Physics professor endorces Intelligent Design

[rogue06]

In other news, Shuny still can't spell...

Endorse, not 'endorce'...

Has CP, our resident spelling Nazi, taken on an apprentice?

if we're gonna rant, might as well be about something that matters....

Like why do Canuckistanis insist on calling ham bacon?

[Kbertsche]

As a Physicist he should know better claiming it has been determined that our physical existence has been demonstrated to have a beginning. There are different models of the cosmology that have demonstrated that our physical existence has "beginnings," but it has not been conclusively demonstrated that our physical existence has a 'definite definable "beginning.

I do have strong objections to Strauss's line of reason in that he is using a religious agenda with anecdotal claims and inferences to reach his conclusions. The following quote is highly problematic, and essentially accuses science of being based on atheist assumption which is patently false.

The foundation of scientific methods is 'Methodological Naturalism,' assuming science cannot test and falsify theological questions, and remains neutral to whether any one of the many versions of God(s) exists or not. Some scientists assume Metaphysical Naturalism, and are atheists. This is a metaphysical personal view, and not based on scientific assumptions.

Shuny, I don't understand what you are saying, and what you find so disagreeable in the article about Strauss. Can you please explain?

Do you disagree with Strauss' description of the Big Bang and the age of the universe? Do you deny the Big Bang?!?

I see nowhere in the article that Strauss implies that science is based on "atheistic assumptions". Can you please quote and explain where you see this?

I think Strauss' approach is quite responsible. He stresses that science cannot "prove" God's existence, but can offer "evidence" for God. I agree completely, and use the same arguments that Strauss uses.

[BTW, it's not quite correct to describe Strauss' talk as endorsing "intelligent design". His talk centers on "fine tuning" arguments, which are not quite the same thing. Strauss is a volunteer apologist with Reasons to Believe, and his fine tuning arguments are very similar to those of Hugh Ross and other old-earth creationists.]

[shunyadragon]

In other news, Shuny still can't spell...

Endorse, not 'endorce'...

The anal attentive grammarian rears his ugly butt over a spelling error. I actually tried to correct it, but the poster of the thread cannot change the title. Back to the subject at hand and respond intelligently.

[Teallaura]

The anal attentive grammarian rears his ugly butt over a spelling error. I actually tried to correct it, but the poster of the thread cannot change the title. Back to the subject at hand.

'His'?!?!?!

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I don't understand what you are saying, and what you find so disagreeable in the article about Strauss. Can you please explain?

Do you disagree with Strauss' description of the Big Bang and the age of the universe? Do you deny the Big Bang?!?

I see nowhere in the article that Strauss implies that science is based on "atheistic assumptions". Can you please quote and explain where you see this?

I think Strauss' approach is quite responsible. He stresses that science cannot "prove" God's existence, but can offer "evidence" for God. I agree completely, and use the same arguments that Strauss uses.

Then you share the same problems with science as Strauss does.

Very unreasonable. He describes science as dominated by atheism longing for a Newtonian past.

"In historical times, he said, all scientists believed in God, and it was only more recently, within the last 200 years or so, that science based on the assumption there is no creator has dominated the field."

He made unscientific false simplistic generalizations about the thermos and models for the beginnings of our physical existence, which is in reality unknown.

“If everything in the universe came into being, then the cause of the universe must be transcendent, not a part of this universe,” Strauss argued. “Science kind of stumbled onto something that the Bible declared long ago … that the universe had a beginning.”

[BTW, it's not quite correct to describe Strauss' talk as endorsing "intelligent design". His talk centers on "fine tuning" arguments, which are not quite the same thing. Strauss is a volunteer apologist with Reasons to Believe, and his fine tuning arguments are very similar to those of Hugh Ross and other old-earth creationists.]

BTW the 'Fine tuning argument' is 'Intelligent Design' spelled differently. He referred directly to the support of a 'designer' and 'design.'

he said observable and testable scientific evidence points to a “designer who cares about humanity.”

Read the article again.

[shunyadragon]

'His'?!?!?!

You!

[Kbertsche]

Then you share the same problems with science as Strauss does.

Very unreasonable. He describes science as dominated by atheism longing for a Newtonian past.

"In historical times, he said, all scientists believed in God, and it was only more recently, within the last 200 years or so, that science based on the assumption there is no creator has dominated the field."

OK, I understand your objection. But I believe Strauss is correct. Like Strauss, I am a physicist, and I see the same thing that Strauss does. Most physicists today are atheists, but 200 years ago most were theists.

But I also agree with you; science proceeds by "methodological naturalism", and the way that one does science is essentially identical no matter what religious/philosophical perspective one starts with.

He made unscientific false simplistic generalizations about the thermos and models for the beginnings of our physical existence, which is in reality unknown.

“If everything in the universe came into being, then the cause of the universe must be transcendent, not a part of this universe,” Strauss argued. “Science kind of stumbled onto something that the Bible declared long ago … that the universe had a beginning.”

I notice that you didn't answer my question: do you deny the Big Bang?!? I (like Strauss) see the evidence for it as overwhelming; it cannot be denied without denying reality.

I don't understand your claim that "He made unscientific false simplistic generalizations about the thermos and models for the beginnings of our physical existence". Can you explain exactly what you see as "false" or "simplistic" in his statements?

The Big Bang says that the universe has a finite (not infinite) age, which means that it came into being at a finite time in the past. Logic (a la William Lane Craig) requires the cause of the universe to lie outside of the universe, i.e. to be transcendent.

BTW the 'Fine tuning argument' is 'Intelligent Design' spelled differently. He referred directly to the support of a 'designer' and 'design.'

he said observable and testable scientific evidence points to a “designer who cares about humanity.”

