From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Contents 1 Support for creation is stronger in the United States than most if not all other countries 2 Umm... Iceland. 3 Doctors 3.1 more specifically 4 Plethora of polls

Support for creation is stronger in the United States than most if not all other countries

Isn't the support for creation even bigger in Saudi-Arabia? Or Iran? All Muslim countries?

DiEb 14:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering that in some of them the penalty for not believing is death one would expect a pretty high level of belief. Also, as belief in a literal creation seems to correlate pretty strongly with lack of education one would imagine that many third world countries would score "higher" then the US as well.--Bob M 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I have seen a list which put support for creation in Turkey higher than the U.S. But I'm fairly sure that the U.S. was second, although I'd have to check how many countries were polled.

The only death penalty I've heard of for not believing is for Muslims converting to another religion, not for not believing in creation.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 19:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the Taliban have rather firm beliefs about unbelievers.--Bob M 21:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Science 2006

You probably think of this study Public Acceptance of Evolution by Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, Shinji Okamoto

The acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States.

Turkey was the only Muslim country in this survey...

And the only place in Saudi-Arabia where the Theory of Evolution is taught seems to be the new King Abdullah University of Science and Technology ...

DiEb 21:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the list/graph, and the bit about Turkey being the only Muslim country was what I couldn't remember. Do you want to update that reference to the U.S. in the article (keep it, but refer to Western countries, perhaps), and add the graph itself if the copyright allows (what is the copyright?)? Philip J. Rayment^discuss 01:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

While trying to find something on the Taliban's religious beliefs I found something on the Nigerian Taliban which might be ilustrating. According to the BBC:

"There are prominent Islamic preachers who have seen and understood that the present Western-style education is mixed with issues that run contrary to our beliefs in Islam," he said. "Like rain. We believe it is a creation of God rather than an evaporation caused by the sun that condenses and becomes rain. "Like saying the world is a sphere. If it runs contrary to the teachings of Allah, we reject it. We also reject the theory of Darwinism."

Which seems to imply that they have beliefs at least partially in line with western creationism.--Bob M 06:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather, one of the beliefs that they reject coincides with one of the beliefs rejected by "western" YEC. Difference kettle of fish. BradleyF (LowKey) 07:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Which one are you taking about? Don't some fundamentalist Christians believe an a flat Earth as well?--Bob M 06:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Rather, some fundamentalist atheists falsely believe and spread the myth that this is something that some Christians believe or have believed. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 08:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So that one is unique to fundamentalist Muslims?--Bob M 08:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably unique to Mohammed Yusuf. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 12:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Turkey is widely seen as the most culturally liberal Muslim nation, and on attitudes about evolution, other polling has borne this out: A recent study of religious attitudes found that only 16 percent of Indonesians, 14 percent of Pakistanis, and 8 percent of Egyptians believed in evolution. Islam’s Darwin problem, By Drake Bennett October 25, 2009 , Boston Globe

DiEb 14:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for that. Are you going to add some of this information to the article? Philip J. Rayment^discuss 02:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to describe the pool of nations: non-Muslim? Western? Industrialized? Democratic?

DiEb 09:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Boston Globe article referred to them as "industrial nations". That seems appropriate. Philip J. Rayment^discuss 11:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The ComRes push poll is silly. I'd get rid of it. Sterile 02:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to give a better reason than your opinion that it's silly. Philip J. Rayment 13:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It asks about evolution in the negative and creationism in the positive. Sterile 16:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Imagine if the second question had been "God alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so evolution is needed". Jaxe 17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The poll was performed by what seems to be a respectable polling organisation, so presumably the results are fair. However, in checking the background to this, it seems that the newspaper has misreported the question. This seems to be the actual poll results (the date matches, the number of respondents is the same, and the number believing in a young Earth matches. I haven't looked more closely yet, but it does seem like the article could be amended. However, I don't see any need to remove the poll. Jaxe, I don't follow the point of your comment. Philip J. Rayment 09:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

that Poll amounts to "you believe in God , dont you" and "athiests think you are a fool if you believe in God, are you a fool? ". If they wanted genuinelyy to know views on evolution why didnt they ask about evolution ? they asked essentially are you an athiest instead. I think that probably covers Jaxes issue. He can replay when his ban is up. Hamster 15:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you looking at the same poll as me? They did ask about evolution. If you are instead talking about the Doctor's one, well, the same applies. Philip J. Rayment 12:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm... Iceland.

I wonder what it would be like to live in Iceland? Besides being cold and geothermaly and all that. It'd be like a dream. -- Edgerunner⁷⁶ 12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't everyone in the country broke, or something? Philip J. Rayment^discuss 13:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I did notice that Iceland provides post-secondary education to its citizens, a YEC killer if ever there was one. I am a cold weather person actually. Universal health care. Post-secondary education. If you even started talking about creation vs. evolution, people would probably look at you as though you had lobsters crawling out of your ears. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. -- Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But they do have a lot of economic problems associated with the global crash brought on by the US housing market problems. Another interesting fact about Iceland is that 80% of them apparently believe in the existence of elves and fairies. Which is about up there with the total US belief in God - so there are quite a few similarities with the US.--Bob M 14:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I heard that Iceland was lobbying big IT companies to house all their datacentres there, because the cold weather would help them save on cooling costs. Apparently it also has a small enough population that it's more like living in a largeish city than a country, socially speaking.--CPalmer 14:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not post-secondary education itself that kills YEC, it's what gets taught in that education. If you teach students that evolution is true and only give them one side of the story, it's no wonder that such education kills YEC.

