FEB. 12: Academic Freedom Day

[PeterMP]

Are you kidding me? Are you saying that evolution isn't taught as fact? Open any science book and you'll see statements of fact such as, "Millions of years ago..." They don't say, "We think millions of years ago..." or "We believe millions of years ago..." It is stated as fact. You know it and so does everyone else. Forgot what is claimed.

I have Biochemisty by Voet and Voet, 3rd edition sitting here next to me.

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-047119350X.html

Is that pass as a representitive book?

Since what you are talking about is the origin of life, I'll quote from the relevant section. On pg. 28:

"5 THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

People have always pondered the riddle of their existence. Indeed, all known cultures, past and present, primitive and sophisticated, have some sort of creation myth that rationalizes how life arose. Only in the modern ear, however, has it been possible to consider the origin of life in terms of a scientific framework, that, in a manner subject to experimental verification. One of the first to do so was Charles Darwin, the originator of the theory of evolution. In 1872, he wrote in a letter to a colleague:

It is ofter said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little, pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the cause before living creatures were formed.

Radioactive dating studies indicate that the Earth formed ~4.6 billion years ago but, due to the impacts of numerous large objects remained too hot to support life for several million years thereafter."

Note the use of theory with evolution. Also note the use of the word indicate with the age of the Earth and the evidence that gives that indication.

I'll quote from two other sections is you'll indulge me (from pg. 32).:

"Since the prebiotic era left no direct record, we cannot hope to determine exactly how life arose. Through laboratory experiments, however, we can at least demonstrate what sorts of abioitic chemical reactions may have led to the formation of a living system."

Italics are NOT mine.

One more (from pg 33):

"B. Chemical Evolution

In the remainder of this section, we describe the most widely favored scenario for the origin of life. Keep in mind, however, that there are valid scientific ojections to this scenario as well as to the several others that have been seriouisly entertained, so that we are far from certain as to how life arose."

Again italics are NOT mine.

Would you like to tell me again how it is presented in science text books?

I will respond to the rest of our post latter, but this is so IMPORTANT that I wanted to make sure that you and everybody else saw it.

THIS IS HOW EVOLUTION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IS PRESENTED IN TEXT BOOKS.

WITH ITALICS TO EMPHASIZE WHAT WE DON'T KNOW AND EVEN WHAT WE WILL LIKELY NEVER KNOW!!!!

I WILL FURTHER POINT OUT THAT THIS BOOK IS FULL OF ONLY THEORIES. YET THE ONLY PLACE IT ALWAYS INCLUDES THE USE OF THE WORD WITH THEORY IS WHEN TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION.

Lastly, you really shouldn't tell somebody that teaches college level biochemsitry how textbooks treat evolution when you don't know. They are likely to become highly annoyed.

[PeterMP]

But it wasn't absurd in the 1920s, was it? The idea of helping evolution along was pretty exciting stuff!

I sell old and rare books for a living. Last year I picked up a book from the early 1920s that I thought was Christian based, but I found out later was a textbook on Eugenics. It's very interesting to look through. Many of it's arguments and illustrations are very moral in nature, and many make sense, and some even line up with the Bible. There is a small section on the evils of abortion, for example. So it all seemed good and right. But the underlying belief was evil and wrong.

But man has not always believed as you do now, and there are still many who think Eugenics is the way to go: http://www.eugenics.net/ And the roots of this thinking are found in Darwinism.

Yes, it was equally absurd in the 20's. The very basis of Darwin's proposal is in fact a large diverse population that is selected on by random variables. Doing things like killing parts of the population clearly decrease the diversity of the population.

The fact that people wrote books in the 20's using pseudo-evolutionary talk to back up whatever they were pushing is no different than me going back to the 1800 or 1700's and picking text by ministers supporting slavery.

[skinsfan51]

If a math teacher asks me: "what is 2+2?"

And I answer: "where did numbers come from?"

I think the teacher will be entitled to think that I am unable to answer the "2+2" question.

The discussion was about Darwin's theories and how they accurately predicted the much later discovery of DNA.

What are you afraid of?

The difference is that the "math teacher" didn't ask me any questions. He said, "2+2=4." I said, where did numbers come from? Valid question when, in this case, the numbers themselves are in doubt.

