Physics professor endorces Intelligent Design

[Kbertsche]

This is a big time complaint of mine of Craig and others, and apparently you, that misuse scientific cosmology models, to reach cosmogony (religious conclusions of necessary beginnings) conclusions that our physical existence has in some way a definite beginning at any time in the past. This conclusion goes beyond the present knowledge of cosmology, and the theorems and models of cosmology. The bottom line is some models and theorems, like Vilenkin's BVG, describe possible beginnings of possible universes and multiverses, and do not reach conclusions of necessary beginnings like those argued from the cosmogony perspective. Other models like those proposed by Steinhardt do not have 'beginnings.'

I see no misuse of cosmology by Craig (or other theologians like Alister McGrath, or physicists/astronomers such as Hugh Ross, or Michael Strauss, or Owen Gingerich). We will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

As far as whether I support the 'Big Bang,' it is more a layman's term and does not in and of itself describe nor conclude whether our 'physical existence has a definite beginning or not. Virtually all the cosmologists and physicists do not conclude that their is an event in the past that is a beginning in any absolute sense. The present consensus is that the beginning of our universe began from something, a black hole, singularity or possibly a cyclic event.

1) The Big Bang is extremely well evidenced and is nearly universally accepted by the physics and astronomy community.
2) please present evidence for your claim that "Virtually all the cosmologists and physicists do not conclude that their is an event in the past that is a beginning in any absolute sense". My experience is completely the opposite, and I have worked with a number of leading cosmologists and physicists.
3) the possibility of a cyclic universe was ruled out long ago, multiple times. It was first ruled out on theoretical grounds (Richard Tolman, 1934; Alan Guth, 1983). More recently it was ruled out experimentally by observations that the universe is expanding faster, dubbed "dark energy" (Riess et al 1998; Perlmutter et al 1999; 2011 Nobel Prize for physics). Appeals to a cyclic universe are desperate attempts to deny reality.

Sorry, but your not accurate with the above statement. Your splitting frog hairs trying to separate ID from fine tuning, and belief in a designer and design. The problem is endorsing design and designer misusing science to justify 'beginnings.' Strauss in this article stated that the evidence supported a designer and a design, and used other arguments including the indication of the 'fine tuning' argument. The other problem with the above is that the ID movement as proposed by the Discovery Institute includes arguments for 'Theistic Evolution.' Those that believe in Theistic Evolution, like myself, do not necessarily believe in the cosmology evidence supports the argument for design, or fine tuning. Others support the argument that the scientific evidence for fine tuning and design.

No. It may seem to a non-Christian that I am splitting hairs, but there is a clear and important distinction here. Folks like Francis Collins support "design" and a "designer", but oppose "ID". Owen Gingerich is a case in point. He is one of the first modern scientists to use "fine tuning" arguments (back in the 1970s) in a similar way to Strauss, Ross, and Craig. As he explains in his book "God's Universe", he supports "intelligent design" as a principle (as do all Christians) but not "Intelligent Design" as a movement.

[TheLurch]

1) The Big Bang is extremely well evidenced and well accepted in nearly universally accepted by the physics and astronomy community.
2) please present evidence for your claim that "Virtually all the cosmologists and physicists do not conclude that their is an event in the past that is a beginning in any absolute sense". My experience is completely the opposite, and I have worked with a number of leading cosmologists and physicists.
3) the possibility of a cyclic universe was ruled out long ago. Experimental evidence for an inflationary universe (the Nobel prize given to Perlmutter et al a few years ago) has put the nail in the coffin. Appeals to a cyclic universe are desperate attempts to deny reality.

Just an attempt to possibly clarify things here - i'm wondering if shunyadragon is referring to a multiverse as a consequence of inflation. In that any fabric experiencing inflation will necessarily expand faster than universes like our own drop out of it at lower inflation rates, creating what's essentially an infinite collection of universes. I'm not sure if a process like this can even be compatible with a concept like time; assuming it is, there's no guarantee that our universe was "first" in any way.

Perlmutter's Nobel i thought was for dark energy, which is (at least potentially) distinct from inflation, isn't it?

And as for "attempts to deny reality", i don't think Turok is that unsophisticated. A bit too in love with the idea that the universe has to be simple and easily comprehensible, but not to the point of denying reality.

NB: i'm only a biologist, so there's a chance i've gotten things wrong here.

[Teallaura]

No Shuny, it is not an argument form ignorance. There is no evidence that anything besides this universe exists. And this universe is finite. If you think something more than this universe exists, then it is on you to show it - until then all we have is a finite, temporal cosmos.

Okay, that actually is an Argument from Ignorance - no evidence doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

[Teallaura]

It is an argument from Ignorance, because there is no evidence whatsoever to justify either position. If you believe there is positive evidence that the universe is finite, please cite it, because the current theorems by Vilenkin and others do not provide evidence, because they are just one of many models. Steinhardt's model on the other hand supports an infinite and eternal physical existence, but then again like Vilenkin's BVG it is only a model based on current scientific knowledge and not conclusive evidence for a universe that is infinite and eternal.