Belief in unscientific ideas like astrology, and presumably elves and fairies (and of course evolution :-) ), is inversely related to belief in God.[1] So that "similarity" is imagined.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 00:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So, what would a creation biology textbook look like that doesn't refer to evolution? (There are whole evolution texts that are >90% biological and don't mention creation biology so I'm assuming you could write a creation biology one.) Look for all the genetic and morphological evidence of different kinds (that, oh, yeah, by the way, leaves things ambiguous)? That would last about ten pages. Quick semester. Sterile 01:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a conflation there, Sterile. Such a biology book that doesn't refer to evolution) would be about biology as it is actually practiced. BradleyF (LowKey) 05:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Belief in unscientific ideas like astrology, and presumably elves and fairies (and of course evolution :-) ) Good job comparing irrational supernatural belief to a scientific theory. Okay, Phil, I have a quick question for you- what shape is the Earth? You will see my motives for asking shortly :). The Emperor^{Rise, my apprentice} 00:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was comparing idealogical subscription to an explanation regardless of empirical support to idealogical subscription to an explanation regardless of empirical support :) . The evolution/superstition link was formally reported by sceptics (writers for the Skeptical Inquirer IIRC) many many moons ago. BradleyF (LowKey) 05:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Good job comparing irrational supernatural belief to a scientific theory. What scientific theory? I didn't mention one! :-)

Okay, Phil, I have a quick question for you- what shape is the Earth? See wp:user:Philip J. Rayment#"belief", including the footnote to that section.

Philip J. Rayment^discuss 08:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Doctors

Your edit states that, "60% of respondents believed that God was involved in the creation of man, either directly or via evolution". Looking at the table I would have thought that the more stunning figure (particularly for this site) was that fully 80% of respondents believed that man evolved either naturally or in an evolutionary process guided by God. Should I make the change? --Horace (Let's get him IPO) 05:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of judgment as to what is the relevant bit (or bits) to highlight, but given that we are told that belief in evolution among educated people is all but universal, then the only stunning thing about the 80% is that it's as low as that! I commented on a claim (on another site) the other day that 99.8% of scientists believe in evolution, pointing out that it's only 95%. Now we find that, among doctors, it's down to 80%! But what I think is even more significant is that those that believe that God was involved in the process comprise a massive 60%! So that's the figure that I've highlighted. Sure, this still means that a majority accept evolution, but it shows that claims that God has to be kept out of explanations is not supported by 60% of doctors. Back to you for further comment. Philip J. Rayment 06:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What it shows is that 60% of doctors believe God was involved in the process. This does not equal a belief that scientists, when making their explanations of said process, should bring God into them. Science concerns only what happened in the natural universe, not the question of whether supernatural agency was involved. o ListenerX^TalkerX 07:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought somebody might try to split that hair! If a supernatural agency was involved, it was involved in the natural universe, the area that science is concerned with. Philip J. Rayment 10:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Which falls under the category of "what happened" as distinct from "what agency caused it to happen." o ListenerX^TalkerX 17:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity Philip, would you accept that education generally reduces belief in creationism - and, if so, why do you think this should be?--Bob M 22:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Professor values. --Aschlafly --Unsigned comment by Jaxe (talk)

Thank Mr Aschlafly, but I'd seriously like to hear Philip's opinion on this one.--Bob M 07:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Which falls under the category of "what happened" as distinct from "what agency caused it to happen." Exactly. Science should explain what happened without ruling out a particular agency a priori.

...would you accept that education generally reduces belief in creationism ... No, not education itself, but one-sided education that only teaches evolution and teaches it as true.

Philip J. Rayment 09:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But do you agree with the premise the education in general reduces belief in YEC?--Bob M 12:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To make the question clearer - do you accept that better educated people are less likely to hold to the YEC world-view?--Bob M 12:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Only if by that you mean that it does so because education is generally one-sided. Philip J. Rayment 12:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Replying to the clearer question: In the sense that this is what the polls show, yes. But that's because those with better education have had a one-sided education. Philip J. Rayment 12:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Students should get a one-sided education when there is only one scientifically supported side. There's no fair play in science classes, and for good reason. Jaxe 12:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in you mouth Mr Rayment, but would you then suggest that - as far as YEC views are concerned - people who have not gone to university are better educated than those who have?--Bob M 13:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaxe, that comment, apart from begging the very question that is disputed on this site, is not relevant to the discussion that Bob M and I are having.

Bob M, I'm not sure what you are getting at. If you are asking if people who haven't been to university are more likely to accept YEC than those who haven't, then probably yes. If you are asking if people who haven't been to university are better educated about YEC than those who haven't, I would say almost certainly no. If you're asking something different again, then I'm sorry but you'll need to rephrase it.

