe proceeding from the starting point of Consciousness, Intelligence, Information answers many more question then using Physical matter as the starting point.

and my position is this ... if ways can be defined to test this hypothesis experimentally, the experiments should be conducted, published, and evaluated.

And it is pretty fucking exciting.

Quantums will be the key to discovering what is so, I think.

Do I have that right?

If so we're talking a matter of faith rather than science, right?

and that is what Swanson is speaking of. To some extent, it already HAS been tested and data is available for peer review. In many different tests and by various modes of measurement, from "quantum noise" to statistical studies with a data set of 400,000.

I am saying that there is movement at the far end of quantums to collect and evaluate this data.

"if ways can be defined to test this hypothesis experimentally, the experiments should be conducted, published, and evaluated" I construed that to mean it has not been tested.

Has it been tested or not?

more is needed.

Who actually can say when the unified field theory will turn up and what will look like. Our current physical models have serious flaws ... data not accounted for ... unpredictabilty. Embarassments.

is the lack of any kind of documentation of his experiments. I can find all sorts of web pages mentioning him and his book and how he has conducted experiments, but I can't find anything that actually documents the experiments (methodology, results etc).

I have to admit, I am biased. When all the pages I can find that mention him (and others like Fred Alan Wolf mentioned above) are of a decidedly non-scientific bent, pages devoted to UFO conferences and psychic this and astral that and the yoga of time travel and other such things, my confidence in their non-quackery is greatly shaken. I mean, in Dr. Wolf's case, he basically seems to be selling himself off as some kind of guru and the only results I see are the proclamations of devoted followers and other gurus with a cult following on his pages.

Doesn't seem much like science to me. Seems like some guys making a few bucks selling new age religion wrapped in a very thin scientific packaging.

from his book?

I have not bought it. I may or may not. But the studies to which he alluded certainly seem to be sound. What he is doing is surveying the literature in this tome.

The excerpts cite some pretty specific, published studies.

eom

Suppose a Southern Baptist moves from a state in the South to one in the North. He decides to run for public office and, in order to make himself more acceptable in the political forum, he decides to join the Catholic Church since it has more members in his new state. He visits the bishop and receives the list of beliefs to which he must consent in order to achieve church membership. His reply is that he doesn't believe any of this dogma but demands membership anyway. My contention is that the bishop has the right of denial, just as members of the scientific community have the right to deny membership in the scientific community to creationists who don't or can't abide by the "rules" of the scientific method. My conclusion is that school boards, legislators, etc. have no authority to include creationism/intelligent design courses in the curriculum as science courses until these "theories" are accepted by the scientific community. There is no other definition of creationism/ID except as religion. They should not be allowed.

Even the evolution theory has its problems. You can't evolve from...nothing.... Big bang - from what?! No side here has a grasp on tangible truth.

1. You've confused Big Bang and Evolution. Evolution does not posit that anything evolved from "nothing".

2. Who says anything came from nothing in any theory?

Thanks.

Even the Big Bang starts with "something" - in fact, finding this "something" is one of the biggest pursuits in physics.

since we've never been able to study NOTHING. We can only study SOMETHING, so all assumptions about NOTHING are just guesses.

It sounds like you don't want to come out and actually claim that something can come from "nothing", because you know it is nonsense.

If were to make this claim, then you would have to attempt to defend it.

Of course "nothing" cannot be studied, it isn't there to be studied, unless we're talking about the abstract concept calling "nothing". This reification of "nothing" is absurd, "nothing" is a shorthand in language, e.g. saying "I have nothing in my pocket." instead of saying "I don't have anything in my pocket.". It does not mean there is a "nothing" in my pocket. (and of course, there really is something in my pocket afterall, like air).

How do you get complexity from no complexity at all?

People like to say what can or can't come from nothing. But who knows? Maybe if there ever really was NOTHING something would spring forth from it.

But who ever said something came from nothing anyway?


And who said complexity came from no complexity at all?

Daniel Dennett for example, writes (in 'Consciousness Explained') about a 'nothingness' that is the foundation of everything. That's his god, Nothingness.

I've discussed this with more than one nihilist who call themselves atheists. Many atheists are in fact nihilists, they do have this god they believe in. They think that Nothingness, with its magic wand of Chance (which is there, even though there is supposely this Nothingness), poofs things into being. How? that's never explained. It's the most ridiculous belief system I've even heard of.

Most athiests I've met come in two catagories, people who see no evidence of God, and those who hate the rules religions come up with and so deny God. The second group actually believes in God, but doesn't want to follow the rules of whatever religion they were raised in.

To be honest, I've never met a nihilest. The 'nothingness and chance' comment you make is something I have heard before; out of the mouth of a Creationist who wanted to win a arguement with me.

That 'nothing' has ever existed ....

The Big Bang event is a reference point in time and space as we know it, but we cannot presume that 'nothing' existed because of it ...

Think of this a moment: every thing in your body, every tissue, is made of the stuff of second generation stars .... First generation stars did not possess the material to form biological organisms ... not even water ....

Makes ya think ....

Yes, they don't want to play by our rules unless it is convenient for them. It boils down to the fact that Creationism is not science period. The labels on the text books were the biggest bunch of crap I can imagine because they were calling evolution a theory and not a fact even though the probability of evolution being true is 100% and the probability of the Creation theory being true based on scientific observation is basically zero. They want to call the shots but don't want to play by the rules unless they can manipulate them to their advantage. If they were to play by the rules then the labels would have said that based on scientific observation the probability of the creation theory based on scientific observation is basically zero. They want to act like they are hot shit when the reality is they never were invited to the ball in the first place because the creation theory is NOT science. They use science rules when it is convenient for them but they abandon them when they are not. They are inconsistent in the way they make arguments. They are dishonest and scum!

Is that the religious community wants to limit God. God, the all powerful, all knowing presence could really approach creation anyway he wished…in an instant we appeared, or he could have evoked laws that resulted in our creation after many, many years...by evolution.

Man, wants a God, but he wants a God that is no stronger, smarter or powerful than man.

Strange.

referring to biblical literalist types .....
"and these are the same people who insisted the world was flat"