Oh, if only evolution were as certain as 2+2, huh? Then we wouldn't be having the debate. But, unfortunately for you, it's not that clear (even though America's students are right this minute erroneously being taught that it is).

So, to answer your question, I'm not afraid of anything. I believe I hold the truth. What's there to be afraid of?

[skinsfan51]

I have Biochemisty by Voet and Voet, 3rd edition sitting here next to me.

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-047119350X.html

Is that pass as a representitive book?

Since what you are talking about is the origin of life, I'll quote from the relevant section. On pg. 28:

"5 THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

People have always pondered the riddle of their existence. Indeed, all known cultures, past and present, primitive and sophisticated, have some sort of creation myth that rationalizes how life arose. Only in the modern ear, however, has it been possible to consider the origin of life in terms of a scientific framework, that, in a manner subject to experimental verification. One of the first to do so was Charles Darwin, the originator of the theory of evolution. In 1872, he wrote in a letter to a colleague:

It is ofter said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little, pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the cause before living creatures were formed.

Radioactive dating studies indicate that the Earth formed ~4.6 billion years ago but, due to the impacts of numerous large objects remained too hot to support life for several million years thereafter."

Note the use of theory with evolution. Also note the use of the word indicate with the age of the Earth and the evidence that gives that indication.

I'll quote from two other sections is you'll indulge me (from pg. 32).:

"Since the prebiotic era left no direct record, we cannot hope to determine exactly how life arose. Through laboratory experiments, however, we can at least demonstrate what sorts of abioitic chemical reactions may have led to the formation of a living system."

Italics are NOT mine.

One more (from pg 33):

"B. Chemical Evolution

In the remainder of this section, we describe the most widely favored scenario for the origin of life. Keep in mind, however, that there are valid scientific ojections to this scenario as well as to the several others that have been seriouisly entertained, so that we are far from certain as to how life arose."

Again italics are NOT mine.

Would you like to tell me again how it is presented in science text books?

I will respond to the rest of our post latter, but this is so IMPORTANT that I wanted to make sure that you and everybody else saw it.

THIS IS HOW EVOLUTION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IS PRESENTED IN TEXT BOOKS.

WITH ITALICS TO EMPHASIZE WHAT WE DON'T KNOW AND EVEN WHAT WE WILL LIKELY NEVER KNOW!!!!

I WILL FURTHER POINT OUT THAT THIS BOOK IS FULL OF ONLY THEORIES. YET THE ONLY PLACE IT ALWAYS INCLUDES THE USE OF THE WORD WITH THEORY IS WHEN TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION.

Lastly, you really shouldn't tell somebody that teaches college level biochemsitry how textbooks treat evolution when you don't know. They are likely to become highly annoyed.

What I'd be interested to know is if any of those "objections" are ID? I highly doubt it. And yet, many, many, MANY qualified and credible scientists believe ID has merit. Furthermore, your textbook is but one of hundreds. I can turn on NOVA tonight and get a healthy does of "evolution is fact" programming. I can pick up my latest issue of National Geographic and read the same "evolution is fact" story-telling. I don't mean to "highly annoy" anyone, but I will tell you that it's highly annoying to me when I can't allow my children to watch a neat program on origins without having them get indoctrinated. Don't tell me it's not taught as fact in every level of American society. To claim that is just plain ignorant, and I don't believe you are ignorant.

[Predicto]

The difference is that the "math teacher" didn't ask me any questions. He said, "2+2=4." I said, where did numbers come from? Valid question when, in this case, the numbers themselves are in doubt.

Oh, if only evolution were as certain as 2+2, huh? Then we wouldn't be having the debate. But, unfortunately for you, it's not that clear (even though America's students are right this minute erroneously being taught that it is).

So, to answer your question, I'm not afraid of anything. I believe I hold the truth. What's there to be afraid of?

You are changing the subject again. No one claimed that evolution was as certain as 2+2. That was an analogy.

The discussion was about Darwin predicting the discovery of DNA 75 years before DNA was actually discovered, and what that means from a scientific point of view (hint - it means a heck of a lot).

