Burnt Orange Report

Not the right thread, but why haven't any of the Texas blogs picked up on the announcement that State Senator Ken Armbrister isn't seeking reelection? Via Quorum Report.

The smallest unit of time ever measured is between a judge ruling against right wing fundies and the corresponding rants about "judicial activism".

I've just gone through the ruling. It could not be better if Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU and the National Center for Science Education sat down together and wrote it themselves! Man, the judge really rips them a new one! ID is finished- nuked to hell, gone, done, over.

It should be noted that Judge Jones is a Republican and a Bush appointee. Apparently, there are still some Republicans with integrity.

I hate to be a wet blanket, but I'm holding off my celebrating until after the SCOTUS rules. OK, I'll still celebrate, but you know what I mean.

In this particular case, the judge's ruling is so specific and comprehensive that if the case gets appealed to the SCOTUS the justices will have little choice but to let the ruling stand, even if they were disposed to throw it out (which I doubt).

Judge Jones' decision specifically links ID with creationism, and this would have to be accepted as a fact in the appeals process. And teaching creationism has been ruled unconstitutional in the SCOTUS on several occasions.

The opinion is beautiful. I agree with Monk - it will be very hard to reverse.

Intelligent Design is not creationism. It is a real scientific theory, just as approachable as Evolutionary Theory. It's really not an alternative to evolution and shouldn't be taught that way. Rather evolution is so complex and full of holes that intelligent design is an explanation for evolution. ID is used to explain the complexity of biology. ID is used more effectively in Cosmology to explain the complexity of Physics and the creation of the universe. Sad that the theory was hijacked by religion. Truth be told evolution is not conflicted by ID, but evolution IS in conflict with Christianity's Creation story. So if they want to teach ID as an opposition to evolution, then they are really just trying to teach creationism. "The mandatory statement notes that intelligent design offers an alternative theory for the origin and evolution of life." This is wrong. Intelligent Design offers an alternative theory for the theory of natural selection not the origin.

Wrong. Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory. Firstly, and most importantly, it requires a supernatural explanation in the form of some sort of "designer". Such a notion is entirely unscientific, since science is limited to explaining natural phenomena by natural causes.

Second, ID is based on a value judgement- i.e. something "appears" or "seems to" be designed. How? By what criteria? Such value judgements are unscientific because they are not based on observable facts.

Third, ID cannot be tested by observation and/or experiment. What kind of test or observation could be done which might prove or disprove ID? None. Being testable is necessary for any scientific theory.

I could go on and on, but the inescapable conclusion is that ID is just the same old creationist nonsense, wrapped up in a new name. Even their main book, Of Pandas and People, was originally written as a creationist textbook. When the Supreme Court ruled that creationism couldn't be taught, they simply replaced "creationism" and "creation science" with the term "intelligent design" (and if you think I'm lying, read the judge's ruling).

Monk's right, ID=creationism does appear to constitute a finding of fact in this case. In any event, the Chron is reporting that the school board members advocating ID were tossed in the last election, and the current board will not appeal.

Now if someone could just get Drayton McClane to reverse his decision to boot Astros announcer Alan Ashby, I'd have a very happy holiday!

I read the judges ruling and I already stated that I agree, ID is merely mislabeled creation science in this case. However you'd have to be a political pundit to base your entire judgement of ID on a google news search. Evolutionary Theory and the leading Universe Creation Theories all are EVIDENCE of Intelligent Design. The IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY of the universe, physics, biology are one of the reasonings behind Intelligent Design. Another is the Anthropic Principle (itself controversial) and the OVERWHELMING proof that our universe is fine-tuned for the creation of life. Some things that are required and have very very narrow ranges that cause them to work are the nuclear forces, ratios of protons to baryons in the universe, protons to electrons, gravitational constant, strong force, and more. The idea that there are forms of life that can exist in universes unlike our own requires much more imagination than the idea that our universe is designed for the creation of life forms (not nessasarily humans). Multiple Universes of the order of 10^500 would allow our universe to exist without a designer however. Making us just a probability. However Multiverse Theory is impossible to disprove, while with ID atleast we can disprove it. Evidence of design is plentiful, probably as plentiful as natural selection. Evolution only explains how humans we're evolved, and it still has many many holes.

