Theory Of Intelligent Design Version 3.5, Now makes origins prediction!

It just keeps getting better all the time! And the blog now has a Q&A to answer common questions.

RealityCheck quote!

RealityCheck and everyone, photojack has seen it... so here goes:

Gary Gaulin, How many different versions of this nonsense are you going to promulgate on us? Every time we post some real science, you jump in with a revised version of your cr@p! As someone who has helped edit and index a true peer-reviewed scientific journal and has dealt with the process in an intimate manner, your "Theory of Intelligent Design (Version X.X)" would go straight into the rejection bin so fast it would be a blur! Your first paragraph is one of the longest and most egregious examples of a run-on sentence I have ever witnessed. And it includes the totally ridiculous, unsupported phrase, "best explained by an intelligent cause." Every serious scientist on this planet, from every diverse discipline within the sciences would oppose that with every ossified structural member in their body.

Gary Gaulin quote.

Are you serious? Care to re-read that and tell us what you mean? What about the classic example of human arm and hand bones being morphologically similar to seal flippers, the "wings" of bats and porpoise flippers?

Gary Gaulin quote. (())

Gary, there are plenty of multicellular life forms that exist without sex at all, let alone any "intelligence" to find "desirable" mates! I knew more biology than that in the third grade! How can you possibly make a statement that shows that level of ignorance as an adult? It's incomprehensible to me that anyone could get through our educational system with such an abysmal level of understanding. ...And YOU of all people, are trying to propose a hypothesis that you hope to replace the best and only model that is the core of all biological understanding with, namely evolution? Don't make us laugh too hard! I can safely predict that you will be doomed to perpetual failure no matter how many revisions you attempt. Evolution is as firmly entrenched as any concept man has formulated. Since 1859 no one has budged it one iota. Indeed, all the new fossil discoveries and new species discovered in the intervening time have only bolstered it further. You'll be beating your head against a brick wall for as long as you live, or until you finally give it up, whichever comes first!

Edit: I had to answer this in both places Gary posted it!

This post has been edited by photojack on Sep 6 2008, 08:14 AM

I think you need to be a little careful here. I don't wish to get hung up at this stage on esoteric semantics, but 'intelligent' is a powerful and complex word with more connotations and referents than a Berlin whore has phone numbers.

The apparent tendency of the Universe to generate complexity to the point that the Universe can contemplate itself might be considered an expression of 'intelligence'. I grant you there is the little difficulty of causality there, but there are plenty of time-space geometries that permit closed time like curves, so perhaps that problem can be resolved.

At any rate I suggest there are several serious scientists who could contemplate the possibility that things might be explained by an intelligent cause, though not best explained.

I think the support for the statement is there, by the way, in the rest of the sentence. It is just so badly written it isn't readily visible.

Harzburgite

But intelligence is the RESULT, not the CAUSE of evolution.

But not the time/space geometry we are in, and that is the one we have to deal with. In fact, it is the only one that we have definitive evidence of actual existence, the rest are speculative, at best.

Grumpy

Grumpy, this is why I specifically anticipated and addressed the causality issue.

Correct. That is the one I am dealing with too. These theoretical/mathematical descriptions of our space-time that appear to allow for a time travel. Matt Visser describes them as standard, but temporally ill-behaved space-times.

Godel’s cosmology.
Van Stockum spacestimes/tippler cylinders/
Kerr and Kerr-Newman geometries
Gott’s time machines
Wheeler wormholes (spacetime foam)
Morris-Thorne traversable wormholes
Alcubierr ‘warp drive’ space times

I am not saying this is reality, I am saying our current understanding of cosmology and the mathematics of space time neither precludes time travel, nor - by extension - the scenario I have summarised earlier.