If you want to discuss intelligent design as a scientific proposition, you might want to look for examples like that to bolster the intelligent design theory.

[Smoot Point Really]

My problem is with charlatans who make up pseudo-science in order to bolster their scientific beliefs, rather than letting those beliefs stand on their own merits.

Okay! Get your point... I agree... The point you make here is almost word-for-word what Jefferson was writing to Priestley (brought up earlier in this thread). I have issues with Priestley's religious beliefs, but the ideas that Jefferson was conveying are very similar to your own. He even used charlatans to describe those who would limit scientific pursuits because of their religious beliefs.

[skinsfan51]

You are changing the subject again. No one claimed that evolution was as certain as 2+2. That was an analogy.

The discussion was about Darwin predicting the discovery of DNA 75 years before DNA was actually discovered, and what that means from a scientific point of view (hint - it means a heck of a lot).

If you want to discuss intelligent design as a scientific proposition, you might want to look for examples like that to bolster the intelligent design theory.

I challenge anyone reading these posts to take some time to watch "The Privileged Planet" on YouTube.

Here is the first video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaAFIlmjDL4

It's very interesting, educational, and eye-opening, and it will provide PLENTY of evidence for Intelligent Design.

[PeterMP]

What I'd be interested to know is if any of those "objections" are ID? I highly doubt it. And yet, many, many, MANY qualified and credible scientists believe ID has merit. Furthermore, your textbook is but one of hundreds. I can turn on NOVA tonight and get a healthy does of "evolution is fact" programming. I can pick up my latest issue of National Geographic and read the same "evolution is fact" story-telling. I don't mean to "highly annoy" anyone, but I will tell you that it's highly annoying to me when I can't allow my children to watch a neat program on origins without having them get indoctrinated. Don't tell me it's not taught as fact in every level of American society. To claim that is just plain ignorant, and I don't believe you are ignorant.

Do you really want me to pull more textbooks off my shelf? I have at least a dozen that deal with evolution in different amounts of detail.

In terms of the other things, you are watching/reading science based info on the origin of life. They are going to do so from a perspective of science. Nobody is making you watch them. That's like an evolutionist going to a creationist based play and then complaining that he was exposed to creationism.

ID isn't scientific because as I've already stated it doesn't make any useful predictions that can be disproved.

I'll repeat from before:

Evolution can't be proved.

God can't be proved.

Evolution COULD be disproved and hasn't.

You can't even say that about God.

Evolution in terms of things like antibiotic resistance is as well as understood as essentially any other issue at the molecular level. We know what the changes in the DNA are, they occur in labs, and we understand the results of those changes in the DNA.

[Predicto]

I challenge anyone reading these posts to take some time to watch "The Privileged Planet" on YouTube.

Here is the first video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaAFIlmjDL4

It's very interesting, educational, and eye-opening, and it will provide PLENTY of evidence for Intelligent Design.

Hmmm... a slick propoganda piece made by 2 guys from (surprise!) the Center for Science and Culture? How compelling.

And based on a truly silly premise, I might add.

Even putting aside the misinformation presented by this video, one still has to ask, "Is Earth a privileged planet, or just the planet that life has adapted to?" Life here on Earth shows an amazing ability to adapt to whatever environment is available, be it hot, cold, high pressure, low pressure, oxygen rich, or oxygen starved. It's hard to believe that life can't adapt to a wide variety of "privileges" on other planets....

It's easy to imagine an ammonia-breathing being somewhere right now exclaiming, “Wow, what are the odds that this planet has just the right amount of ammonia in the atmosphere, we are just the right distance from our sun to maintain an average temperature of 180º, the three moons provide just the right amount of tidal action, we are close enough to the planet Glebdork so that we can explore it. We must indeed live on a privileged planet!

http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/vr_privileged_planet.htm

[Smoot Point Really]

SF51... I have one thing to ask... Why do you NEED a scientific explanation for your faith? This is one thing I don't understand. Why do many Protestants/Evangelicals feel the need to destroy mythology and mystery by trying to enforce constraints of natural law on religion? It kills the whole purpose of taking something based on faith if there is an explanation that everyone understands. We don't need faith that 2 + 2 = 4... Everyone knows it. We also don't need faith in evolution, because it is observed. We NEED faith to believe in God. "Blessed are those who haven't seen, yet believe." Something tells me that people don't develop "faith that moves mountains" by cracking open their physics book.