Philip J. Rayment 13:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly you are saying that people who have been to university are both better educated about YEC and less likely to believe it. Is that a fair summary of your position?--Bob M 14:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Science should explain what happened without ruling out a particular agency a priori. That is what science does; any attempt to use evolution theory to prove atheism is not scientific in the least. Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges this, saying that science cannot make any judgments on the existence of God unless such existence is made contingent on scientifically testable facts, and even then it would be the job of philosophy to use the science in atheist arguments.

On the other hand, creationists and (to a lesser extent) intelligent design proponents make a particular supernatural agency an integral part of their theories. Indeed, the CMI Statement of Faith says that, a priori, no evidence can be valid if it contradicts the Bible, and CMI has argued on several occasions that science is completely useless unless one presupposes the "Biblical world-view" (i.e., rules out quite a number of particular agencies a priori). o ListenerX^TalkerX 17:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bob M, no that's not what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that those who accept YEC are more likely to be educated about it if they have been to university than if they haven't.

ListenerX, a couple of days ago Dawkins actually said what seems to be the opposite: "I think that the existence of a supreme being - a supernatural supreme being - is a scientific issue."[2]

I think the cause of your thinking is in not recognising the nature of biblical creation. It's not claimed to be just science; it's claimed to be an accurate account of past events, which are partly knowable only from the Bible, but also partly discernible and checkable from scientific endeavour. So, as biblical creation does not claim to be just science, it is free to argue for a particular agency. But if you want to stick to just science, as mainstream scientists claim to do, then it's improper to rule out an agency a priori. But just as atheistic scientists can try and build on their evolutionary conclusions and argue for no God, so can biblical creationists build on their creationary scientific conclusions and argue for God. So we have atheistic scientists going beyond the science to argue for no God, but biblical creationists being criticised for going beyond the science to argue for God!

Having drawn that comparison, that was based on the assumption that science is unable to test for God. But I dispute that. Even Dawkins agreed that if we were designed, it should be possible to find evidence of that. Just suppose there is evidence, then the next question is, who was the designer? I only know of two possibilities: a supernatural being (aka God), or aliens. However, the question then arises as to who designed the aliens, and this then becomes a matter for Occam's Razor: why invoke aliens as an unnecessary extra detail? Occam's Razor is not a law, of course, so that doesn't rule out aliens, but it does mean that with evidence of design, God is the preferred explanation.

Philip J. Rayment 13:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip writes: Bob M, no that's not what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that those who accept YEC are more likely to be educated about it if they have been to university than if they haven't.

Would I be correct in assuming that those who have been to university and rejected YEC are also more likely to educated about it than those who haven't been to university?--Bob M 18:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

...a couple of days ago Dawkins actually said... I was going with what he said in The God Delusion (the God Hypothesis vs. Einsteinian theism); I think he was explaining the God Hypothesis there.

It's not claimed to be just science... All well and good, except that (1) the non-scientific parts of creationism are completely entangled with the scientific parts and creationists refuse to separate the two, and (2) CMI declines, a priori, to recognize the validity of science that does not presuppose the creationist world-view.

So we have atheistic scientists going beyond the science... Insofar as they do this, it is not in their capacity as scientists. In a biology or geology class or scientific paper you will be taught about evolution or billions of years of geologic history; you will not be taught that this implies anything about God.

...but biblical creationists being criticised for going beyond the science to argue for God! The objection is that when they go beyond the science, they continue to claim that they are staying within it; for example, the much-cited sentence from Of Pandas and People begins, "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator" (emphasis mine). That starts out scientific, becomes unscientific in the italicized section, and is claimed to be scientific throughout.

But I dispute that. That is not a simple "yes" or "no" question. The ball is in the theologians' court; if they claim that the existence of God implies some scientifically testable, natural fact, then one can test for the fact in question and, if it is false, falsify God's existence per modus tollens. However, since there are conceptions of God (deism, pantheism, etc.) for which no such natural fact is implied, one cannot prove atheism this way.

Even Dawkins agreed that if we were designed, it should be possible to find evidence of that. I am unconvinced of that, but if it were theoretically possible, one would have to take into account the possibility that the designer might be disposed to pull a fast one to make us look evolved, so it could spend its days laughing at us as we debate the question. But, allowing that there is evidence of design:

...this then becomes a matter for Occam's Razor. There are those who say that the process of common descent itself shows more evidence of design than any individual life form. Scientists generally hold that there is no scientific evidence against uniformitarianism, so with this in mind, if Occam's Razor is brought into it, the conclusion from any evidence for design would be that natural law itself was designed so it would carry out the evolutionary process. o ListenerX^TalkerX 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bob M, not at all. Most who have been to university and who have rejected YEC know next to nothing about it.

...the non-scientific parts of creationism are completely entangled with the scientific parts and creationists refuse to separate the two... You've not said why they should separate them.

...CMI declines, a priori, to recognize the validity of science that does not presuppose the creationist world-view. What are you referring to here? I wouldn't agree, although I might if you stated that in a more limited way.

Insofar as they do this, it is not in their capacity as scientists. Granted. But they still do it.

In a biology or geology class or scientific paper you will be taught about evolution or billions of years of geologic history; you will not be taught that this implies anything about God. Not always true. I've heard quite a few accounts of students being at least told that this does disprove God, or at least the Bible, and at worst being singled out for ridicule for believing in God.