So I think I've said enough about how ID is a scientific theory, what criteria it is based on, and how can it be disproved? Well simply by furthering our education about the size, shape, and creation of the universe. Oh yes and you claim ID to be supernatural. Well I can't argue as ID also allows us to deduce attributes of the designer. The designer is most importantly simple and completely lacks composition. Just because somthing is supernatural doesn't mean it isn't science. Why do you think the school is called Natural Sciences, because it only looks at the natural world. However all science in my opinion points to a supernatural cause.

Monk I disagree with, but Don't Mess w/ Pink is right by pointing out that ID = creationism was found to be a fact in this case. Yes it is true that the ID Movement is a Creationist Christian movement. I concede. But isn't that kind of "duh." What I keep resounding in my head is the tragic loss of a valid theory basically giving evidence of G-d, because conspirators decided to use the term ID to cover up creationism. I am not that upset by the religious right, they are religious and so am I. My goal in life is not to make sure Christianity stays out of our schools as it seems most liberals would die for. I really wouldn't mind if ID was taught, but not in BIOLOGY. By backing ID and it's resulting ban from our schools the Christian coalition has set in motion events I am not happy with.

I hope the ban on ID is not what I think it means. To me it sounds like discussing the existance of a creator is banned from our public schools. Also it sounds like the ban is based on a dislike of Christianity.

From the basic standpoint of logic, the Antrophic Principle is completely unsound. The universe appears to us to have exactly the right conditions for our kind of life only because we happened to evolve here. If the universe operated by different natural laws, we would not have evolved and obviously wouldn't be asking any questions. But if some other form of intelligence had evolved in a universe with different natural laws, they would all see a universe in which the laws "appeared" to be constructed specifically for them. In fact, it is all pure chance.

Besides which, the same basic laws of nature which are necessary for the existence of life are also necessary for the existence of rocks. So you might as well talk of a universe "designed" so that rocks might one day come into existence. The whole thing is simply absurd.

The term "irreducible complexity" is itself an anti-scientific phrase, since the term "irreducible" is a value judgement rather than an objective fact which can be tested. Irreducible according to whom? By what standards and criteria? By making it the pillar of "intelligent design" the ID proponents are basically saying, "Hey, things are complicated; therefore, evolution is false." A non sequiter if there ever was one.

>>Just because somthing is supernatural doesn't mean it isn't science.>Also it sounds like the ban is based on a dislike of Christianity.

Preventing fundamentalists from shoving their personal religious ideas down the throats of our children is not a "dislike of Christianity". It is called religious freedom, thank you very much.

Hate to bring this up, but while y'all are debating how many angels dance on pinheads, KVUE's coverage last night completely misrepresented the opinion and then continued with a righteous report that at the least bordered on certifying so-called id as bona-fide science.

>>Just because somthing is supernatural doesn't mean it isn't science.

This comments make no sense whatsoever, Colin. Science is the explanation of nature through natural processes. Nothing considered "supernatural" can be taken into account if you want to be scientific. Indeed, this is one of the most fundamental precepts of science.

There is a reason why they don't let witch doctors publish articles in the New England Journal of Medicine, you now.

Calling it supernatural is a value judgement as well. ID implies that a designer should exist, not a supernatural G-d that is all knowing and reveals his word to humans.

Actually the evidence shows very very very clearly and might I add very well accepted among cosmologists that ROCKS wouldn't even exist had any of the cosmological constants been much different. It's not just the narrow range of values that could create a universe like ours, it is that a universe unlike ours could not support life. Without even one of the 10 or so constants in the right range there wouldn't be solar systems, planets, or even galaxies. For example imagine a universe composed completely of helium and hydrogen. How about a universe where fission or even fusion can't take place! That doesn't lend itself to some other intelligence.

Religious freedom? What like they have in France where you can't wear religious headcoverings to school? I guess that's religious freedom? Religious freedom is not getting rid of religion in schools, religious freedom is not being afraid to express or practice your beliefs.

The real ID has no quarrel with evolution. Evolution is only evidence of design, but the Christians clearly would rather attack evolution and use ID as a means. True the real ID does cast doubt on evolution being driven by an unguided process such as natural selection, but evolution and natural selection are not the same thing.

