1. Comment #28681 by NeoGothic on March 30, 2007 at 11:40 am

Someone must be spiking those fundies' Kool-Aid. Childhood indoctrination must be damn strong to keep them believing in a book that was written by a nomadic tribe in the middle east between 5,000 and 4,000 years ago than in the repeattedly and independantly verified results of modern science. The ancient hebrews believed pi was exactly equal to 3! Would you listen to someone who got something like that so wrong?

Other Comments by NeoGothic

2. Comment #28682 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 11:42 am

Eugenie Scott just took a dive in my rating of her, I had to rewind to verify she actually agreed with some of the crap Ham was spewing. When talking by herself she's fine but when confronted with a creationist, she almost flops.

The Judas-like defection of Paul Davies disappoints me also, his earlier books were very good and I rated them highly. But it looks like he decided Templeton's money was more important than anything else to him. A sad case that's cost him the respect that many once had for him.

Other Comments by Yorker

3. Comment #28683 by Devolution on March 30, 2007 at 11:44 am

Ugh, Ken Hamm is a grade A douche. He was featured in an HBO documentary a few months back about religion. He spoke to an entire room filled with children under the age of 12 where he displayed images of humans playing with dinosaurs and other ridiculous fundie progaganda. Hopefully he will stop paying his taxes so he can join his gay lover Ken Hovind in federal prison where he belongs.

Other Comments by Devolution

4. Comment #28715 by steve99 on March 30, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Yorker - I consider your statement about Paul Davies to be perhaps a bit harsh. I have been reading his books since the 70s, and I don't think his views have changed that much. He gave a very good talk at last year's Beyond Belief conference, and I'd like to quote from a recent book of his: "The Goldilocks Enigma":

"Our minds are the products of genes and memes. Now we are free of Darwinian evolution and able to create our own real and virtual worlds, and our information processing technology can take us to intellectual arenas that no human mind has ever before visited, those age-old questions of existence may evaporate away, exposed as nothing more than the befuddled musings of biological beings trapped in a mental straightjacket inherited from evolutionary happenstance. The whole paraphernalia of gods and laws, of space, time and matter, of purpose and design, rationality and absurdity, meaning and mystery, may yet be swept away and replaced by revelations as yet undreamt of."

In the same book, he also rejects many explanations for the origin of the Universe as "ridiculous or hopelessly inadequate", including "pre-existing God who is somehow self-explanatory".

You may disagree with his emphasis in his writings, but I think mention of a "Judas-like defection" is way over the top.

Other Comments by steve99

5. Comment #28733 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Steve99, You must be as old as I am!

I too have read Paul's books since he was at Durham University and I also liked his talk at the BB conference, I haven't read his latest work but I'm sure it's good. It was precisely my past liking of his work and disappointment, that caused me to characterize his taking of Templeton money as "Judas-like". Like most scientists, RD for example, I see Templeton as a subverter of science, you must have seen the distaste that most present at the BB, held for him. The warm applause given to Annie Druyan's attack on the Templeton puppet, the declaration by other scientists who vowed not to accept Templeton money, was evidence of the contempt felt for this man.

So, with regret, I will buy no more of Paul's books because I would feel uncomfortable doing so, in addition, I must stand by my original words. Paul would no doubt say he'd simply changed his mind and that's fine, but nobody forced him to take the "pieces of silver".

Other Comments by Yorker

6. Comment #28738 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 2:48 pm

I should have mentioned in my last post that in the light of Victor Stenger's wonderfully simple insight, "Goldilocks Zone" and "Fine Tuning" supporters must be feeling a little foolish. To paraphrase him:

"The Universe wasn't tuned to suit us, evolution tuned us to suit the Universe"

I think this will hold universally for all life-forms no matter what "zone" they're in, they will be the product of evolution tuned to suit whatever environment they were spawned in.