His second argument was - but the first one was in the second, not the first clause and therefore was not.

[shunyadragon]

I see no misuse of cosmology by Craig (or other theologians like Alister McGrath, or physicists/astronomers such as Hugh Ross, or Michael Strauss, or Owen Gingerich). We will just have to agree to disagree on this point.



1) The Big Bang is extremely well evidenced and is nearly universally accepted by the physics and astronomy community.

The nature of whether the Big Bang has a definite beginning is NOT universally accepted. In fact the list of the scientists I provided DO NOT accept the Big Band as the absolute beginning of anything.

As far as whether I support the 'Big Bang,' it is more a layman's term and does not in and of itself describe nor conclude whether our 'physical existence has a definite beginning or not. Virtually all the cosmologists and physicists do not conclude that their is an event in the past that is a beginning in any absolute sense. The present consensus is that the beginning of our universe began from something, a black hole, singularity or possibly a cyclic event within a greater multiverse or universe (see list).

2) please present evidence for your claim that "Virtually all the cosmologists and physicists do not conclude that their is an event in the past that is a beginning in any absolute sense". My experience is completely the opposite, and I have worked with a number of leading cosmologists and physicists.

No problem, Vilenkin and the others involved with the BVG model, all propose that our universe and all possible universes have beginnings from something in a multiverse. Steinhardt proposes a cyclic universe without beginnings nor endings (not yet demonstrated as false), I have previously listed the physicists and cosmologists in other threads that advocate a multiverse model and theorem.

Supporters of the Multiverse

David H. Bailey - mathametician
Sean Carroll
Paul Dirac
Hugh Everett III
Brian Greene
Alan Guth
Stephen Hawking
Thomas Hertog
Gerard 't Hooft
Laura Mersini Houghton
James Hartle
Andrei Linde
Lawrence Krauss
Juan Maldacena
Joseph Polchinski
Prof. Max Tegmark
Steven Weinberg

Middle ground

David Gross - Questions everything
Steinhardt supports an infinite and eternal cyclic universe (not yet falsified)

Opposes multiverse

Paul Davies
George Ellis
David Strauss?

Who else do you know???

3) the possibility of a cyclic universe was ruled out long ago, multiple times. It was first ruled out on theoretical grounds (Richard Tolman, 1934; Alan Guth, 1983). More recently it was ruled out experimentally by observations that the universe is expanding faster, dubbed "dark energy" (Riess et al 1998; Perlmutter et al 1999; 2011 Nobel Prize for physics). Appeals to a cyclic universe are desperate attempts to deny reality.

Your unfortunately citing really old references here. Steinhardt's model is more recent. Please cite where Steinhardt's model has been falsified.

No. It may seem to a non-Christian that I am splitting hairs, but there is a clear and important distinction here. Folks like Francis Collins support "design" and a "designer", but oppose "ID". Owen Gingerich is a case in point. He is one of the first modern scientists to use "fine tuning" arguments (back in the 1970s) in a similar way to Strauss, Ross, and Craig. As he explains in his book "God's Universe", he supports "intelligent design" as a principle (as do all Christians) but not "Intelligent Design" as a movement.

Well, have to agree to disagree here, you are splitting frog hairs and too narrowly defining 'Intelligent Design.'

[seer]

Okay, that actually is an Argument from Ignorance - no evidence doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

I agree, but... there is still no evidence for anything but this finite universe. If Shuny wants to make a claim that matter and energy are eternal I think it would be on him to produce the beef.

[seer]

Well, have to agree to disagree here, you are splitting frog hairs and too narrowly defining 'Intelligent Design.'

But Shuny, don't you also believe in intelligent design? That the universe is the way it is only because God created it that way?

Let me quote you:

Yes, God Created humanity as an intelligent rational and logical spiritual being, and Created our physical existence as uniform, consistent, non-contradictory, and intelligible to human intelligence and abilities to understand its physical nature.

Sounds like intelligent design to me...

[Kbertsche]

Just an attempt to possibly clarify things here - i'm wondering if shunyadragon is referring to a multiverse as a consequence of inflation. In that any fabric experiencing inflation will necessarily expand faster than universes like our own drop out of it at lower inflation rates, creating what's essentially an infinite collection of universes. I'm not sure if a process like this can even be compatible with a concept like time; assuming it is, there's no guarantee that our universe was "first" in any way.

Perlmutter's Nobel i thought was for dark energy, which is (at least potentially) distinct from inflation, isn't it?

And as for "attempts to deny reality", i don't think Turok is that unsophisticated. A bit too in love with the idea that the universe has to be simple and easily comprehensible, but not to the point of denying reality.

NB: i'm only a biologist, so there's a chance i've gotten things wrong here.

Yes, inflation and dark energy are different. You are correct about Perlmutter; you replied to my post before I corrected my typo.