IRREDUCIBLE IS A COMPLETE TRUTH. There is no argument against the absolute fact that the cause of creation is unknown and the cause of the cause is unknown or unknowable. There is no answer to an answer to an answer etc. Somthing caused everything. There must be a random event or intelligence that started everything. Either you believe in the probability of life in the multiverse or you believe in the possibility of intelligence beyond the universe. If you are a deist that possibility is your faith. If you are an atheist the probability is your faith.

Here you can read my rough draft of my paper on the subject:
The laws of nature all have constants associated with them such as well known speed of light, the gravitational constant, and the charge and mass of an electron. These are derived from observation of physical laws and subject to change as measurement technology improves in accuracy. These values are arbitrary as the laws would still operate if the constants were different. However, the resulting interactions would be different, interactions which are critical to the formation of a life-supporting universe. The range of values constrained by the existence of life is extremely small. It is possible to imagine entirely different universes with different constant values, but only those very similar to our own would have the right environment to support life. The extremely narrow range of values for physical constants allowed for the evolution of conscious creatures, such as ourselves, creates the Anthropic Principle. Because observers, we humans, exist this principle reasons that the Universe must meet the conditions required to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. This essay will discuss the effect of these constants, the possible life-supporting universes, and the effect of inflation on the universes of the Anthropic Principle.
The gravitational constant determines the strength of gravity. If weaker, stars would have insufficient pressure for thermonuclear fusion, and the stars would not shine. If stronger, stars would burn too fast and use up fuel before life has a chance to evolve. The strong force coupling constant holds particles together in the nucleus of an atom. If weaker, multi-proton particles would not hold together, hydrogen would be the only element in the Universe. If stronger, only heavy elements would be common, and radioactive decay would be less. This high strong force would inhibit thermonuclear fusion, which would make the luminosity of stars be much lower, resulting in a darker Universe leaving no sunlight for life. The electromagnetic coupling constant determines the strength of electromagnetic force that couples electrons to nucleus. If weaker, no electrons would be held by the nuclei. If stronger, electrons would not bond with other atoms, meaning no molecules could form. The cosmic expansion rate or Hubble's constant, determines the age of the Universe, and the cosmic density parameter, determines the acceleration of the Universe and its geometry. If density is small the Universe would expand so fast that the solar systems would not form and galaxies would fall apart. Density has to be small enough to allow for the age of the Universe that is required for life to develop.
The “Weak Anthropic Principle” states that in a Universe that is large or infinite in space and time, the conditions necessary for the development of intelligent life will be met only in certain regions that are limited in space and time. The “Strong Anthropic Principle” claims that the Universe is tailor-made for habitation and that both the laws of physics and the initial conditions obligingly arrange themselves in such a way that living organisms are subsequently assured of existence. [1]
There are many possible universes of the Anthropic Principle, but the three of most concern are a theological Universe, a multi-verse, and a participatory Universe.
In a theological Universe according to the Strong Anthropic Principle only a single possible Universe exists “designed” with the goal of generating and sustaining “observers.” The Weak Anthropic Principle suggests an enormous number of other different universes are necessary for the existence of our Universe. Combining quantum theory with the Anthropic Principle would predict a participatory Universe that requires observers to exist in order bring the Universe into being.
A theological Universe implies intelligent design, the controversial assertion which argues that certain features of the Universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process. No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the Universe before the Big Bang. Intelligent design is considered unscientific by many, and this theory is considered weak.
A multi-verse is the idea is that there is an enormous multiplicity of large domains with widely different constants and even laws. Each of these domains is so large that for all practical purposes it can be considered a separate universe. The observers will never know about the existence of other universes because they live exponentially far from their own universe’s boundaries. The properties of our particular observable Universe arise from pure probability. For example, if the probabilities are 10-2000 for a life-allowing Universe and 10-1000 for a natural origin of intelligent life within such a Universe, giving an overall probability of 10-3000 for these two features, all we need is 10+3002 universes and life becomes a statistical certainty. The only special feature of our universe is that its properties are compatible with the evolution of intelligent life.