Other Comments by Yorker

7. Comment #28739 by Shane McKee on March 30, 2007 at 2:51 pm

[Minor excursus - apologies for it not being related to the original item].
Re: 1. Comment #28681 by NeoGothic

The bible was not written 4000-5000 years ago! Nor were the writers nomadic. Read "The Unauthorised Version" by Robin Lane Fox (as you are instructed to do in TGD ;-) for the low-down (VERY good book). The Old Testament was largely composed in 700-600BCE and thereafter, when the Assyrians and subsequent empires were kicking the kingdom of Judah around. If that's not good enough for you, read Donald Redford's "Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times" for some corking anachronisms and revealing factors in the Pentateuch/Torah that locate it very firmly in C7BCE (and shed some light on ancient near eastern history too).

In any event, it patently ain't the word of god. The Pi thing is a distraction - there are far better reasons for believing the Bible to be the work of humans. Most Christians don't know their bible very well; when I was a Christian I read and studied it in very great detail, cross-checking all the references and correspondences, and checking the dependability of the various commentaries. *That* was why I became an atheist.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

8. Comment #28740 by ImagineAZ on March 30, 2007 at 2:52 pm

I'm only halfway through and I haven't heard her agree with anything at all.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

9. Comment #28741 by ImagineAZ on March 30, 2007 at 2:53 pm

With everything I've heard so far, she's disagreed with every single thing the creationist said...politely yes, but she shot down every single thing he said.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

10. Comment #28746 by steve99 on March 30, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Yorker - I am just uncomfortable about rejecting the opinions of someone who is definitely still a respected physicist, and with very interesting ideas. I think you are overstating the case. He received the Michael Faraday Prize from the Royal Society in 2002 - not an indication of someone widely rejected by the scientific establishment. I dislike the Templeton Prize too, but to reject Davies' work because of that seems excessive, especially the phrase "it looks like he decided Templeton's money was more important than anything else to him". I don't think that is at all fair.

And, arrogant though it must sound, I disagree with that statement of Venger. There are vast ranges of the physical parameters of the universe for which there would not even be atoms, let alone any possibility of life. I am in good company in my skepticism of this view (Sir Martin Rees, for example). Venger's models are very controversion and many think that they contain too few parameters.

Other Comments by steve99

11. Comment #28757 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Steve99, we're obviously not going to agree about Paul Davies so further discussion of him is pointless. But just as a quick aside, I must also admit that his thoughts about Martian colonists made me slightly skeptical.

In parts of the Universe where life can arise, Vic Stenger's thoughts make the most sense, it's a beautiful example of Occam's Razor in action. Which is more likely, the universe is possibly full of life and in each case is locally tuned to suit it, or wherever life arises evolution ensures universal compatibility? To me it's clear and I am in the good company of other cosmologists who disagree with Rees, but irrespective of company, the great simplicity of Stenger's argument has the ring of truth that for me, nothing else has. I think Einstein and Feynman, both champions of simplicity, would've been proud of him.

Other Comments by Yorker

12. Comment #28759 by atheisticism on March 30, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Our current knowledge of genetics has conclusively proven that all living things evolved fron one celled organisms, no? Why does this argument not get wielded more, instead of the spotty fossil record?

Other Comments by atheisticism

13. Comment #28768 by drive1 on March 30, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Some of the comments in this thread seem to be reviewing a completely different broadcast to the one I just listened to. The interviewer was polite with Ham, but disagreed with every 'scientific' point he made. She gave him sufficient air-time to shoot himself in the foot and, from that range, Ham never misses. I actually think this type of non-confrontational interviewing technique is particularly useful for getting the fundies to open up .. give 'em enough rope.

As for Paul Davies .. he seems to be trying to find a way to approach the science / theology debate from a different angle. We all know how frustrating it can be communicating with YEC's and the like .. seems to me, Davies is trying to do something worthwhile. He, Gribbin, Asimov and Sagan are the great 'popular' science writers of the past 50 years imvho, and if he can use that skill to get a few fundies to pull their fingers out of their ears, then all power to his elbow.

Other Comments by drive1

14. Comment #28771 by steve99 on March 30, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Yorker, I agree we aren't going to agree, but what disappointed me was your strong language. We aren't doing the atheist 'cause' any favours if we are so quick to dismiss those who aren't the follwers of the purest of atheist stances. This seems immoderate.