[skinsfan51]

Evolution in terms of things like antibiotic resistance is as well as understood as essentially any other issue at the molecular level. We know what the changes in the DNA are, they occur in labs, and we understand the results of those changes in the DNA.

Ok, but here is my issue in a nutshell, and this goes for every post I've ever made on ES (and this is the entire premise of the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed). When current evidence is examined, and more importantly when new evidence is discovered, it is ALWAYS done from an evolutionary worldview. In other words, it's assumed that evolution happened, and therefore, there MUST be a naturalistic explanation for the evidence before us. That basis is retained even when the evidence appears to say otherwise.

Now that is NOT true science. That is a scientific bias. And what Expelled so articulately demonstrated, and what is clearly obvious from my side of the fence, is that anyone who is willing to examine every shred of evidence objectively, not starting with any particular worldview as much as possible, can only come to a naturalistic, Darwinian conclusion, or they will be totally and completely dissed and ostracized.

This is the state of higher learning today. For the most part there is abundant freedom within the walls of Darwinian evolution for varying theories and conclusions. But there is absolutely NO tolerance for a possible theory outside of Darwinian evolution.

Expelled starts with a depiction of the wall that divided Germany, and shows this very idea throughout the documentary. "Think all you want about a certain idea, but be sure you stay on the eastern side of the wall. Attempt to think outside of that wall and you will be shot."

It's total censorship; total suppression.

[skinsfan51]

SF51... I have one thing to ask... Why do you NEED a scientific explanation for your faith? This is one thing I don't understand. Why do many Protestants/Evangelicals feel the need to destroy mythology and mystery by trying to enforce constraints of natural law on religion? It kills the whole purpose of taking something based on faith if there is an explanation that everyone understands. We don't need faith that 2 + 2 = 4... Everyone knows it. We also don't need faith in evolution, because it is observed. We NEED faith to believe in God. "Blessed are those who haven't seen, yet believe." Something tells me that people don't develop "faith that moves mountains" by cracking open their physics book.

I don't need a scientific explanation for my faith. I just believe the Bible is as written, because I believe God meant what he said. Before Darwin most scientists believed as I do, and there are still thousands who do today. The early scientists looked at the Creation as an expression of God's handiwork (Ps. 19), and they glorified Him for it. To claim that nature created itself (an absurd idea in itself) robs glory from God.

Evolution is not as certain as 2+2=4. Not even close. Nor is it observed on a macro level. Furthermore, time is not its savior. There are too many gaps, too many holes for evolution to be true. Darwin was in error. The Bible is right. That fact just strengthens my faith.

[Smoot Point Really]

Evolution is not as certain as 2+2=4. Not even close. Nor is it observed on a macro level. Furthermore, time is not its savior. There are too many gaps, too many holes for evolution to be true. Darwin was in error. The Bible is right. That fact just strengthens my faith.

What does it mean to you if evolution could be proven with 100% certainty?

It would do nothing to my faith. I would hope it wouldn't do anything to yours.

[skinsfan51]

What does it mean to you if evolution could be proven with 100% certainty?

It would do nothing to my faith. I would hope it wouldn't do anything to yours.

That question can't be answered because I don't believe that it can be proven true. Furthermore, I believe the Bible clearly teaches a six, 24-hour day creation. So I simply believe God's word and expect the evidence to prove it. So far I'm satisfied that it does.

My question for you is, why do you feel the need to change the Scripture to fit your scientific worldview?

[PeterMP]

I challenge anyone reading these posts to take some time to watch "The Privileged Planet" on YouTube.

Here is the first video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaAFIlmjDL4

It's very interesting, educational, and eye-opening, and it will provide PLENTY of evidence for Intelligent Design.

http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/13cards.htm

When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 635 billion. Yet, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, and exclaim, “wow, the odds against getting these exact cards are 635 billion to 1. I couldn’t possibly have been dealt this hand by chance. There must have been supernatural intervention.”

I suggest that you also read the above link then too.