That starts out scientific, becomes unscientific in the italicized section, and is claimed to be scientific throughout. I see two problems. First, isn't the sentence merely describing creation? Even an evolutionary text book could include that sentence! Second, as I've said so many times, it is not beyond the ambit of science to determine that an intelligent creator is responsible for something. Your quote doesn't identify that creator, so it hasn't gone beyond science anyway.

... one would have to take into account the possibility that the designer might be disposed to pull a fast one to make us look evolved... I guess that's a possibility, but the point is more that if there is evidence of design it should be possible to test for that.

There are those who say that the process of common descent itself shows more evidence of design than any individual life form. There are?

Scientists generally hold that there is no scientific evidence against uniformitarianism... Not true. Uniformitarianism replaced catastrophism, but scientists are now returning to catastrophism to a limited extent. I'm not saying that they've totally given up uniformitarianism—they haven't—but they are allowing for some catastrophism, because of the evidence against uniformitarianism in particular cases.

...if Occam's Razor is brought into it, the conclusion from any evidence for design would be that natural law itself was designed so it would carry out the evolutionary process. First, although that conclusion is a possibility, it would depend on the nature of the evidence; some evidence may point to evolution being designed, and some may point to more direct design. Second, I fail to see why Occam's razor would point to evolution being designed. Prima facie, it would surely point the other way: if there is evidence of design, why invoke evolution as well?

Philip J. Rayment 11:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

CMI's statement of faith says, "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." By definition — not a posteriori but a priori. Jonathan Sarfati wrote that "the biblical framework is the only one that provides the foundation for science."

Not always true. Should have clarified: as part of the science education in that class, as distinct from any asides.

...it is not beyond the ambit of science to determine that an intelligent creator is responsible for something. Yes, it is, unless the intelligent creator is said to be a space alien, and it would be unscientific to suggest such a thing without further evidence (e.g., remnants of a flying saucer).

...scientists are now returning to catastrophism to a limited extent. Not to the extent that they believe that the uniform laws of physics, chemistry, etc., were breached at any time while the Earth existed, as by radioactive decay speeding up.

There are? There was one on RationalWiki recently. He seemed to be using a version of the "fine-tuned universe" argument to say that evolution proves God just as much as "special creation." He said he was repeating what his pastor had said to him. Antony Flew, I think, said something similar.

...if there is evidence of design, why invoke evolution as well? Evolution is the only explanation to date that does not involve breaches of the uniformity of natural law as it is presently understood. One might say that one is multiplying entities beyond necessity to posit such a breach when the evidence does not require it. o ListenerX^TalkerX 06:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding CMI's statement of faith, it refers to anything which "contradicts the Scriptural record", which is not the same as "presuppose the creationist world-view". If science is done without presupposing the creationist worldview, but doesn't contradict the Scriptural record, then the Statement of Faith does not reject its validity. Similarly, Sarfati's comment talks about the foundation of science, not the validity of particular scientific endeavours.

Should have clarified: as part of the science education in that class, as distinct from any asides. This sounds like trying to have your cake and eat it too: You won't be taught in science classes that science implies anything about God; well, you might, but if so it's not part of the science! None of these anecdotes has included mention of a disclaimer separating the comments from the science.

Yes, it is, unless the intelligent creator is said to be a space alien... So science can't determine an intelligent design, except where the designer is acceptable to atheists? This is special pleading.

... it would be unscientific to suggest such a thing without further evidence ... Such as the Creator's revelation to man? Got that. Or does the evidence have to, a priori, be only evidence for something not supernatural?

Not to the extent that they believe that the uniform laws of physics, chemistry, etc., were breached at any time... Uniformitarianism is to do with processes, such as sedimentation, not with the laws of physics.

There was one on RationalWiki recently. ... Antony Flew, I think, said something similar. I don't question that there are those who claim that common descent shows evidence of design; I was questioning that it shows more evidence of design than individual living things. Flew has said that the origin of life has convinced him of design.

Evolution is the only explanation to date that does not involve breaches of the uniformity of natural law as it is presently understood. Hmmm. Yes, you may be technically correct, if "as it is presently understood" is interpreted to mean "by evolutionists". However, this ignores (a) the argument that evolution does contradict the capabilities of nature to produce novel information, and (b) that evolution is part of a broader naturalistic scheme that invokes "miracles" such as the Big Bang.

Philip J. Rayment 12:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip, how many times must this be explained to you! The Big Bang was not some miracle event that was just made up as a fudge factor. It wasn't a "nothing from something" and is backed up by observations and the background radiation. Learn to Learn! Ace McWicked 19:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've quoted various sources which describe it as something from nothing, showing that that is what at least some believe, even if not all. Yes, it is backed by observations, but the observations don't fit it all that well, and it therefore requires the fudge factors of dark energy and dark matter. Background radiation of a specific value was predicted, and background radiation was indeed subsequently discovered... of a different value! So it's debatable whether that really counts as a fulfilled prediction. Philip J. Rayment 05:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You are playing a semantic game. Any cosmologist worth their salt knows that it isn't from nothing. You don't get something from nothing (unless God does it). Nothing in this instance means something we haven't seen and can't quantify (yet - hence experiments like the LHC). It isn't "nothing". No matter how many quotes you misunderstand, it is never considered nothing. Ace McWicked 05:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

for it to be science it must be natural evidence. Quantum foam is a possible source of big bang material. Hamster 06:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

heres a paper of complex specified information http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/specified.complexity.html Hamster 06:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You are playing a semantic game. Any cosmologist worth their salt knows that it isn't from nothing. Yeah, well, I never said these secular cosmologists who say this were worth their salt, did I? :-)

You don't get something from nothing ... I know, that's why the Big Bang is a load of malarky!