A participatory Universe would mean the removal of the Cartesian barrier separating the observer from the observed. In this Universe, observer and observed are mutually entangled, each act of observation determining the evolution of both. Stephen Hawking proposed the idea of "unbounded boundary conditions". This constitutes an incorporation of quantum mechanics into the general theory of relativity, and says that there is no need to define the beginning and end of the Universe. Hawking's constructed a picture of the Universe, using precise calculations and applying the concept of "imaginary time" as obtained from quantum mechanics, depicting a cosmos which alternately travels along the time-space of real time and the time-space of imaginary time. When the demise of the Universe occurs in real time, it is born again in imaginary time, and so on.
Advances in cosmology have given the multiverse idea a stronger foundation. One reason is inflation, which says that a split second after the Big Bang the Universe abruptly jumped in size by a huge factor. In the variant introduced by Andrei Linde, inflation spawns a network of branching "bubble" universes with different laws of physics operating inside of them. [3] During eternal inflation the Universe becomes divided into infinitely many exponentially large domains with different laws of low-energy physics. This provides a simple justification of the Weak Anthropic Principle and removes the standard objections against it. [2] Also, the current best hope for a unified theory, superstring theory, allows an exponentially large number of different universes, 10500, most of which look nothing like our own. String theorists have turned to the Anthropic Principle for a solution. If there are enough universes, with properties randomly distributed, everything that can happen will happen, so we can explain away all evidence for design, whether this evidence occurs at the level of the Universe, the origin of life, or the development of life. [4]
The Strong Anthropic Principle is weak, assuming that the Universe experienced enormous inflation. It is our job as intelligent beings to separate ourselves from the observable Universe, to attempt remove any bias towards us as observers. Assuming the Universe were designed specifically to meet the needs of humans, and humans can recognize what constants we require to be created, it is reasonable to say that inflation creates a Universe so large it far exceeds the needs of humans. If our region of visible space is all that exists then why is the Universe so enormously large.
The Weak Anthropic Principle is strong when assuming inflation. Inflation is such an enormous reaction that it seems unlikely for only one region and one set of physical constants to have formed. It is very possible for multiple regions or multiple universes to exist, and I believe it is probable. Because of the narrow range of values that create shining stars and carbon-based life forms, the number of “living” universes is miniscule compared to the number of “dead” universes. Inflation fortunately allows for this enormous number of possibilities. However there is no evidence of a multiverse, and many scientists say it is unfalsifiable.
My argument to add to the books is that Anthropic Principle is actually falsifiable and therefore scientific. The Drake equation gives a means of estimating the number of civilizations capable of communication that are in the Milky Way Galaxy. If the universe was designed, then the Drake equation should be optimized to create the greatest number of communicable intelligent life. Surely an intelligence genius enough to create a universe that evolves to allow evolution of intelligence has the genius to create a universe optimized for the greatest number of intelligent life forms. Theologians would argue the universe was designed to create only humans on earth, and the number was designed to be one. If the number if one the Copernican Principle is conflicted by giving special regard to ourselves as the only observers. If there is more than exactly one intelligent life-supporting solar system then there should be a maximum number. If it is not one and not optimized then the Strong Anthropic Principle is false, and the Weak Anthropic Principle is the answer by deduction. One way to actually disprove the Strong Anthropic Principle would be to count all the communicable intelligent life-supporting planets. Using the most optimistic values for the Drake equation, the number of communicable intelligent life-supporting planets is 2000. Rather than find all the aliens in our galaxy, we should rather focus on finding the nearest. From this I can calculate the average distance to the nearest life form to be 1414 light years away if they are uniformly distributed throughout the galaxy. They should probably be only found in certain regions of the Milky Way making this distance even shorter. Find an alien closer than 1414 light years and Drake’s equation is optimized and the Strong Anthropic Principle is stronger.
I believe that a single inflationary infinite multiverse of finite expansionary self-reproducing universes exists that agrees with the Copernican principle, the Anthropic Principle, and Occam's razor. However, I believe it was designed, for it is through testing all possibilities, natural selection, that the Universe designs. This is an easy fact for engineers to come to terms with, because engineers design based on specification such that an engineer would choose the constants to produce the desired effect based on the laws specified. The most memorable fact that I have found in my study of cosmology is that we're midway between atom and star, the geometric mean between atom (10-20cm) and star (1025cm) for a man of average size.

