commentisfree.guardian.co.uk — "It is as though [creationist scientist] looked at the measurement of the distance from N.Y to San Francisco & claimed that the true distance from sea to sea was 460,000 times smaller, namely about ten yards. Maybe they are right & all the rest of us wrong. All I have done here is calculate how spectacularly wrong we would be if they were right."
Dec 27, 2006 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountDec 28, 2006
@quicktiming "People who believe in creation are not idiots (as this article points out). People who believe in creation are faithful, not stupid."No. They're idiots!!!
allnightchemistDec 28, 2006
Digg has spellcheck?
pgoowyDec 28, 2006
Thanks for the comments. @cawpin and @flake I have a MSc Honors in Physics from UCL. Thermodynamics is a favorite subject of mine, followed by cosmology. I am not a 6 day creationist.@bbqplate You are absolutely right. Studying physics at the famously "godless university" for five years allows me to understand the world around me. Dawkins seems to take this a step further and says that science is the key to society, morality, politics and enlightenment (not in this particular article however). I disagree with him and agree with you.@nepawoods and @cawpin The earth can be considered as a closed system with a hot bath and a cold bath in thermodynamic equilibrium. It is simple to calculate the black body radiation of the earth as a function of the radiation from the sun and calculate the equilibrium point of about 10'c - which is the average temperature of the earth. This gives us a system in thermodynamic equilibrium. The second law of thermodynamics applies to systems in thermodynamic equilibrium.Assuming that you were right and my professor was wrong, can you explain to me how pouring heat into a system reduces the entropy of a system?
bullrasslerDec 29, 2006
>Actually, they have. One day they'll be evolved right out of the gene pool. =)You are assuming that intelligence is a positive trait in Darwinian selection. Look around, tell me with a straight face you believe that... It's more complicated than that. Creationism, religion(s) and even evolution and the scientific method are memes, sort of the information equivalent of genes. Genes replicate by the proliferation of the organism that contains it, memes replicate by transfer from one mind to another.It seems that it is usually the case that adopting a meme is easier than replacing one meme with a contradictory one, that's why children from a muslim country tend to be muslim, children of rednecks tend to have redneck attitudes, liberals beget liberals, etc... And memes tend not to occur spontaneously so exposure is pretty much necessary for a meme to plant itself on one's mind.That is why education is useful in weeding out some memes. Someone who learns to think critically has a better chance of weeding out the harmful memes, either not adopting them or discarding them on introspection.Memes don't even have to have survival value for the person, just as long as they can propagate from mind to mind (Die for Jesus, blow yourself up for Allah, live fast - die young, glorify God by being celibate, whatever). On this scale the creationist meme is not at the extreme of dangerousness, it's just....stupid. Or ignorant.Stupid in that it rejects the evidence of the last couple centuries of scientific research in fields from cosmology to geology, chemistry, biology, physics, archaeology, paleontology, and so on. It doesn't refute it, it just rejects it. Or it's ignorant of the conflict with the above.Most people are not stupid. They can, however, believe stupid things. They can be ignorant - everybody is, about lots of stuff. That can be cured, if a person is willing to be open-minded and skeptical about concepts they are exposed to - and the concepts they already have.
swiftshirtDec 29, 2006
It's kind of funny that everyone is replying to 8Dan, but everyone is also burying his original comments.