Note that a "cyclic universe" and a "multiverse" are two different concepts. The cyclic universe has been ruled out, but not the multiverse.

[robrecht]

Yes, inflation and dark energy are different. You are correct about Perlmutter; you replied to my post before I corrected my typo.

Note that a "cyclic universe" and a "multiverse" are two different concepts. The cyclic universe has been ruled out, but not the multiverse.

Doesn't Paul Steinhardt of Princeton still endorse the possibility of a cyclic universe?

[seer]

Doesn't Paul Steinhardt of Princeton still endorse the possibility of a cyclic universe?

Yes he does...http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf

[Jorge]

If he was a rock star, i'm surprised i'd never heard of him, given i studied across the Bay at Berkeley at a time he was still in SF. In contrast, I knew a lot of the high-profile scientists at UCSF and Stanford.

In any case, the Wikipedia entry on him suggests that his department chair did try to limit his teaching of intelligent design in biology classes, but the faculty of his institution opposed this on the grounds of academic freedom. So, unless there's other information that's not included there, this doesn't appear to be a simple case of expulsion.

The level of depth of the homework/research performed by people is usually proportional to the level of desire that they have for finding the truth in the matter. I trust you catch my meaning ...

Kenyon had written Biochemical Predestination (1969) - considered at the time to be THE leading book on (Materialistic) OOL. Yes, Kenyon was one of the "rock stars" in his field at that time. The day he dared question/challenge the Materialistic paradigm, was the day he bent over and kissed his career 'goodbye'.

I've spoken to him directly and I have him on video tape.
I think I'll take his account over yours on any day - twice on Sundays.

Jorge

[Jorge]

By "EXPELLED" do you mean being the current Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University? And Kenyon has been open about his YEC position since the early 1980s (over 30 years ago) when he testified on behalf of for the creationist side in the McLean vs. Arkansas case (1981) and later in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). He was officially pushing including creationism in biology classes at SFSU since 1980. His career did not appear to suffer as a result.

It wasn't until the mid-1990s that he was finally asked to stop teaching creationism in introductory biology courses at SFSU after complaints began to pile up. He refused and was temporarily suspended from teaching the class until the dispute was settled. Kenyon was actually supported by the faculty who opposed administrative interference over what professors taught. In the end he was allowed to continue.

Source: Teacher wins fight over creationism

For more than 10 years, Dean Kenyon has been teaching that an "intelligent designer'' created the first life on Earth, accumulating a small but steady stream of student complaints as well as the enmity of his colleagues in science.

But on what is certainly one of the most liberal and iconoclastic campuses in the country, the renegade biologist has found a wellspring of support among his fellow professors at San Francisco State University.

After the biology department finally banned Kenyon from teaching an introductory course, saying he was propagandizing students with religion, the university's academic senate rose to the professor's defense voting 25-8 last month to declare his academic freedom had been violated. The American Association of University Professors also has come to Kenyon's defense.

The faculty endorsement, which led to Kenyon's reinstatement in the course effective next summer, appears unique in the annals of higher education. The vote accentuates the deep division between scientific and humanistic views of what should be taught in a science classroom

© Copyright Original Source

In your typical style, you don't know what you're talking about.
See my last post to 'Lurch'

Jorge

[phank]

I think there's some ambiguity here over the distinction (if any) between methodololgical naturalism and philosophical naturalism. As I read it, the latter is described as the belief that there is nothing supernatural in the universe, while the former is described as the search for natural causes for specified observations. In practice, I think this distinction vanishes, or rather that science takes a procedural default position that there is no supernatural, no magic, no inconsistencies or paradoxes in reality. And that if you're including the supernatural, whatever your belief, you aren't doing science.

I think the presumption that nothing supernatural will ever be (or ever NEED to be) a component of any scientific explanation of anything, isn't so much a matter of philosphy as it is a matter of process.

So many variations of the Big Bang are currently at least not ruled out by what evidence is available, that the central concept of the Big Bang is pretty hazy. Cyclical universes, multiverses, various models of phase changes, various conceptions of time and space, mean that two people can agree that the Big Bang happened, while having strikingly different (and incompatible) ideas of what the term means.

[phank]

I think I'll take his account over yours on any day - twice on Sundays.

Jorge

What a wonderful illustration of magical thinking. First, SAYING it's true makes it true! Second, saying it twice makes it twice as true. And third, WHEN you say it twice makes it even truer yet, especially when it's said twice on a day embued with magical powers.

Once again, Dawkins is correct that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing.

[klaus54]

But Shuny, don't you also believe in intelligent design? That the universe is the way it is only because God created it that way?

Let me quote you:



Sounds like intelligent design to me...

What DO you understand?

1) The theory of evolution.

2) Geology

3) Biology

4) Astrophysics

5) Paleontology

Is there anything in science you DO understand?

I haven't seen any evidence.

Maybe you can go over to Mossrose's, she could bake you an apple pie, smack you over your fideistic skull with her dough roller at few times, and have a deep conversation about which of youse is more ignorant of science.

K54