References:
[1] Barrow, John D & Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1988.
[2] Andrei Linde, “Inflation, quantum cosmology and the Anthropic Principle,” Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[3] Paul Davies, Martin J. Rees, Andrei Linde, “Multiverse or Universe,” Discussion Forum, Stanford University, March 26, 2003.
http://www.wisdomportal.com/Stanford/UniverseOrMultiverse.html
[4] Dawn Levy, “String theorist explores dark energy and our unique 'pocket' of the universe” Leonard Susskind, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2005.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/march2/aaas_susskindsr-030205.html

What's your major? Wanna yell at each other over coffee sometime?

Yawn. As I already pointed out, Colin, the Anthropic Principle is illogical because a universe in which any form of intelligence arose would have laws of nature which could be interpreted by that intelligence as having been "designed" for them to evolve.

Had the laws of the universe been different, nothing would have evolved and therefore we wouldn't be around to ask these questions. The fact that we have evolved in a universe with natural laws consistent with the origin and evolution of life does not imply that there is a designer in any way, since obviously we wouldn't be able to have asked the questions if we didn't exist.

If, indeed, the universe is the way it is purely due to chance, and we have happened to evolve in it, the laws of nature can easily be seen as having been specifically designed for the origin of life (particularly in the creatures doing the interpreting are illogical and believe that their species is the center of the universe).

Your whole argument is based on a priori value judgements and personal desires to have your own worldview validated. In any logical search for truth, you must begin with no such presuppositions.

My intelligent designer's name is Tad and he makes some fabulous window treatments.

Lol. Monk, You don't know what the Anthropic Principle is much less the Copernican Principle. There's nothing illogical about the Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle simply states that because we exist the universe must at some stage in some region allow for intelligent life. The Strong version further says that the universe is tailored to the needs of intelligent life. The Strong version is supported by observations, most recently we noticed that observations of the cosmic microwave background match the clustered distribution that we are able to calculate theoretically. Our whole universe is likely very similar in physics throughout it's entire life span. The possibility of life in other regions is feasible, and the idea that the universe was designed to support life is rather strong. If the universe formed due to pure probability then we will not really ever be able to know for sure, because we probably will never find the other universes that are required to make our universe a certainty.
In my search for truth I held a candle of skepticism against the ideas of the Big Bang and cosmological assertions, and the forces that exist in academic blew that candle out with the exitement of scientific observations agreeing with the latest in universe creation theory.
Copernicus might say that we shouldn't consider our universe the center of the universe, but it would be against Ockam's Razor to just assume that because we shouldn't account for observers we should assume the Universe to be infinite.

So who's advice will you take Nicolaus Copernicus or William Ockam? What will society and science agree with next, Multiverse or Life-Universe? My bet is on a Life-Universe, especially with most religions focused on the order of things rather than the randomness. Ignoring Christianity, Eastern philosophy would probably attach itself to an interconnected universe focused on Life, while Nihilism would be happy to live in a universe created out of randomness. Western religion is more focused on the idea of a G-d or designer above us, you know hierchy and all that Kingdom of G-d *$@#. Simply because you are against all things notcompletely within reason. and you can't stand conservatives and republicans and christians doesn't mean Cosmologists are wrong when they stand in completely wonderment over the absolute incomphresibly complex intelligence of the design of the universe and think hey maybe it's not just all an accident. I wish Americans didn't hate the religions of G-d so much as to cast the idea of design and meaning to life out like we are self-made idiotsavants who know everything is nothing even nothing.
Yes maybe the Anthropic Principle is too metaphysical to be science, but what is the purpose of your life if all this is nothing but randomness?
Of course I try to validate my own worldview, my observations are what I rely more than logic. Science is validating observations and formulating theories. Have you ever heard of a hypothesis? However my worldview changed dramatically over the course of just this last semester, so I think I'm pretty flexible. If you are going to play Aristotle, good luck using LOGIC to discover the universe. I personally don't think you are going to learn anything living in an Ivory Tower. Let me remind you Aristotle was a philosopher not a scientist. You must believe that humans aren't capable of perfect logic if you cast distaste on treating humans with special regard. So then I ask you what is the extent of your logic?

Hope I didn't confuse everyone and myself.
Oh THANK YOU TAD for a wonderful life.
MERRY TADMAS EVERYONE!!!

I meant non-religious Americans clearly... most of America fears G-d more than they do terrorists.

Punk Rock is Dead.