Today, the NY Sun quotes the AP as reporting that states that a number of state attorneys general intend to file suit in federal court in NYC against five power producers to force them "to cut carbon dioxide emissoins and curb global warming." Among those AGs is NY's Eliot Spitzer whose spokesman is quoted as saying that the lawsuit would "for the first time, put global warming on the litigation map."

Hmmm. In light of the evidence that global warming is a hoax, does this mean that the AGs will be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous and baseless action? I can dream, can't I?

No, Spitzer is acting shrewdly: when the facts aren't on your side, go to court and make some law that supports you. Only in court does the standard of proof fall to the point where people who can't understand the expert witnesses are the final judges of the facts. That's why so many personal injury lawyers are rich: they know that they don't have to have the facts on their side.

Re the title of this thread:

(rant)

DO you HAVE to turn everything into Darwin-bashing?

Are you physically or genetically capable of passing up ANY opportunity to bash Darwin? Like that Calvary Chapel preacher on the radio years ago who had to put a snide dig denouncing Star Wars into each and every sermon?

Is there anything to Christ other than "WE HATE EVOLUTION"? Will God and Christ suddenly cease to exist if evolution is valid? (Corollary is that this makes Darwin greater than God if one of his ideas can destroy the very existence of God.)

Ken:

It's simply wrong.

Darwinism has to be wrong, or Orrin's whole intellectual and moral concept collapses around him.

A tough situation to be in, to be sure.

But it's a self-inflicted wound, sort of like the prediction of anthropogenic global warming.

In the 13th century, an ignorant man, who had never examined the natural world, declared that the natural world would enhance the glory of God.

That was both premature and illogical, but most of Christendom signed on.

Once the natural world was closely examined, which did not start until around 1750, it turned out that it did not enhance God's reputation at all. If the Universe was his doing, he must have been both clumsy and cruel.

People drew conclusions.

Same with warming. The causes of the modest variations in climate that Earth undergoes would be interesting to know, but we don't know them; yet ignorant men jumped to conclusions about greenhouse forcing without first examining the world.

A closer look suggests they were wrong. It isn't quite nailed down yet, but the more we know, the more evident it seems that the remarkable thing about climate is not its variability but its stability.

Anyhow, Darwinism is safe from philosophical attack. Only new evidence can challenge it, and since none of Darwinism's opponents have a clue about where to look for new evidence, nothing is going to change soon.

As Ernst Mayr says it has nothing to do with scientific evidence, just philosophical concepts. They shift periodically. Darwinism appears about ready to fall to such a shift.

"In principle, biology differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don't know exceptions so I think it's probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.

Now then you can say, how can you have theories in biology if you don't have laws on which to base them? Well, in biology your theories are based on something else. They're based on concepts. Like the concept of natural selection forms the basis of, practically the most important basis of, evolutionary biology."

You ignore that he says physical laws underlie the 'population thinking' that is required to analyze living systems.

If it were true that a paradigm shift is about to happen, then somebody would be presented evidence about how Darwinism does NOT work.

Nobody is presenting any such evidence.

I don't much care for the word 'emergent' to 'explain' the increase in the level of complexity that you get with, eg, a bigger brain; but I don't have a better word to suggest. 'Emergent' explains nothing, it just describes.

However, description is the beginning of science. If Aquinas had bothered to get out of the library and describe anything, he would not have gotten you into this pickle.

If you think the paradigm is about to shift, you should be able to point to anomalies in the structure of Darwinism equilvalent to the anomalies in physics, where relativity and quantum theory are both apparently well attested but also apparently contradictory.

There is something profoundly unsettling about the interpretation of physics experiments. Nothing similar exists within the theoretical framework of Darwinism. There are no gaping contradictions, no parallel, competing lines of experiments.

Or, if you think there are, name some.

Despite Harry's admirable skepticism about anthropogenic global warming, there is NO such widespread doubt in the scientific community. Read any article in Nature or Science (to say nothing of "softer" publications such as Scientific American) and the factual basis of human-induced warming is never doubted. The book reviews of such topics in the past few years have become unbearable, with doubters treated as usually being tools of evil Republican corporate interests. Harry will hopefully see the irony in the fact that nearly all physical scientists of today would see him as at least as much of a heretic who must be suppressed as those poor deluded pre-rational Christians he is so obsessed with.

Harry:

There is no such evidence because there's no evidence on the other side. All we're dealing in is concepts and the Darwinism concept appears only to work in systems where intelligent decision making occurs--which is, of course, where he got it from: free market economics.