fabioakitaDec 29, 2006
You are very correct, indeed. The "Theory" (not the "Law" or "Postulate" or "Axiom") of Darwin is not complete. BUT, no one can deny that in the last century and a half we have been growing up, bit by bit, research after research. No one has ever stated that Darwin was absolutely right the way creationists do (if someone did, I apologize, but it is not our intention). We acknowledge that we still have much to know and that this is a very very long quest, maybe one that will never be completely fulfilled. Science and skepticism in general is always related to improvement, shifting of paradigms. We accept and embrace change IF, and only IF, it is very well founded. You don't need to give me material proof of ID, but since you always have to get down to God and since God is inexplicable, I can't accept that. This is not an option. Even if I really wanted to have this faith, I couldn't because I would betray myself. Yes, atheists do have morals, and the first motto is: "never, ever accept anything without explanation". If Darwin has never existed and no one came with the Evolution theory (which is unlikely) I would still not accept a God as the ultimate answer because it is simply illogical, no matter how hard we try. I'd rather stay without ANY answer and keep looking, keep researching, keep digging, keep asking question after question, until eventually someone figures out a hundred years from now: "oh! things evolve! let me see how ...". But the reality is fortunately the Theory of Evolution came to be and that we are still looking for more and more evidence and improving a tiny bit at a time. Don't be heist. Researches based on scientific methods is cumulative, it is self-repairing, it is an always improving endeavor. And this quest requires absolutely no God, no mysticism, no spirits, no ghosts, no fairies, only our unique skill to rationalize, think and inquire. Because once we accept and embrace the concept of a "God", and forcefully postulate that it simply is, and always will be, then we are breaking this chain of improvement and we start rewinding back to the distant past, loosing every progress we made so far, going straight back to ground zero and a few hundred years in the past. This is absolutely not an option.
fabioakitaDec 29, 2006
And one more thing: it doesn't matter the level of received education of the people discussing, either from the creationism side or the evolutionism. Education is not a manufacturing process that once someone gets a PhD at something he or she is automagically a deity. On the contrary, education is something that comes from the inside of each and every one. Two people can have the exact same education and they can eventually stay at very very opposite sides, shouting at each other. This says nothing. A bunch of paperwork is nothing without real knowledge. And once again we come to my point: one can't continue evolve if he constrain himself with unquestionable postulations as a God. Why keep researching? You already have a book that you have faith on. Please, to all educated people that think that way: drop the doctor, phd, whatever title, you're not entitled to use them. You make yourselves "doctors" and "scientists" for the sake of improving mankind through constant inquire, through constant questioning, not through superstition.
fabioakitaDec 29, 2006
Wow wow, take it easy, do not underestimate yourself. 1. Yes, human bodies are really complex system. 2. No, there's no need for a creator. You're postulating it. You're taking the Blind Watchmaker route.3. The human body does not need a creator, first and foremost because it did not form itself as it is today out of nowhere. That's what evolution is all about: Non-random natural selection (again: NON RANDOM) triggered by random mutations. And yes, we do see it in nature today, even if it is on insects or other animals. Artificial selection is one way to speed things up, but the mechanism is the same.Adam and Eve is a fantasy story. One can say that the Bible cannot be read literally. People just pick and choose what best fits them. I still wonder why they need a holy bible at all if they can simply pick and choose out of ones own intuition. If they don't have to take the bible literally, why not dispose of it altogether. Homo Sapiens are supposed to know better.Again: evolution is absolutely NOT agains the 2nd law. Entropy is about closed systems. Period. Heat being transferred from system A to system B means that system A is losing entropy but system B is gaining entropy. What is so difficult about this? I will not cut and paste the whole literature again, but one single link just for the record:<a class="user" href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html</a>And no, we do not have to consider a God as even a remotely possible explanation for the origin of all things. Otherwise you should have to consider Brahma, Ganesh, Zeus, Poseidon and thousands of other gods and deities and fairies. Or you can say why "your" god is the only plausible explanation (sorry, I am assuming you're a christian, but again, I can be wrong about that). If it is all about faith, I'd rather "believe" in the Flying Spaggethi Monster. It is much more neat to me. But "me" is irrelevant at the light of science. "me" can be wrong, of course. Worse: if you do consider any God, you have to explain where did this God come from. Who is the creator of the creator? I find it very amusing the rationale of the church: they pick and