Read the article again.

Sorry, but this is not accurate.

It is true that "Intelligent Design" uses "fine tuning" arguments, but this does not mean that the two are identical. ID is much more than "fine tuning" arguments; it also includes "irreducible complexity", opposition to biological evolution, an agenda to get ID into public schools, and numerous other factors.

It is true that Strauss uses the terms "design" and "designer", but this is a far cry from "endorsing ID". All theists believe in divine "design", even those (like Francis Collins and other theistic evolutionists) who oppose the ID movement.

[shunyadragon]

OK, I understand your objection. But I believe Strauss is correct. Like Strauss, I am a physicist, and I see the same thing that Strauss does. Most physicists today are atheists, but 200 years ago most were theists.

But I also agree with you; science proceeds by "methodological naturalism", and the way that one does science is essentially identical no matter what religious/philosophical perspective one starts with.

Read carefully Strauss said atheism 'dominates,' which has strong scientific and philosophical implications aside from any numerical questions of who or how many are atheist, agnostic or theist. By a nostalgic longing back to 200 years in the past when all scientists believed in God results in a Newtonian world that believed in a literal Bible.

I don't understand your claim that "He made unscientific false simplistic generalizations about the thermos and models for the beginnings of our physical existence". Can you explain exactly what you see as "false" or "simplistic" in his statements?

The Big Bang says that the universe has a finite (not infinite) age, which means that it came into being at a finite time in the past. Logic (a la William Lane Craig) requires the cause of the universe to lie outside of the universe, i.e. to be transcendent.

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 notice that you didn't answer my question: do you deny the Big Bang?!? I (like Strauss) see the evidence for it as overwhelming; it cannot be denied without denying reality.

The above bolded is at the foundation of the weakness of argument. The present knowledge of science cannot be used to make this conclusion.

Source: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2006/may/05/cyclic-universe-could-explain-cosmological-constant

Cyclic universe could explain cosmological constant

Two theoretical physicists have developed a model that could explain why the cosmological constant takes the small, positive value that it does in today's universe. The value of the constant is responsible for the observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe. However, the new model, developed by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University in the US and Neil Turok at Cambridge University in the UK, will be controversial. It requires that time existed before the Big Bang, assumes that the universe is older than the 14 billion years we think it is, and says that the universe regularly undergoes repeating "cycles" of big bangs and big crunches (Sciencexpress 1126231).

The cosmological constant, or Λ, was first introduced by Einstein in 1917 to explain why the universe did not appear to be expanding. Edwin Hubble later showed that the universe was expanding, causing Einstein to call the constant his "biggest blunder". But when scientists first measured a value for Λ in 1998, they found it had a tiny, positive value -- indicating that acceleration of the universe is speeding up.

© Copyright Original Source

I am not proposing here which model is correct, because in reality this remains unknown. Our physical existence including all possible universes maybe infinite and eternal or finite and temporal. Religious cosmogony claims of the necessity of beginnings cannot ethically use science to justify its religious agenda as Craig does.

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.

Sorry, but this is not accurate.

It is true that "Intelligent Design" uses "fine tuning" arguments, but this does not mean that the two are identical. ID is much more than "fine tuning" arguments; it also includes "irreducible complexity", opposition to biological evolution, an agenda to get ID into public schools, and numerous other factors.

It is true that Strauss uses the terms "design" and "designer", but this is a far cry from "endorsing ID". All theists believe in divine "design", even those (like Francis Collins and other theistic evolutionists) who oppose the ID movement.

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.

[seer]

I am not proposing here which model is correct, because in reality this remains unknown. Our physical existence including all possible universes maybe infinite and eternal or finite and temporal. Religious cosmogony claims of the necessity of beginnings cannot ethically use science to justify its religious agenda as Craig does.

What is known Shuny is that there is no actual evidence for anything expect this universe. The evidence points to a finite cosmos that began to exist.

[shunyadragon]

What is known Shuny is that there is no actual evidence for anything expect this universe. The evidence points to a finite cosmos that began to exist.

Arguing from Ignorance is a fallacy. At present based on the current knowledge you cannot make the argument either way. Our physical existence may be Infinite and Eternal, or it may be finite and temporal. Justifying a religious agenda that our physical existence must be finite and temporal is unethical and a misuse of science when science at present cannot make that determination

[Teallaura]

Reread what he wrote - it's not an argument from ignorance - the argument is from the evidence.

It's not a good argument, because one point rests on the negative, but it isn't that fallacy, either.

[seer]

Arguing from Ignorance is a fallacy. At present based on the current knowledge you cannot make the argument either way. Our physical existence may be Infinite and Eternal, or it may be finite and temporal. Justifying a religious agenda that our physical existence must be finite and temporal is unethical and a misuse of science when science at present cannot make that determination

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.

It is an argument from Ignorance, because there is no evidence whatsoever to justify either position.

[shunyadragon]

Reread what he wrote - it's not an argument from ignorance - the argument is from the evidence.

It's not a good argument, because one point rests on the negative, but it isn't that fallacy, either.

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.

[seer]

It is an argument from Ignorance, because there is no evidence whatsoever to justify either position.

Really, there is no evidence that this universe is finite? That the universe is not expanding? There is no evidence for Big Bang cosmology?

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe. The key idea is that the universe is expanding. Consequently, the universe was denser and hotter in the past. Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.

What exactly do you disagree with? And listen Shuny, I know your faith teaches that God has been creating universes for eternity past, so it's understandable that you would want science to confirm your religious beliefs.