Nothing in this instance means something we haven't seen and can't quantify... Oh, I see. Something for which there is no evidence, so is speculation, not science. Something like, ummm, God! We haven't seen Him (ignoring Jesus for the moment), and can't quantify Him—fits the bill, I'd say!

It isn't "nothing". You're right—God isn't nothing!

No matter how many quotes you misunderstand, it is never considered nothing. Yet you've not shown how I've misunderstood all those quotes which say it's nothing, sometimes emphatically!

for it to be science it must be natural evidence. In other words, arbitrarily rule out a possible explanation for ideological reasons.

Philip J. Rayment 09:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

you're backsliding, its NOT arbitrary and ideological ? well I would not use that word since science defines itself as methodological nauralism. Can you outline how a researcher can prove supernatural events ? that requires showing what occured and when, and evidence of the supernatural source ? That still leaves proving what supernatual source it was ? A hint "complex specified information' wont do it, thats been shown to be wrong. Hamster 15:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet you've not shown how I've misunderstood all those quotes which say it's nothing You just have Philip in the above by misunderstanding the Big Bang. I have explained this too you before but you are ignoring it. There wasn't nothing before the Big Bang, it came from something. Something our physics hasn't explained yet - hence experiments like the LHC. You ignored my comments and willfully misunderstood. You are a lying, intellectually stunted man. I have no time for your willful ignorance in the face of something that easy to understand and has been explained to you, by me, before. Ace McWicked 16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

...science defines itself as methodological nauralism. Science cannot define itself. "Science" is defined by people, and they often include methodological naturalism in the definition, but scientists often emply philosophical naturalism.

Can you outline how a researcher can prove supernatural events ? That's not a valid question. Science can't prove anything; it can only disprove. Further, is your question about proving the event, or the cause of the event? And when you have the question worded properly and fairly, can you answer it from the point of view of naturalism?

A hint "complex specified information' wont do it, thats been shown to be wrong. Argued to be wrong is more likely.

You just have Philip in the above by misunderstanding the Big Bang. You're begging the question of whether I have misunderstood.

I have explained this too you before but you are ignoring it. No, I have replied, and you are ignoring (not addressing) much of my reply.

There wasn't nothing before the Big Bang, it came from something. So you say, but my quotes show that others have a different view. Simply reasserting your own view does not make your view correct.

You ignored my comments and willfully misunderstood. You are a lying, intellectually stunted man. You are now attributing motive to me, which is getting into dangerous (in the sense of you running a great risk of being wrong, given that you can't read my mind) territory. You are also running a risk of being blocked for calling me a liar. More response to come in the section below.

Philip J. Rayment 01:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

more specifically

I know, that's why the Big Bang is a load of malarky! The Big Bang does not propose something from nothing. If knew anything about it save a few quotes you trot out (which you admit might be from cosmologist who are not worth their salt) and what is quoted on CMI then you would know that no-one believes that the Big Bang came from nothing (although is often said, "nothing" can mean from a quantum foam, or a singularity or even spawning off from another universe. Nothing in this sense means there was no time nor did our physical laws exist). It definitely came from something and everyone knows this. You spout off rubbish without actually knowing a thing about it! If you did you wouldn't speak such nonsense. Perhaps if you studied up on Quantum Mechanics you would realise that particles can pop in and out of exsitence, disappear and materialise in another location but it is not from nothing though it might appear so and it is, and has been, demonstrable.
Oh, I see. Something for which there is no evidence, so is speculation, not science. Something like, ummm, God! We haven't seen Him (ignoring Jesus for the moment), and can't quantify Him—fits the bill, I'd say! So your argument comes down to the God of gaps then? Science doesn't know yet so it must be God? This is why Creation Science is a load of bollocks. Real science goes like this - "We can be fairly sure the Big Bang happened through our observations but we don't know how the Big Bang happened so lets build a 27km long tunnel 100 metres below the Franco-Swiss border. Then we'll build the biggest, most powerful and most ambitious piece of scientific machinery ever constructed to test our predictions. Using this we can also test our predictions concerning dark matter and other dimensions." That is how science works Philip, not by finding a gap in knowledge and injecting god into it. If the LHC finds nothing then it's back to the drawing board. It is insulting to me as someone who has studied cosmology, albeit as an amatuer, for over 10 years to have someone like you come along and lay his absolute ignorance down as if it is a badge of honour. I urge to read up on the Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Entanglement etc etc so you don't look like such an ingnorant fool. the science is there and most of it is demonstrable, sound and matches observation and prediction. Before you lay the ad hom card please note that I am trying to educate you, not attack you. Ace McWicked 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Big Bang does not propose something from nothing. Ho hum. Answered that already.

