Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Intelligent designists fight back

I actually have a scientific question about intelligent design, and since
this is a science mailing list and Bob Montagne is an advocate for ID, I'm
hoping Bob can answer my question.

As I understand it, intelligent design refers specifically to living
organisms, and claims that they are "too complex" to have arisen
spontaneously, so they must have been put together by an "intelligent
designer". I am interested in the phrase "too complex". This implies that
there are degrees of complexity, like "not complex enough", "just complex
enough", and "too complex". In other words, complexity is measurable, and
there is a criterion that allows us to say that if a system has a complexity
of more than x complexity units, it cannot have arisen spontaneously.

So my question is, how do you measure complexity, and what is that
criterion? The question is important, because for something to qualify as a
scientific theory, it must be testable.

I am also curious as to whether ID extends to non-living systems, and
whether any of those is also "too complex" to have formed without the need
for a designer.

Alfredo Louro

On Jan 6, 2008 10:00 AM, <phys-l-request@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu> wrote:

Send Phys-l mailing list submissions to
phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
phys-l-request@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
phys-l-owner@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Phys-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: Intelligent designists fight back. (Bernard Cleyet)
2. Re: Accelerating automobile (John Barrer)
3. Re: earth's rotation (Michael Porter)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:52:44 -0800
From: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Intelligent designists fight back.
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <478096DC.5010509@redshift.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

"It does not admit supernatural agents any more than Darwinism does."


Until I'm disabused, my understanding is design if not by an earthly
form is supernatural. Design requires a designer. If not of this
earth, then is supernatural.

bc thinks this is an analytic truth.


LaMontagne, Bob wrote:

I think you are missing the point of Intelligent Design. It does not
admit supernatural agents any more than Darwinism does. It simply looks at
the usual evidence - fossil records, complexity of organisms, etc. - and
concludes from that evidence that evolution cannot explain the full tapestry
of what is seen - a non random, deliberate interaction of some kind is seen
to be required. That process may come to a different conclusion than
Darwinists, but it is no different in kind from the process followed by
Darwinists. The step to appealing to a deity as the deliberate interaction
is an entirely separate conclusion that is not demanded by ID.

ID proponents understand very well how science operates. It is mainstream
scientists who are mistakenly dismissive of ID and who treat it as something
unworthy of serious rebuttal. One cannot blame non-scientists for failing to
conclude that in a comparison between Darwinism and ID, one is science and
the other is not.

Ben Stein is a very clever and intelligent person. He has remarkable
insight into the way education works and has shown this in the numerous
parodies that he has presented of pedantic instructors. He also has an
uncanny grasp of the workings of the financial world and has become very
wealthy acting on those insights. I watch him often on the Saturday morning
financial programs on Fox News. I have taken some of his advice and have
reaped significant financial rewards from doing so. He is not an ignoramus.
Obviously, neither is President Bush or numerous other highly intelligent
people who see no reason to prefer Darwinism over ID. Rather, it is the
science community who has to get off their high horses and come up with
clear, easily understandable retorts to ID. Simply being dismissive is going
to drive more of the general population into the ID court. They have seen
scientists careen from Global Cooling to Global Warming - they have seen
demands for banning DDT followed by u
nforgivable mass deaths of children in undeveloped countries because of
the resulting surge in malaria - they will not accept nuclear power because
scientists have created bombs from that science. Scientists have too spotty
a history to take a believable condescending attitude toward ID that is
readily acceptable by the general public.

Bob at PC - who sees evolution as the only viable explanation for the
living world

(Please excuse the typos - my new wireless keyboard does not communicate
with my new Vista computer very well.)

________________________________

From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu on behalf of John Clement
Sent: Fri 1/4/2008 3:34 PM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Intelligent designists fight back.



They hardly need to fight back when we have major presidential candidates
who disavow evolution, and a sitting president who does the same. How
about
an anti-theocracy web site? Ben Stein obviously does not understand
science. It can't admit supernatural agents. When scientists do that,
research and development stops. Newton when he did not understand
something
said that God arranges it, so others went on to do the calculations that
did
not need to admit the "hypothesis" of a deity. The problem is that the
religious right equates this with atheism, which is absolutely false.
Many
religious groups have made their peace with Darwin.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX




http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php


bc, little scientist.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l




_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l




------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l




------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 07:21:49 -0800 (PST)
From: John Barrer <forcejb@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Accelerating automobile
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <872285.91533.qm@web54406.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

I would suggest this is a case where energy analysis
really helps to complete the picture. While the road
provides the net force which accelerates the car due
to an N3 interaction, it is the internal energy
(chemical) of the car which is the source of the
increase of the car's KE. It is this internal energy
which enables the car to exert a push on the road.
Energy pie charts of the car/road/Earth/air system
(other systems can be chosen as well but this choice
keeps the size of the pie constant) for two states
illustrate what's happening. State 1 - car at rest.
Entire pie is chemical energy. State 2 - car now
traveling at steady speed. There is now a small slice
of KE, a larger (appx 3X) slice of dissipated energy
(call it something else if this term offends), with
the balance of the pie chemical. Sizes of the slices
need to be qualitatively appropriate. A discussion of
where this dissipated energy "resides" can be quite
rich.

John Barrere
Fresno USD

--- "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu> wrote:

My department just switched to the latest version of
Serway - Physics for Scientists and Engineers. The
following problem is presented in chapter 5 (prob
26):

"A car is moving forward slowly and is speeding up.
A student claims "the car exerts a force on itslf"
or "the car's engine exerts a force on the car"
Argue that this idea cannot be accurate and that
friction exerted by the road is the propulsive force
on the car."

How would members of this list respond to this
problem? If I am standing on ice and push off from a
rigid wall, is it the wall providing the propulsive
force on my torso or is it the muscles in my arm?

Bob at PC
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu

https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l




------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:46:13 -0500
From: Michael Porter <listmoe@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] earth's rotation
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <1ED3DDC2-12FA-4FF2-BFC0-33B20B722DC0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes;
format=flowed

On Jan 5, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Clarence Bennett wrote:
If, as I suspect, the concept CLOCKWISE was invented by Europeans
looking at sundials, then I think Mike's argument should fall apart.

It's worse than that, Clarence -- Given that a small variation in the
nature of the Earth's motion would have likely changed the entire
course of human history (if, in fact, we even came into existence),
the English language as we know it wouldn't exist and this whole
discussion would be incomprehensible.

...See what I did there?

---
Michael Porter
Colonel By Secondary School
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


End of Phys-l Digest, Vol 36, Issue 8
*************************************