It is very easy to distort probabilities.

I'll deal with one that you see many times related more closely to my own field, if you are really interested. Try reading this:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1026

(This is by the Discovery Institute, which also is doing the stuff with the Privliged Planet).

You can really skip to the end where he tries to bury you in numbers and the unlikelihood of evolution happening from a statistical standpoint, and then realize things like this:

http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/7/1/106

actually do work.

We are able to evolve meaningful RNA (and protein and DNA sequences) in short periods of time by essentially doing what evolution does.

It is only directed in the sense that the person is selecting the selection criteria and enforcing it.

[PeterMP]

Ok, but here is my issue in a nutshell, and this goes for every post I've ever made on ES (and this is the entire premise of the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed). When current evidence is examined, and more importantly when new evidence is discovered, it is ALWAYS done from an evolutionary worldview. In other words, it's assumed that evolution happened, and therefore, there MUST be a naturalistic explanation for the evidence before us. That basis is retained even when the evidence appears to say otherwise.

Now that is NOT true science. That is a scientific bias. And what Expelled so articulately demonstrated, and what is clearly obvious from my side of the fence, is that anyone who is willing to examine every shred of evidence objectively, not starting with any particular worldview as much as possible, can only come to a naturalistic, Darwinian conclusion, or they will be totally and completely dissed and ostracized.

This is the state of higher learning today. For the most part there is abundant freedom within the walls of Darwinian evolution for varying theories and conclusions. But there is absolutely NO tolerance for a possible theory outside of Darwinian evolution.

Expelled starts with a depiction of the wall that divided Germany, and shows this very idea throughout the documentary. "Think all you want about a certain idea, but be sure you stay on the eastern side of the wall. Attempt to think outside of that wall and you will be shot."

It's total censorship; total suppression.

Well, the other possibility is that some very powerful being reached into my bacteria w/o me knowing and changed their DNA as they grew in a shaker in my lab that gave them the ability to grow in something at a concentration that was lethal to their "parents".

That is always a possibility. It can't be disproved, which makes it not science. In fact, a truly superior being could actually cause evolution and make it non-distinguishable from a random behavior.

The other possibility is something inside the cell changed the DNA, which is evolution in some form or another.

At this time, it is believed that the changes are essentially random. Various experiments have been done to look at "non-random" "evolution". There was a "big" blow up this in the mid-80's. It died out because the people doing it were messing up their statistics. Note, nobody was claiming what was happening was the first thing, I mentioned that just somehow bacteria were able to direct mutations to areas of the DNA that might already be involved with dealing with a particular kind of stress to better be able to deal with that stress.

This would require that the bacteria "know" how their DNA is organized in some higher manner than currently understood.

**EDIT***

Anything that wreaks of creationism or ID is going to get smacked down because it isn't science because it can't be disproved.

You can call it suppression, but if something/somebody is reporting/teaching/funding science and your work no longer fits a minimal definition of science, then that's the way it goes.

If you want to do science, you have to work in the realm of things that can be disproved. Highly superior/powerful/intelligent beings can't be.

Otherwise you are doing philosophy or theology or religion.

[techboy]

When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 635 billion. Yet, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, and exclaim, “wow, the odds against getting these exact cards are 635 billion to 1. I couldn’t possibly have been dealt this hand by chance. There must have been supernatural intervention.”

I almost hate to point this out, but this particular argument is itself fallacious.

The problem is that it assumes that all outcomes are equally likely and useful, whereas the argument put forth by The Priveleged Planet is that in the 1 in "whatever" chance, everything but that "1" are equally bad and prevent life, while the "1" is the only good outcome.

For the analogy to truly work, it would be more like a person with a gun is dealing you a hand of bridge, and unless you get one particluar hand, he's going to shoot you. You get just the right hand, and you live.

At that point, I think the absurd statement would be "Oh... if I hadn't got just the right hand, I'd be dead, and so I wouldn't be here to observe that I lived through it."

It would, on the other hand, be perfectly reasonable to think "Hey... that hand must have been rigged in my favor somehow. What's the dealer up to?"

Of course, this does not address the other criticisms raised (for instance, whether or not the "whatever" is accurate), but in this one instance, they're wrong.