choose a few scientific explanations as they seems fit. The vatican endorsed the incomplete Big Bang theory because it could eventually imply the very existence of a creator to kick off the whole process. Now, modern cosmology and quantum physics are leading us to a more probable infinite cycle where no beginning is needed, therefore, no creator is required. But then, religious people say that scientists are talking nonsense and they rather stick with the Big Bang. Amazing. People of faith do not need science. Science is for the pragmatics and skepticals. Why explain something if you can simply believe in it? Why go for the trouble? Why even care about this, after all me and all other heretic atheists will just go to Hell anyway. Why do you think an absolute God requires human defense? I guess that the creator can defend itself by its own means. If I was the almighty I would be laughing out loud seeing all these billions of small creatures arguing against each other. But as I don't even consider such a hypothesis I still think this subject matters because we are talking about the legacy for our future generations, and leaving them another Middle Age is very sad.Twisting scientific ideas into ones own agendas is not something new. Go see the Ramtha School and that nonsense J.Z. Knight that claims to be able to actually talk to an Atlantis warrior from 35k years ago. They simply pick and choose a few concepts of quantum physics and create a whole mythology around it. And non initiated people do feel their explanation is absolutely feasible! Amazing. For 2 thousand years, we atheists remained quiet and respectful. Just the same as color people and feminists by the middle of the last century. It was not until they got a grip of their situation that things started to change into something more plausible and fair. Now it is the time of the atheists and skeptical people to bring back rational thinking to the table. Unfortunately yes, this is a Crusade.
whimJan 4, 2007
Actually, C. S. Lewis did his most notable work and reached his theological "peak" during his Christian years, which were many. To say that he is a "brilliant man decaying, victim of the circumstances of his environment" is strange, in my opinion, considering:A. Lewis experienced death, the war, and other joys and cruelties in life. If anyone were to find meaning in life, I would trust those who have lived it instead of curling up in a theological ball (with no real experience) like some other scholars.B. Christians and atheists alike consider Lewis to be one of the great writers of his day based on his Christian, not atheist, writings.C. In "Mere Christianity," Lewis give dozens, if not hundreds of examples that support religion logically, as well as debate other points in atheism. He said in MC that if logic compels you to go against OR for religion, DESPITE your EMOTIONAL feelings, you must go with LOGIC and what you KNOW to be true. That doesn't seem like a broken-down soul desperate for a God-creation of his own to me. "We already made enormous sacrifices for mankind and since the Inquisition it is the religious folks that likes to embarrass and go against scientists and skeptics, even though we are the ones pushing evolution forward."Embarrassing and degrading any group is wrong. Both atheists and religious people have put forth negative AND positive contributions to society (without Christians alone there would be no Red Cross, Salvation Army, college system, or the Constitution of the USA, not to mention giant outreach programs that build entire villages in poor countries). "Don't remember if it was Sam Harris who told this: in a world without religion we'll have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."But if there is no God, then good and bad are dependent on what people believe to be right or wrong based on their own experiences, which doesn't cut it on a social scale. One man may believe something to be harmless because of his limited perspective...he may not even see a harmful ramification of his actions affecting himself, much less others. Therefore without religion there is no real "good" and "evil" anyway and that quote has no ground. And plus, of course atheists do bad things! Atheists are perfectly capable of doing bad things, just like everyone else."I know you will probably never go to the trouble of reading The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, first and foremost because you consider him arrogant...'Just have faith' is hardly enough."Ha, you don't know me. Those two assumptions are completely out of line with who I am. I'm not ignorant just because I'm religions. The day I say "Just have faith" in response to everything is the DAY I DIE. Sometimes rules help us run the "machines" that are our own bodies and minds. If you tell a child to stay out of the street for his own safety, are you stifling him with rules? The ORIGINAL intent of religion is to keep the children out of the streets, so to speak. If I don't cheat on my spouse, I avoid conflict within the marriage. If I don't lie, I avoid becoming untrustworthy. If I don't murder, I avoid becoming one inside and out. People just don't know everything, and it doesn't take "some ancient book" to tell us to use common sense. God is about practicality.BTW, I didn't downvote your post because I believe that all opinions are valid unless they personally attack and degrade others. I'm ok with you disagreeing with me. Can you accept that I may have a valid point as well?