#21218: Luboš Motl — 04/07  at  07:39 AM
Design creationists may be a joke, but the argument that a similar way of thinking creeps into theoretical physics these days, is unfortunately valid.

The more demanding readers who expect a little bit more than postings stating that "creationists are stupid" are welcome to read a post about a physics seminars choosing the right Universe according to the amount of belief - or intelligent life - in that Universe.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/04/anthropic-world-vilenkin.html

#21232: blony — 04/07  at  10:05 AM
Ok, It's National Poetry Month. How about a, ahem, poem?
What the hell:

Left, Right, Evolve

Right from wrong in tome and song
Have ever been a lesson
But words are mystifying
Left's now right and Right is wrong
Mythology is dying

Up the ladder, foot on rung,
Next step is reason's blessing
Right says, stop! Left keeps trying
Seeking truth and songs unsung
"You're Left behind!", Right's crying

#21250: — 04/07  at  01:26 PM

When scientists read what the leading lights of the Discovery Institute say, they laugh.

Er, well, when one scientist reads ... he laughs, would be more precise. Still, don't let the facts get in the way of a rubbish response.

#21256: — 04/07  at  03:40 PM
I'm always much amused at complaints from Dembski and company when critics of ID call it creationism. Of course, he's wrong, as can be amply demonstrated by comparing the genome of ID with that of creationism (metaphorically speaking), which is precisely what Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross did in "Creationism's Trojan Horse." As mightily as the ID promoters try to disown their parentage, a DNA test will always reveal the truth.

#21265: judgeMC — 04/07  at  05:58 PM
Hey! I need you guys to explain something for me please. I'm a layperson trying to understand evolution a little better....o.k. a lot better than what was taught to me in school. I've read most of your post, but I'm still having a problem understanding the difference between using the word "theory" in relation to evolution and using "theory" as I would ex.I have a theory on why the defendant commited the act. I'm not sure I understand the difference completly.

#21266: — 04/07  at  06:11 PM
Theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

#21267: — 04/07  at  06:32 PM
i know feeding the trolls is bad form, but to the self identified troll above:

every physicist i have shown those posts to agrees, it's fall down laugh outloud funny... and i have shown it to quite few. things in lab can be boring.

and using Laughlin to prove a point about biology is like me using a statement from Darwin to beat down celestial mechanics. no it's worse because Laughlin likes to grandstand and be a perpetual naysayer (even if he is a DAMN good condensed matter theorist). plus he likes to relate quantum critical points to Japanese anime:
Science, Vol 303, Issue 5663, 1475-1477 , 5 March 2004
although, strangely, i think that paper makes sense.

#21268: judgeMC — 04/07  at  07:40 PM
Thank you Patrick. I'm rather new to this blog, but I am really enjoying the read. And my old Oxford English Dictionary has recieved quite a workout.

#21272: — 04/07  at  11:21 PM
judgeMC, I think that what in normal conversation people call a "theory" is called a "hypothesis" in science terms -- as in, I have an idea that I need to find some evidence for.

In science, you have the hypothesis first (an idea about what's going on), you test your hypothesis with experiments, and then you develop a theory based on the results of those experiments. So, in science, a theory is something that you have concrete evidence for.

At least, that's my layperson's, haven't-had-a-science-class-in-15-years understanding of it.

Trackback: Evolution Is Poppycock Tracked on: The World Wide Rant - v3.0 (63.247.140.66) at 2005 04 07 16:46:35
Or perhaps Paul from Wizbang is just continually being shown to be dim:Just like people, clams can be affected by the toxins that cause paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), but scientists have now identified a mutation in clams that gives some...

#21292: — 04/08  at  09:18 AM
Demski's attempts to get cosy with some mainstream scientific minds is sort of sweet and not horribly convincing (did he seek their consent first, one wonders, before cementing the marriage), but the accidental clowning doesn't go much farther than that, since

1) He relies on a valid philosophical point, in that the notion of a creative universal intelligence is not of necessity the same thing as belief in a particular myth about a particular being.