Steven Milloy, writing books and with a website, has been exposing the "global warming" scam for years now.
http://www.junkscience.com/
Mike Daley

I was going to make a responsible and grownup response to brian, but now I'm laughing so hard I can't think straight.

Went to Amazon to check the title of Pat Michaels' latest book, and their 'plog' (my first encounter with that) suggested that I'd be interested in reading Clinton's 'My Life' because I had also ordered 'The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible.'

What am I to make of that? That I belong to a subclass of book buyers who seek out books of uncertain veracity?

(The book, by the way, is 'The Satanic Gases,' and in it Michaels develops a long, not entirely persuasive argument that the balance among research papers (about 90:10 pro anthropomorphic GW) argues strongly for a 'who knows yet?' lack of consensus, because the fact that 10% anti papers get through such hostile peer review must mean that their research is really strong. Sort of meta-analysis carried to absurd extremes. But, anyhow, despite the editorial tone of politicized popular science magazines, the state of thought in the climate community is not settled. Ditto physics. It is in the biological community.)

Of course physics and the other hard sciences are experiment and proof driven, while biology has articles of faith.

Harry, if peer-review worked the way you seem to think it would pretty much undermine your faith in science as a means to best discover "truth" by testing and comparing competing theories. Of course it doesn't, as can be seen by the fact that numerous papers get published in perfectly respectable astronomy journals dealing with the steady-state cosmology, and most of these must be being reviewed by people who are convinced that the conclusions of the paper are all wrong.

I won't even address your comment implying that Nature and Science are "popular science magazines", which is nonsense. If you wish to test the question at hand (whether the physical science community in general believes that it is a proven fact that human activity is contributing to global climate warming), why don't you ask some astrophysicists from Mees Solar Observatory or any of the other telescopes on Haleakala what their impression of the current situation is?

Brian:

If you want to see an authoritative discussion of the merits of human-forced GW, go to intellicast.com and see the Dr. Dewpoint series of articles.

I think what you are seeing among most scientists is the "precautionary" approach. That is, if the consequences of a given theory are sufficiently bad, then it is best to accept it as true even if there isn't yet sufficient evidence, and even if it might eventually be proved wrong.

On a related note, a couple days ago there was some news coverage about a report showing the oceans have sequestered about 50% of the excess (that is, human produced) carbon dioxide over the last two-hundred or so years. That means two things: GW theory is right, even if none of its predictions ever pan out. And now we have to curb CO2 emissions to prevent pH changes from destroying the oceans. (no, I don't agree, but just watch.)

RE: Darwin.

I have no doubt that Darwinism, particularly the simplistic caricature OJ likes to trot out, is wrong in the sense that it is incomplete. Darwin knew nothing about DNA or viruses, so how could it be otherwise?

The fundamental question is whether evolution (that is, the obvious changes in life on Earth that nearly everyone--including OJ but excluding Bible literalists--agrees has occurred) is explainable solely through material mechanisms, whatever they might be, or requires some sort deus ex machina.

OJ's world view collapses utterly if there is no deus ex machina, which accounts for his anti-Darwinian vitriol.

Unfortunately for OJ's world view, there is no known system exhibiting both recursion and variation that, absent any outside intervention, does not self modify over time.

None.

Now unless OJ can demonstrate how life is either non-recursive, or exhibits utterly no variation, then in order have any place for a deus ex machina, somebody had better demonstrate precisly why natural history is a stark exception to all the other (and there are very, very many) known recursive systems.

Matter does nothing until it is observed and the observation changes it. Mind precedes matter despite the materialist hope that the opposite was true. That's where the brief dead end of the Age of Reason breaks down. Hume had made it pretty clear hundreds of years ago, but physicists are rendering the point unquestionable.

OJ:

Nice dodge, taking Zeno's paradox (one of them anyway): if a tree falls and no one hears it, did it make a sound? one step further to asserting no trees fall unless someone notes their falling.

Now you may choose to believe that nothing happens unless humans observe it, just like the legend that ostriches bury their head in the sand.

But you should at least consider the possibility that the material universe exists and does what it does regardless of our observation or knowledge.

I fully understand that there might be no such thing as existence as we perceive it. If so, you are hoisted on your own petard whilst leaving materialism untouched. After all, non-existence is also a material fact worth knowing, if true.

But back to the original point: if there are no known recursive systems that don't self modify, why should Natural History be the first?

Jeff:

Yes that was the possibility we just wasted four hundred years on--it turned out not to be the case. Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and the anthropomorphic universe all suggest subjectivity rather than objectivity. That this meshes neatly with several thousand years of Judeo-Christianity and Western philosophy seems pertinent.

I agree with you--existence is a system.

Suggest?