If knew anything about it save a few quotes you trot out... And which you dismiss out of hand.

...(which you admit might be from cosmologist who are not worth their salt)... Only humorously, and on the grounds that they are secular. On the contrary, one of the quotes is relating the views of one of the leading designers of the Big Bang. In terms of Big Bang cosmology, Guth is very much worth his salt, and you cannot dismiss his views as worthless.

...you would know that no-one believes that the Big Bang came from nothing... Except that I provided quotes to the contrary, which you've simply dismissed for no valid reason.

It definitely came from something and everyone knows this. First, this is not what many people believe, as the quotes show. Second, how do they "know" it, as distinct from believe it? Where is the hard evidence?

Perhaps if you studied up on Quantum Mechanics you would realise that particles can pop in and out of exsitence, disappear and materialise in another location but it is not from nothing... Interesting. I've had people defend the Big Bang argument that it came from nothing on the grounds that quantum mechanics supposedly shows that particles can come from nothing. Here you say that they can pop into existence, which seems to be saying the same thing. Yet you then say that they are not coming from nothing. So what are they coming from if not from nothing? If they came from another universe, then they already existed. If they came from a singularity, then they came from nothing, as a singularity is a fancy word for nothing: "something" that has zero dimensions.

So your argument comes down to the God of gaps then? Can I call you an ignorant liar now? After all, you've apparently failed to comprehend the point that I was making, that "God" fits your description. If my argument is a God-of-the-gaps argument, then so is your argument about particles that "we haven't seen and can't quantify". So why can a God-of-the-gaps argument be rejected, but a "something-we-haven't-seen-and-can't-quantify-of-the-gaps" argument is okay?

Science doesn't know yet so it must be God? Science doesn't know yet so it must be "something we haven't seen and can't quantify"?

This is why Creation Science is a load of bollocks. No, this is why materialism is a load of bollocks—because it proposes things that are just as untestable as God, but pretends that one is not science and the other is, on the grounds of testability!

Real science goes like this - "We can be fairly sure the Big Bang happened through our observations... Not really. There's major problems with the Big Bang.

If the LHC finds nothing then it's back to the drawing board. So the gap remains unfilled. The secular explanation has failed, but the alternative explanation is not even considered.

It is insulting to me as someone who has studied cosmology, albeit as an amatuer, for over 10 years to have someone like you come along and lay his absolute ignorance down as if it is a badge of honour. Then how do you think I feel? I've studied creation for over 30 years, only to have someone like you come along and lay down his own biased (i.e. refuse to even seriously consider my views) views down as if they are a badge of honour.

I urge to read up on the Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Entanglement etc etc so you don't look like such an ingnorant fool. Perhaps you should do that too, and not just from people who agree with you, in order that you don't look a fool for simply dismissing views that you don't agree with.

Before you lay the ad hom card please note that I am trying to educate you, not attack you. And I can see that there is a genuine attempt to educate. Yet there is also ad hominem in there, such as calling me a liar and ignorant.

Philip J. Rayment 01:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you still doling out that one sentence from the cover of a magazine as the Big Bang being something from nothing? Do you have any other quotes, or even better, a reference to a physics book or a literature review? It's quite underwhelming. Sterile 02:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your vile ignorance and obvious lack of knowledge on this subject caused me such aggression I had to take 5mg of Valium in order to respond calmly. I am not known for my patience and I am very high strung. Thankfully my doctor knows this hence my perscription.

Ho hum. Answered that already No, you haven't. If you had done any reading on the topic you would know that nothing, in this sense, means that our universe before the big bang was nothing - there was no universe. A singularity is not nothing for example.

And which you dismiss out of hand... I did not dismiss them in the slightest, I answered, attempted to clarify, that no-one believes the universe came from nothing, the only response you can give - the seeming beadth of your knowledge on the topic is these quotes. READ and learn what the context and meaning surrounds such quotes.

Guth is very much worth his salt, and you cannot dismiss his views as worthless. Here is Guth view which shows he doesn't think the big bang came from nothing - "Alan Guth's main beliefs about the universe are that it definitely has a beginning and that it is just one of many universes that came into existence. Inflation never ends, but keeps expanding at an exponential rate, meaning that it doubles in very short increments much less than one second. Universes keep being created all the time as bubbles within the inflation process. The entire cosmos was created by quantum fluctuations from nothingness. While the concept of a universe being created from nothing sounds improbable, it is perfectly consistent with the laws of conservation of energy because its total energy value is zero". His position is that our universe was nothing but it was created by quantum fluctuations which is not nothing in the sense you attibute to it. He also believes - "The big bang of the universe is actually similar to cell division in biology, since new universes are continuously formed. However, inflation always wipes out the circumstances of the beginning of the particular universe." Meaning he didn't believe the universe came from nothing but it would always appear as if from nothing. Clearly his opinion is the new universes are formed from other universes. This would be easy for you to find out if you opened a book! Also Alan Guth was the first one to propose Inflation Theory which solves the so called Horizon Problem and also proposes the universe was created through a Quantum Phase Transition. Far from Guth actually believing the Universe was created from nothing he believes the universe was created by something. You'll happily trot out quotes from him but then not actually do the reading about what he really believes which goes against everything you have so far attributed to him!