And as for Stenger's thoughts, well, again I think you are vastly overstating the case. They are interesting thoughts, but, as I said, most cosmologists think have little doubt that there really is a fine-tuning issue with parameters of the universe. Stenger is, anyway, attacking what is virtually a straw man, which is the point of view that only our form of life is possible. The fine tuning argument is far deeper than that, and is not only about 'carbon-based life forms'. According to most cosmologists, we are talking about having to fine tune even to get universes where any form of complexity at all that lasts any length of time is possible (especially regarding the cosmological constant, for example). I can understand the attraction of Stenger's ideas, but I don't think we need to move away from mainstream consensus physics to defend atheism. I worry that this makes us look like we are cherry-picking in the same way as we accuse our religious opponents of doing.

Other Comments by steve99

15. Comment #28778 by HappyPrimate on March 30, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Very interesting interview. I admire the interviewer for her self control with the loonies. She was obviously very frustrated with them but kept her cool very well. I think we will get no where with these people until we can discredit fully their books. That is their only platform to stand on and without their silly old books, they would be nowhere and have nothing to stand on for arguement.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

16. Comment #28825 by Yorker on March 31, 2007 at 5:03 am

I just listened again to Eugenie and Ham, her tone is concilliatory. She has several opportunities to nail him when discussing the children playing with the friendly T-Rex's, but instead compliments him on the realism of the exhibit!

There are probably more examples of places where Eugenie slipped up that careful analysis would show, but here are just two. At 11:22 Ham says God created various kinds of animals, at 11:26 she agrees. At 11:34 Ham says there was sin, a curse and the flood, at 11:46 she says "that's correct".

Sorry, I think she adopted the wrong approach with Ham, being concilliatory, friendly and courteous doesn't work with creationists, they are not amenable to reason presented in a friendly way.

I tried the friendly method with a guide at the Hovind dinosaur place when I lived in Florida. As you approach the place there's a sign saying that entry is free but a donation is suggested, when you arrive at the actual entrance it becomes a mandatory $7 charge. When I pointed out the obvious nonsense of the exhibits to the guide in a friendly way, he just treated me like an idiot and told me to read my bible more. I then cast aside my nice guy approach, jumped up an intellectual gear, and tore the the fundie a new one. He then called for help and I was asked to leave the premises, I demanded my money back on the grounds of fraud, they didn't accept my fraud accusation, but gave me my money.

I'm convinced that intellectual confrontation is needed when dealing with these people.

Other Comments by Yorker

17. Comment #28851 by Duff on March 31, 2007 at 8:32 am

Beware the fundies! If it is true, as Dawkins and others suggest - and I firmly believe - that religion is the only socially acceptable form of insanity, we then have to assume that those people might just behave like insane people. Up to and including strapping a bomb to themselves to get even with the likes of us.

Other Comments by Duff

18. Comment #28855 by sornord on March 31, 2007 at 9:30 am

The audio says this is part two. Is part one available somewhere for download?

Stephen Wilson

Other Comments by sornord

19. Comment #28863 by hightrekker on March 31, 2007 at 11:30 am

I have also always been suspicious of Paul Davies---
He has always seemed a closet Cabbage for Christ-
His New Age appeal resonated a shallow chord.

Other Comments by hightrekker

20. Comment #28934 by elvenearth on March 31, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Quote: Shane McKee on March 30, 2007 at 2:51 pm: "Most Christians don't know their bible very well; when I was a Christian I read and studied it in very great detail, cross-checking all the references and correspondences, and checking the dependability of the various commentaries. *That* was why I became an atheist."

That's not a particularly good reason for becoming an atheist. I hope you had/have others more convincing for the sake of intellectual pride.

Other Comments by elvenearth

21. Comment #28937 by Yorker on March 31, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Steve99,

I don't really understand your insistence that the perceived fine tuning of the Universe is important. This planet is the way it is, the Universe is the way it is, why do we need to worry that if the numbers were different we wouldn't be here? That we're able to live here because evolution suited us to the planet seems to me, a very natural explanation. If the Earth had been different we would be different or possibly non-existent but so what? We are here, that's it!

