Pro-Darwin Biology Professor...Supports Teaching Intelligent Design

Discovery Institute ^ | June 22, 2007

[betty boop]

Matter: "the substance of which a physical object is composed" -- doesn't define what the "substance" is.

Matter: "material substance that occupies space and has weight, that constitutes the observable universe, and that together with energy forms the basis of objective phenomena" -- same objection.

Webster's Dictionary isn't terribly helpful here. Especially in light of the "together with energy" language (as if matter and energy were completely discrete phenomena).... plus the fact that it adds several definitions for matter that are plainly philosophical: "the indeterminate subject of reality; esp : the element in the universe that undergoes formation and alteration"; or "the formless substratum of all things which exists only potentially and upon which form acts to produce realities." Etc.

[hosepipe]

[.. There is no definition of matter? ..]

Well we do have the elemental table....
You know, little billiard balls revolving about some other little balls.. held together by "VALENCE" and other mental images.. and a whole yarn of a story..

The Quantum Mechanics are just poisoning the stew.. with other storys about matter..
Basically NO we pretty much have nothing reliable...

[tacticalogic]

It appears that we’re down to not even being willing to accept the existing definitons of the terms as sufficient to provide a basis for discourse.

[dan1123]

I will merely observe that insistence on a first cause leads to an infinite regress. Therefore, existence does not require a first cause.

Have you ever heard of the anecdote about the scientist and the old lady? She says that the Earth sits on the back of a giant tortoise, so the scientist asks what the tortoise is standing on, and the woman replies "You're very clever, young man, very clever, but it's turtles all the way down!"

It's meant to illustrate the problem of infinite regressions. For gravity, we had to come to an understanding scientifically that "all objects attract each other" rather than "things fall when dropped". Similarly, in causation the Big Bang theory shows a non-steady-state universe exists, therefore causation itself has a problem with infinite regression. Even a Big Bang-Big Crunch cycle does not solve a causation infinite regression, since time itself is trapped within the universe, and could not continue to exist near the end of a Big Crunch or near the beginning of the Big Bang. Stephen Hawking himself opted for a sideways kind of infinite regression in multiverse theory to solve the causation problem without resorting to God.

It is not a problem to posit Aristotles "Prime Mover" thought experiment. It is a problem to simply ignore the problem of causation entirely. Even in atheistic scientific circles the problem of infinite regression in causation is acknowledged tacitly, and various beliefs are held that include string landscapes, brane inflation, a quantum superuniverse, the ekpyrotic universe, and other various untestable hypotheses.

[dan1123]

Hawking has given a cogent mathematical description of a universe without a beginning in time.

And he fully admitted that his imaginary time scenario was untestable and therefore unscientific. Having a mathematical description does not mean it is an accurate mathematical description. That's one reason you probably read it out of a popular book rather than a scientific journal. Einstein was also wedded to a universe without beginning and added a cosmological constant to his general relativistic field equations to support a steady state universe. He called this "the biggest blunder in my career".

[RightWhale]

Big difference, defining or explaining. We can certainly make some measurements if someone will deliver some of this ‘matter’ to our lab.

[RightWhale]

It might have already been there. The text is not clear.

[RightWhale]

It might be noted that a mathematical explanation is like most explanations. It is an analogy. Analogy is not proof, and information is irrelevant.

[hosepipe]

[... It appears that we’re down to not even being willing to accept the existing definitons of the terms as sufficient to provide a basis for discourse. ..]

True.. AND we have not even broached the subject of;
WHAT IS LIFE?... yet...

NOTE: Not what life "DOES" but what life "IS"...

[RightWhale]

not even being willing to accept the existing definitons of the terms

Problem here is there are different definitions in each school. We couldn't even come to an agreement which schools are orthodox and which heretical, nor even which text to base it on.

[RightWhale]

Not what life "DOES" but what life "IS"...

Go ahead. What's the difference?

[js1138]

Not if it's a FIRST cause. There's nothing prior to it to "regress" to.

Pay attention, Betty. If you insist that everything has to have a cause, then you have an infinite regress.

If you claim that some particular thing doesn't require a cause, then you abandon the claim that everything has to have a cause.

[betty boop]

If you claim that some particular thing doesn't require a cause, then you abandon the claim that everything has to have a cause.

God is not a "thing." Diamond has already cautioned about "category error" earlier on this thread....

[js1138]

And he fully admitted that his imaginary time scenario was untestable and therefore unscientific. Having a mathematical description does not mean it is an accurate mathematical description. That's one reason you probably read it out of a popular book rather than a scientific journal. Einstein was also wedded to a universe without beginning and added a cosmological constant to his general relativistic field equations to support a steady state universe. He called this "the biggest blunder in my career".

Both Einstein and Hawking on their dumbest day are more rational than someone who asserts they can solve the problem of first cause simply by asserting that everything was created by an invisible pink unicorn, or some equivalent invisible entity.

That is not an argument. It's an intellectual tantrum.

[js1138]

God is not a "thing."

God always seems to have whatever attributes are required to prop up the lame arguments of intellectual cripples.

[tacticalogic]

It does seem that occasionally there is some assumed point of agreement that provides a basis to start a discussion, only to find after much time spent what originally appeared to be agreement was only accidental by way of misunderstanding, and the whole exercise was for naught.

[cornelis]

Quite an abrupt lane change to leave off Aristotle and Aquinas for watching pink unicorns.

[cornelis]

Intellectually crippling was the unfinished work of Aristotle who had about 51 or more first causes.

[betty boop]

God always seems to have whatever attributes are required to prop up the lame arguments of intellectual cripples.

Such as Plato? Or me?

If that's the best argument you've got....

[dan1123]

Imaginary time, multiverse theory, expanding/colliding branes, string landscapes, or God may as well be “invisible pink unicorns” beacause all of them have equal experimental evidence—none. All of these rise to no greater heights than philosophy, falling far short of science.

It just goes to show that scientists are not without their philosophical biases.