Where is the hard evidence? Something the LHC was built for.

Interesting. I've had people defend the Big Bang argument that it came from nothing on the grounds that quantum mechanics supposedly shows that particles can come from nothing. Again, as I have aleady explained particles do not come from nothing! The vacuum has an energy state and virtual particles (matter and anti-matter) borrow energy from the vacuum and pop into exsistence and immediatly annihilate themselves, thereby returning the energy back to the vacuum. This is how Hawking Radiation proposes black holes eventually disappear. When a virtual particle pops up nea a black hole, one particle falls into event horizon and the other is free. The black hole must repay the vacuum energy with its own energy.

because it proposes things that are just as untestable as God, but pretends that one is not science It is testable! READ PHILIP! READ! Go to CERN and tell them it isn't testable! Just dismantle all the particle accelerators because they, in you opinion, are obviously a waste of time.

There's major problems with the Big Bang. Such as?

So the gap remains unfilled. The secular explanation has failed, but the alternative explanation is not even considered. Only because there is no test for God (as of yet)!

Perhaps you should do that too, and not just from people who agree with you, in order that you don't look a fool for simply dismissing views that you don't agree with. I am reading your gibberish aren't I?

You have obviously not looked any further than your quotes and CMI etc. Search for the material Philip, it is all there. Go to the library and get read some Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Fred Adams etc because you ae ignorant of what you speak to anyone else it looks like abject stupidity on your part. Ace McWicked 03:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. There's major problems with the Big Bang. Would you elaborate on just what they are ? Its already been stated that nothing within about 10^-43 seconds of the event is accessible and why. You have also been told often that a hole in a hypothesis does not open the door to a christian god or any god for that matter, it merely causes a revision of the hypothesis or the creation of a new one The current Big Bang theory is one explanation that has survived some challanges , if the Higgs boson is not found , or other unexpected particles are found a bunch of physicists go back to their chalkboards and try to figure out where the maths went wrong. Perhaps the Universe is more complex than the current model requires. Hamster 03:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

But there are other applications - finding other dimensions, dark matter. Or just giving up, saying god did it and going home. Ace McWicked 03:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A hint "complex specified information' wont do it, thats been shown to be wrong. Argued to be wrong is more likely. demonstrated to be wrong actually. The computer program that generates increasing complexity that meets the definition given by Dembski is in the link I have posted several times. Hamster 03:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

science CAN prove some things, like if a given person has a social disease, if a substance found is an explosive or just jelly , did a magnetic field exist, did an electric current flow , etc. Straightforward factual information. what it does not prove is the theories that explain those facts Hamster 04:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you still doling out that one sentence from the cover of a magazine as the Big Bang being something from nothing? Do you have any other quotes You know I have, as you replied to my post in which I had others.

No, you haven't. If you had done any reading on the topic ... Which I obviously have.

...you would know that nothing, in this sense, means that our universe before the big bang was nothing - there was no universe. That seems to be a rather creative interpretation of "nothing".

A singularity is not nothing for example. Yet you've not refuted my reasoning.

I did not dismiss them in the slightest, I answered, attempted to clarify, that no-one believes the universe came from nothing,... You contradicted the statements with your own. You did not explain how I have misread or misunderstood or misquoted them, except for now saying that "nothing" means that the universe didn't exist, an explanation that doesn't actually fit with what the quotes said.

Here is Guth view which shows he doesn't think the big bang came from nothing ... The entire cosmos was created by quantum fluctuations from nothingness. Yep, that makes it really clear that he doesn't think it came from nothing.

His position is that our universe was nothing ... How do you get that from "from nothingness"?

...he didn't believe the universe came from nothing but it would always appear as if from nothing. So you're saying that he believes something contrary to the available evidence (observation) that it came from "nothing"?

Something the LHC was built for. That doesn't answer where it is. You seem to be saying that it doesn't exist (in the sense of being known); that they are still looking for it.

Again, as I have aleady explained particles do not come from nothing! But we are not arguing over whether they do, but whether the Big Bang is believed by some to claim that they do.

It is testable! READ PHILIP! READ! Go to CERN and tell them it isn't testable! So they are creating universes? Or are they testing one detail of the hypothesis rather than the hypothesis itself? To use an analogy, someone wants to test the idea that a someone is growing marijuana under heat lamps in a basement laboratory, so they test (by reading the meter) and find that the residence has a high electricity consumption. That might support the idea, and low consumption may disprove the idea (although perhaps they have another source of power?), but they have not tested the specific claim itself. Similarly, the Collider will allow tests on particular details required by the hypothesis, but it's not testing the hypothesis itself, which is untestable, as scientists can't reproduce the Big Bang.

Such as? See for example here, or if you want more detail, try this.

Only because there is no test for God (as of yet)! You don't need to test for God to see if an explanation which requires God fits the evidence.

I am reading your gibberish aren't I? You know, I didn't assume that you wanted me to read your comments, but rather to read books and the like. Yet you equate those books with my comments! I guess I should be flattered!

You have obviously not looked any further than your quotes and CMI etc. Have you looked further than secular sources (and my comments)?

Search for the material Philip, it is all there. That's how I found the quotes: I searched.