We have no idea of the biology of other life-forms that might exist elsewhere on other planets, but whatever their biological basis, the idea that they too will have been suited to their world by evolution, seems the most satisfactory and simple explanation to me. Again, why worry about cosmological settings? To quote Feynman: "It's no good wondering why things are that way, that's just the way it is!"

All the stuff about the Universe must have known we were coming, is lost on me, it's meaningless. As far as I can see the Universe is entirely indifferent towards humankind and wouldn't be changed in the slightest if we met our demise tomorrow.

I think what Stenger did was to change the way we look at it, he certainly changed the way I look at it; things are a whole lot simpler now. It's the old but true story, why postulate complexity when a simple answer suffices? I haven't lost my interest though; I've had it since childhood and will probably die with it. It's my confidence that's waned, in my youth I felt fairly sure that we'd know for sure that life existed elsewhere but now I feel differently. More and more, I fear that intelligent life may be a rare occurrence; it may be that like us, other intelligences suffer from rapid scientific advancement but slow maturation. Technological power mixed with childish clinging to irrational beliefs may well be a fatal combination that causes intelligent species to self-destruct. I worry that we too are rushing headlong to that end.

Other Comments by Yorker

22. Comment #28983 by Logicel on April 1, 2007 at 2:48 am

For some reason I did not hear Eugenie Scott conversing with Ham, but her conversation with Morris was painful to listen to. Here is a non-believer, passionately appreciative of science both as a body of developing knowledge and investigative method standing together in front of the majestic, natural reality of the Grand Canyon with a man completely infected with the religious bug.

This unlikely companion had previously stated that he cannot deviate from following the bible literally because if he did so it would show duplicity on the part of his God, and since God cannot be one who dupes then the bible has to be correct. The site of such natural grandeur then encourages him to wax his irrational, faith-based prose to such a sickening shine, that if I was in Scott's place I would have barfed--or maybe entertained the notion of nudging him closer to the edge--instead of politely but tensely terminating the conversation.

To criticize atheists who are on the combative front with these wingnuts on a daily basis just because they have not perfectly rebuted their nonsense is to say the least a bit dense. My big toe could not even fit into these atheists' shoes.

As for the practicality or benefit of a media coverage such as this, all I can say, what it accomplished for me is to shown how rational some are, and how irrational others are, some to the point of insanity. In other words, this coverage only widened the gap between the opposing sides for me and will not encourage me to hold back my ridicule for nonsense such as expressed by Morris. The palpable disappointment in both Morris and Scott's voices regarding how each can be inspired by the Grand Canyon in such an opposing manner was proof to me that the chasm which exists between the two sides is as real as the Grand Canyon.

Other Comments by Logicel

23. Comment #28998 by Yorker on April 1, 2007 at 5:37 am

23. Comment #28983 by Logicel

"To criticize atheists who are on the combative front with these wingnuts on a daily basis just because they have not perfectly rebuted their nonsense is to say the least a bit dense. My big toe could not even fit into these atheists' shoes."

Can you clarify this? You said you would've barfed had you been Scott, but I don't understand your conclusion, did she do a good job against Morris or not? The part you heard seems to have expired on the 31st, I don't see the link and didn't hear the conversation.

Maybe I'm a bit dense!

Other Comments by Yorker

24. Comment #29005 by Yorker on April 1, 2007 at 6:31 am

Comments made earlier by Steve99, have prompted me to look further into the new direction Paul Davies is taking. There's no doubt that Paul's a very good physicist so I must make an effort to be fair in my comments about him. His new argument, still in his words, under development, is based upon the idea that there is some kind of purpose to the Universe. Perhaps this and his other statement that it would be pointless being a scientist if the Universe had no purpose, went a long way to his receiving the Templeton prize. It's difficult to see what else it might be since the argument is incomplete and unsubstantiated.

I suspect many scientists would disagree about the uselessness of their careers in a Universe without purpose! Indeed, why must the Universe have a purpose? There's no more likelihood of purpose than no purpose, so at best it's a 50/50 proposition, perhaps the most lucrative one yet made! I wonder if an atheistic billionaire would give me $1.2 million for producing a still half-baked idea that the Universe has no purpose! I don't think so. Of course, most would rightly argue that Davies past record played a part in the award, but had he come up with a new idea about the Universe that never mentioned purpose, I think his chances of getting the prize would've been similar to Richard Dawkins' chance – close to zero (sorry, Prof.).