I suggest you investigate further how quantum mechanics becomes indistinguishable from newtonian mechanics at scales larger than atomic and speeds less than relativistic.

Your notion of subjectivity is utterly indistinguishable from objectivity, which in turn suggests that objectivity just might be the case, no matter how much violence it does to your religious beliefs--not that subjectivity is less threatening.

So your argument (and note that you begin from subjectivity "I, Jeff argue") is that our observation of sub-atomic particles alters them but that it has no effect on atomic particles and larger? Kind of like removing the bricks from a buildings base won't affect the soundness of the structure?

OJ:

No. I am asserting you have no real idea what Shrodinger and Heisenberg demonstrated, and that you should become rather better informed before invoking your argument. Regarding Shrodinger, you need to gain some understanding of wave functions, and their solutions at various scales. Similarly for Heisenberg. Until you know precisely what physical quantities uncertainty applies to, and the degree of that uncertainty with respect to scale, you are best served not using him, either.

"... and note that you begin from subjectivity "I, Jeff argue")"

And note, my subjectivity was in fact a suggestion you take a certain action, and was in no way an argument.

"my suggestion"

Well, you have lost me with this "suggest" stuff. It is it suggestive of anything that your response has nothing to do with the point at hand?

The point is that your observation creates the "reality". The hope of materialists for an objective reality has failed.

OJ:

I'm very happy for you, but that isn't the point.

Taking objective reality axiomatically (pick either of the first two definitions in the dictionary): "Now unless OJ can demonstrate how life is either non-recursive, or exhibits utterly no variation, then in order have any place for a deus ex machina, somebody had better demonstrate precisly why natural history is a stark exception to all the other (and there are very, very many) known recursive systems."

Well, you've already yielded the point when you're reduced to sayiong that we can only take objective reality axiomatically. However, we're in complete agreement that natural history works like every other recursive system we've created.

There are said to be 10 to the 80th power particles in the Universe. We don't observe very many of them, so the objective reality of the rest of them may be beyond our knowing, but that doesn't mean they are not there.

Harry:

No, if they do exist it merely means someone else observes them--indeed, He observes all, thereby Creating reality.

OJ:

Wrong again.

Those systems, however created (, self modify over time without any external input, or without any goal.

Why should natural history be any different? No reason you have brought up. In fact, your instant resort to sophistry is very telling. So even if some God got it all started, there is utterly no requirement for further involvement. Darwin does not kill God, it just kills your subjective notion of God.

Further, to a materialist, the question of existence is irrelevant. To a religionist, it is essential: how else can you be fallen, or have God-given rights unless you have corporeal existence?

Oh, and one other thing. Please do learn a bit more about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics before making any more such assertions as you made above.

"created"

As support for a material claim you made about a material process, that is wholly inadequate.

But unsurprising.

It was your claim: "systems, however created (, self modify over time without any external input, or without any goal"

By focusing on a particular word choice, the contextual meaning of which bore not the slightest resemblance to your interpretation, your reply amounted to nothing more than sophistry. Besides "... however created ..." scarcely qualifies as a claim. Further, you again failed to address the original point.

Along the course of this thread you make a material claim about a material phenomena, misuse material concepts to deny the material existence of the very thing you are making material claims about, which, ironically, has the effect of undermining your own religious beliefs far better than I ever could, even presuming I want to.

The whole subject of Evolution seems to cause your otherwise very high standards to analytical argumentation to descend to that place the Left occupies.

Jeff:

There is no basis for religious faith.

So what.

You made material claims--time to back them up.

What claim?

Four claims, actuall.

It's simply wrong.

Matter does nothing until it is observed and the observation changes it.

Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and the anthropomorphic universe all suggest subjectivity rather than objectivity.

your observation creates the "reality".

Oh.

Darwinism is wrong.

Physcis tells us #2

That's what they say.

That's simple philosophy.

Let's start with your original assertion, Darwinism is wrong. Whether it is wholly wrong, correct but incomplete, or, or completely correct, the pivotal issue so far as you are concerned is whether the processes behind Natural History are externally driven, or self contained and goalless.

I assert that Natural History is a recursive system characterized by variation. All such systems change over time absent external direction. So whether Darwin was precisely right on how recursion works on Natural History, in order to ground your assertion, rather than hoping to make it true through repetition, it would be very helpful if you would explain precisely what stops Natural History from behaving like all other recursive systems, or precisely why it isn't a recursive system.

Jeff:

No, that's not even a significant issue. If we were going to Create a universe today we'd likely use a recursive system, no?

OJ:

There you go, answering a question other than the one asked. I suspect you would be a natural politician.