...because you ae ignorant of what you speak to anyone else it looks like abject stupidity on your part. That's your spin. I'm "ignorant" and look stupid because I don't swallow secular claims, not because I'm actually ignorant or stupid.

Would you elaborate on just what they are ? See the links above (in this post).

You have also been told often that a hole in a hypothesis does not open the door to a christian god or any god for that matter, ... Of course I've been told, but it's never been a convincing explanation (it's usually assertion) as to why the gap has to be filled with naturalism and can't be with God.

The current Big Bang theory is one explanation that has survived some challanges , if the Higgs boson is not found , or other unexpected particles are found a bunch of physicists go back to their chalkboards and try to figure out where the maths went wrong. But still within the failing hypothesis, most likely.

Perhaps the Universe is more complex than the current model requires. Or perhaps it was created!

But there are other applications - finding other dimensions, dark matter. Or just giving up, saying god did it and going home. Or finding that there's evidence of Divine creation. Or just giving up by invoking enormous fudge factors like dark matter and dark energy. Modern science was started by creationists, and believing that we were created not only didn't cause them to give up, it was the basis for their desire to study.

demonstrated to be wrong actually. The computer program that generates increasing complexity that meets the definition given by Dembski is in the link I have posted several times. An intelligently-designed computer program? Doesn't that tell you something?

Philip J. Rayment 12:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

yes , it tells me you dont understand computer programming. (observation not attack) I could explain but if you dont know pascal or java it would be a long and tedious attempt. Failing to find the Higgs boson itself may simply extend the question of its existance. Finding that the Higgs boson is actually other unknown particles would mean a rewrite of current atomic theory, which would be a new hypothesis. The energy levels for the Higgs is known from studies and the Large Hadron collider can reach that level. Hamster 15:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

it tells me you dont understand computer programming. Perhaps you are right, if computers can be programmed without intelligent input. But I do know programming, and know that they are intelligently designed. But explain anyway, using Pascal, which I'm quite familiar with (the Borland/etc. versions of it).

Failing to find the Higgs boson itself may simply extend the question of its existance. Agreed, although that means that the hypothesis continues to be held on faith.

Philip J. Rayment 02:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This has now become like arguing with Andy Philip. You don't know a thing about the origin of the universe, Guth and his beliefs or the hypothesis of other scientists. Not one theory on the origin of the universe says it comes from nothing, not one. I challenge you to find me one that does. As to Guth here it explains how his Inflation theory proposes that a quantum flucuation caused the big bang, also here his views are quoted as -

"Many interesting concepts are implied by the inflationary theory, including "eternal inflation." By the very nature of the inflationary process, Guth believes, "once inflation begins, it never stops!" (p. 246). As time goes on, further big bangs come forth from the underlying "false vacuum" from which our universe emerged. This ongoing cosmic process eventually creates an infinite series of universes like our own, which Guth terms "pocket universes."

This false vacuum mentioned is how virtual particles are created, not from nothing as you keep stating. Then you have the nerve to say to me But we are not arguing over whether they do, but whether the Big Bang is believed by some to claim that they do. when it was you that brought them up in support of your "from nothing" view despite my repeated explanation.

That's how I found the quotes: I searched. and thats where you have stopped, found a quote that supports your view and there you stopped. Go to the library and read some cosmologly Philip.

That's your spin. I'm "ignorant" and look stupid because I don't swallow secular claims. Its got nothing to do with "not swallowing them", you look ignorant and stupid because you say that "Guth says the universe came from nothing" when even a rudimentary study on him shows the complete opposite. Ace McWicked 03:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I challenge you to find me one that does. I already have, and you've claimed that they mean things that they don't say.

As for most of the rest of your points, I have already answered them.

Philip J. Rayment 12:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I already have, and you've claimed that they mean things that they don't say. No you haven't. Where? You haven't shown me a thing, you have given one quote from Guth which I have shown (repeatedly) to not be indicitive of his views. As I have stated, not a single theory regarding the origin of the universe contends that it arose from nothing, without cause. You haven't provided anything in the way of a rebuttal. I have shown you how virtual particles arise, I have explained the singularity is not nothing (how can something infinitely dense be nothing?), I have provided links and quotes of Guth explaining inflation theory and how he believes that universes expand from others like cell division and I have given you the names of cosmologists who, if you read up on, would provide with the current theories regarding the origin of the big bang. You have provided nothing. Which is ironic considering the nature of this discussion. Ace McWicked 19:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No you haven't. Where? You haven't shown me a thing, you have given one quote from Guth... You haven't provided anything in the way of a rebuttal. Okay, I wasn't replying to you, so perhaps you didn't see the post, but look on talk:Evidence for God's existence at my post dated 08:44, 25 February. There's more than just the quote from Guth there.

how can something infinitely dense be nothing? How can something with no dimensions be something?

I will comment further on the Evidence for God's existence talk page.

Philip J. Rayment 10:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Plethora of polls

NCSE just started a polling website here. These should be incorporated. Sterile 23:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much detail we should include, in terms of limited-scope polls (for example, the poll on evolution in Texas), but it does look like it could have some useful information there. Thanks. (Of course, you could add some to the article yourself.) Philip J. Rayment 01:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)