2) The ID-ists more-or-less follow an ultra-conservative Catholic view, which is not fundamentalist-literalist/typically Protestant.

3) If ID and self-identified Young Earthers are combined in battle against evolution, the truce is an uneasy and mutually suspicious one.

There's a "wedge" being offered up to us here that is begging to be turned against the anti-scientists.

#21305: — 04/08  at  11:05 AM
I see that none of the contributors are women...no editorial, just an observation.

#21306: judgeMC — 04/08  at  11:27 AM
Mnemosyne
I'm with you there. I dropped out of school almost 14 years ago and since I started college last year I've been playing catch-up to alot of my younger compadres. It's been a blast! I was suprised to find out how much my life experiences could contribute in the classroom.

I like a challege!

#21409: — 04/09  at  08:18 AM
Funny thing, that. I know physicists as well, and many of them have been completely unconvinced by evolution for many years, even before a framework of meaningful scientific objection existed. Similar sort of things for people I know who know about cosmology and astronomy.

In fact, it seems to be the biologists who are most convinced by evolution - though not universally biologists, nor are the universally convinced. At age 16-18, biology was the science for people who couldn't hack maths. I wonder if there's a connection?

#21412: Burt Humburg — 04/09  at  09:28 AM
A framework of meaningful scientific objection exists to evolution? As someone who has studied creationism, the claims of creationist, and attended several of the Intelligent Design Network's presentations over the years, I am surprised to hear that a meaningful scientific objection exists. In fact, most of the arguments coming from the DI and the IDnet are about *overturning* the methods of science, which is consistent with not having any scientific support.

I like your observation that biologists are the ones that are the most convinced about evolution. Sort of like how surgeons tend to be the most enthusiastic about laparoscopy, invasive cardiologists the most convinced about cardiac catheterizations, etc., huh?

BCH

#21443: judgeMC — 04/09  at  10:06 PM
If you couldn't hack math or biology does that make you a creationist?

#21445: — 04/09  at  11:11 PM
judgeMC, No.

I know people who cant add 2 digit numbers, but they wont buy the creationist/ID line.

#21449: Alon Levy — 04/10  at  01:47 AM
I'm a math major and I think creationists are crackpots.

#21465: — 04/10  at  10:12 AM
My father was a physicist and most of his colleagues at work were fellow physicists or geophysicists, geologists, or engineers of several types. Of about the 25 with whom he worked (including some who were Southern Baptists or Pentecostals), none were doubters of evolution. They accepted it as a very good working theory—and that was half a century ago.

I'm no physicist but my BA is in physics and during my professional life I dealt with many chemists and physicist. None were creationists of any flavor. in fact the only creationists or ID supporters I've ever personally known, with only a couple of exceptions, were folks of very limited education, either high school grads or dropouts, or college grads with majors in accounting, business, history and the like who took no science courses in college. Granted that's all anecdotal, but in general the vast majority of those in my experience who've thoroughly considered biology and evolution accept the latter's validity.

#21496: — 04/10  at  04:11 PM
*5* years ago (not 50), I was pretty convinced by evolution. There was no alternative. It was only when I started finding out what questions to ask that I discovered that the emperor theory had no clothes. Which is one of the reasons that I think so many evolutionists are so opposed to "teaching the controversy".

The problem with biologists and evolution is that biologists think it is all about biology. But it isn't only - it's also about maths. And whilst the story-telling, hand-waving bit is great biology (and makes wonderful documentaries) it's the maths that doesn't work.

#21498: PZ Myers — 04/10  at  04:46 PM
Oh, crap. Another dishonest, innumerate creationist.

Go away, "a Creationist Troll, definitely". You can't show any mathematical deficiencies in evolutionary theory: you're just lying, and I call bullshit.

#22227: — 04/18  at  07:10 PM
Gosh, the self-identified creationist troll didn't provide any info on those mathematical deficiencies, and he's had over a week to come up with some.

And he sounded so *confident*, too...