[HOF44]

It would, on the other hand, be perfectly reasonable to think "Hey... that hand must have been rigged in my favor somehow. What's the dealer up to?"

To veer the thread completely off course, what if simultaneously there were multiple you's at multiple tables and all hands were dealt? Seems the odds would not be so outrageous then.

[techboy]

To veer the thread completely off course, what if simultaneously there were multiple you's at multiple tables and all hands were dealt? Seems the odds would not be so outrageous then.

Well, yes, that is one proposed possibility, as elucidated in this article at Space.com:

There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist: They believe it's the only way to explain why our own universe, whose physical laws are just right to allow life, happens to exist. According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe "fine-tuned" for our existence.

Of course, a certain familiar objection pops up...

"It's not a testable idea," says Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University. Because the different universes would not be detectable by one another, he says, "You can't really prove it exists or doesn't exist." When you talk about multiple universes, Steinhardt says, you're not talking about science anymore. "In my view, you're into metaphysics."

So I guess you pick your poison...

[skinsfan51]

http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/13cards.htm

When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 635 billion. Yet, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, and exclaim, “wow, the odds against getting these exact cards are 635 billion to 1. I couldn’t possibly have been dealt this hand by chance. There must have been supernatural intervention.”

I suggest that you also read the above link then too.

It is very easy to distort probabilities.

I'll deal with one that you see many times related more closely to my own field, if you are really interested. Try reading this:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1026

(This is by the Discovery Institute, which also is doing the stuff with the Privliged Planet).

You can really skip to the end where he tries to bury you in numbers and the unlikelihood of evolution happening from a statistical standpoint, and then realize things like this:

http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/7/1/106

actually do work.

We are able to evolve meaningful RNA (and protein and DNA sequences) in short periods of time by essentially doing what evolution does.

It is only directed in the sense that the person is selecting the selection criteria and enforcing it.

The mathematical odds of evolution happening go WAY beyond 635 billion to 1. Dr. David Berlinksi, an "expert" by most measurements, knows how insane it is. He called it "perfectly absurd." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-UCo7JQm-A&feature=related

[skinsfan51]

If you want to do science, you have to work in the realm of things that can be disproved. Highly superior/powerful/intelligent beings can't be.

So what does a scientists do when the evidence, as he/she sees it, points without a doubt to a Designer? Ignore it? Suppress it? Deceive their own selves into thinking that they are somehow misunderstanding the evidence? What? In light of what you said above what do you do with evidence that says, "Designed"?

That is my issue. Scientists today are not willing to openly and objectively consider the evidence without first layout out some prerequisites that will determine the outcome. That is NOT true science.

[PeterMP]

I almost hate to point this out, but this particular argument is itself fallacious.

The problem is that it assumes that all outcomes are equally likely and useful, whereas the argument put forth by The Priveleged Planet is that in the 1 in "whatever" chance, everything but that "1" are equally bad and prevent life, while the "1" is the only good outcome.

For the analogy to truly work, it would be more like a person with a gun is dealing you a hand of bridge, and unless you get one particluar hand, he's going to shoot you. You get just the right hand, and you live.

At that point, I think the absurd statement would be "Oh... if I hadn't got just the right hand, I'd be dead, and so I wouldn't be here to observe that I lived through it."

It would, on the other hand, be perfectly reasonable to think "Hey... that hand must have been rigged in my favor somehow. What's the dealer up to?"

Of course, this does not address the other criticisms raised (for instance, whether or not the "whatever" is accurate), but in this one instance, they're wrong.

The problem is your analogy is flawed because it ASSUMES that only that one set of cards gives life (this then carries over to your other post and why I don't really understand why people result to requiring multiple universes- maybe almost any combination of physical constants results in a universe capable of bearing "life").

[HOF44]

So I guess you pick your poison...

You are correct for now. When the new LHC finally comes online, there might be some experimental results to point the correct direction.

[Kurd Cudins]

Well, at least this has turned into an intelligent discussion about Academic Freedom Day. :doh:

[HOF44]

Well' date=' at least this has turned into an intelligent discussion about Academic Freedom Day. :doh:[/quote']

Isn't that oxymoronic anyway???