You baldly stated Darwinism is wrong, as opposed to incomplete. Essential to your position is demonstrating how life on Earth is not a recursive system, or if it is, how it doesn't behave like all the others.

You are in line for a Nobel if you can prove one or the other. I'm all eyes.

"the pivotal issue so far as you are concerned" No, it isn't.

Life on Earth behaves like free market economics except that it speciates too. Darwin noticed the first but failed to explain the second.

It would be helpful to expand on 'darwinism is simply wrong' by explaining which of its many parts does not work in the fashion that darwinians say they do.

OJ:

Oh yes it is. You base any number of conclusions upon Darwinism's--and by extension any goal-free endogenous process governing Natural History--material falseness. If non-teleological processes didn't so upset your applecart, you would care no more about Darwinism than Thermodynamics.

Never mind that, though. "Darwinism is simply wrong" does not gain truth through sheer repetition. You need to provide a foundation for that assertion, or risk comparison to the Hard Left's reasoning skills.

As a first step to proving non-teleological evolution wrong, you need to demonstrate how Natural History is not a recursive system. It would also help to keep in mind that ecnomoics is an endogenous, non-teleological, recursive system.

Jeff:

I agree. Evolution within species is identical to economics. Darwin did after all just borrow his ideas from economists like Smith and Malthus.

OJ:

Your ability to completely avoid the point is utterly Kerry-esque.

Absent some details--after all, Darwin knew nothing of DNA--Darwin established the point of view that evolution could be adequately explained without appeal to a deus ex machina. So, in order to support the statement "Darwin is simply wrong" you need to demonstrate either how Natural History is not recursive, or how Natural history, despite being recursive, does not behave as such.

It is. It's identical to economics.

So I take it then, that far from being simply wrong, Darwin correctly explained evolution in its entirety.

No. It's identical to economics--dependent on intelligent decision making, designed, and there's no speciation.

God doesn't need to intervene in order to create new species aka "deus ex machina." The whole universe is a deus ex machina. All the matter, all the energy, all the physical laws and all the moral laws are his creation. His constanst intercession is required for it to remain in existence.

OJ:

How do you know there has been no speciation? (Never mind that economics is rife with speciation's analog, and the intelligent decision making of which you speak is endogenous)

Mike:

How was God created? If your reply is that God has always existed, why does not that reply also suffice for the universe?

The decisions to establish the economy aren't. If all you mean by speciation is something similar to what occurs in an economy then you're right, it happens all the time for the same reasons and by the same design.

Jeff:

Because there was a Creation/Big Bang. The Universe is not God.

OJ:

Once again, you are avoiding the point.

How do you know there has been no speciation?

You say so often enough, I was hoping you could provide some proof to back up your statement.

Observation.

Not good enough.

Precisely how many species were there, say, 3,000 years ago? Precisely how many extinctions have there been since? Precisely how many species are there now?

If you can't answer all of those questions, then what you have is no clue, not an "observation."

You would find that sort of thing unacceptable from the Left; why is it OK when you do it?

There was speciation. It just doesn't occur through natural selection. Darwinism is wrong.

OJ:

That doesn't become true through force of repetition. Evidence, please.

Jeff

Revelation and Faith.

And if you ask me to prove those by the scientific method, by reason; all I have to say is "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I think you can take to the Bard to the bank on that one.

Or do you believe all questions can be answered by the scientific method and reason?

Mike:

They have to believe that, it's their faith.

Mike:

No, I don't, not even close. But that isn't the issue here. I do expect that when making a material assertion, there is some sort of evidence behind it.

OJ has said many times that Darwinism is disproved because there has been no new species in all of human history. Ignoring for the moment the vanishingly small time scale involved (properly speaking, only since Linneaus), OJ has made a bald material assertion that begs material evidence.

Or do you believe that any agreeable answer to a material question is good enough?

Jeff

Your use of "deus ex machina" was what got me started in this thread not your argument with OJ about Darwinism.

But I'll address that too. My short answer is: Evolution - yes, Darwinism - no.

My long answer, based on reason, is that:

The earth is old, billions of years old.

Life on earth is old, billions of years old.

There were species alive in the past which are not alive now. Thus we deduce the process of extinction.

There are species alive now which were not alive in the past. Thus we deduce that there is a process of origination.

What are the hypotheses that account for this process?

A. Darwinism - Darwin was wrong.

B. Neo-Darwinian synthesis - In my opinion unlikely.

C. Extra-terrestial aliens performing genetic engineering - In my opinion unlikely; though no more unlikely than B.

D. A miracle performed by God, like turning water into wine - In my opinion unlikely. The history of miracles shows He only performs them when He wants to make a point.

So I don't know how species originated. I await further data.