I'm trying hard to find a way to recant my original "Judas-like" statement about him, but I still can't help feeling he's done science and his fellow scientists a disservice here. Sadly, other than the past pleasure his earlier books gave me, I can find no more positive things to say about Paul, so I shall say no more.

Other Comments by Yorker

25. Comment #29010 by steve99 on April 1, 2007 at 6:59 am

Yorker. I shan't go on much more, as I don't want to bore people... but I hope you won't mind one more comment.

As for 'purpose', well who are we to judge what that means, or to say it is or isn't likely? My impression of what Davies is moving towards is some sort of 'feedback loop', in which concious life picks certain universes out of the possibilities simply by existing in the future. This is probably hopelessly over-simplified, but indicates that by 'purpose' he is in no way suggesting 'divine purpose'.

I have to admit I am not a huge fan of Davies myself. (He seems to have an excessive fascination with singularies as if they were a place where 'magic' can happen, rather than simply indicating our theories are incomplete).

However, as I said, a recent award from the Royal Society suggests that far from doing science a disservice, his continuing contribution (although admittedly controversial in some ways) is highy valued.

Thanks for the discussion.

Other Comments by steve99

26. Comment #29019 by Yorker on April 1, 2007 at 8:01 am

Steve99,

Certainly I don't mind one more comment, but it virtually forces me to reply. First, I don't think Paul is trying to defend a "divine" purpose but the mere fact that he thinks purpose exists, lends weight to creationists whether you or I like it or not. Divinity is all they see and what they want, so they'll embrace any scientist who gives them the slightest leeway. Despite his Royal Society award, my brief research of his idea indicates that most of his peers are skeptical, that doesn't mean he's wrong of course, but it's not a good sign.

However, we have terminated this discussion on friendly terms which is always a good thing. It's also been a nice change from my somewhat perverse propensity to wind certain people up if I think fun can be obtained. :)

Other Comments by Yorker

27. Comment #29026 by Logicel on April 1, 2007 at 8:35 am

Yorker, Ah, it seems like this particular audio was for us similar to the proverbial elephant being touched by blind people--we both might have gotten the wrong end of the stick. However, based on the part of the elephant I touched, I would say Scott did an excellent job. Of course the bar she had to pass was as low as her either not barfing or throwing Morris over the edge of the Grand Canyon so maybe I am not being demanding enough of her.

When Morris started to press her about his problems with the scientific explanation of the Grand Canyon, she very wisely cut it short by saying that the scientific knowledge concerning the formation of the Grand Canyon was validated by substantial evidence. Apparently Morris thinks that only eye witness testimony to the formation of the Grand Canyon is good enough.

BTW, Morris stated that his grandfather started some kind of creationist institute, so he comes from a line of wingnuts and has such familial, emotional, and probably financial investment in his stance, that the only response was what the able Scott, who is very experienced dealing with his kind, gave him.

Other Comments by Logicel

28. Comment #29432 by Veronique on April 2, 2007 at 11:18 pm

Hi Yorker,

The reason I bought Davies 'The Goldilocks Enigma' and have yet to read it was because our Science Show, hosted by Robyn Williams, interviewed Davies, Barrow and Dawkins in the week that TGD was released in Australia. I want to give you the link to the interviews. You can't listen to it anymore but there is a transcript.

The idea that perked me up was Davies likening the start of the universe to hardware and the growth after the big bang to developing software, interconnected processes. I hope you find it enjoyable. (It was also the reason that I bought TGD of course. It was released at the end of that week to my joy). Then I found this website. Jolly good.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1777528.htm

I wouldn't be so hard on Davies either. He thinks the argument about whether or not a god created the universe and/or physical laws is irrelevant. This is from the interview; I have only dipped into the beginnings of his book. I already know I will enjoy and learn from it. Like Douglas Adams I come from an Arts background and devour books that teach me about science.

This thread really got you going didn't it?

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique