Bush endorses Creation Science, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news5618.html

http://www.physorg.com/news5618.html

In sync with the President I purpose that along with Intelligent Design we should teach our children Alchemy and as legitimate alternative to Chemistry and Black Magic as an alternative to Physics. After all since we can"t explain all aspects of either subject and our knowledge of both are somewhat spotty my above sugestions are valid alternatives.

Lizardracer, did you post that to ruin a quiet evening? Bush has never been overly friendly toward the sciences. I understand wanting to have an opposing view to insert an alternative perspective, but sometimes there aren't two sides to an argument. Sometimes there is just right and wrong. Besides that, I've never understood why I.D. would have sponsorship from Christian groups. Genesis is the Christian view and doesn't resemble intelligent design that I can tell. Should there be a mass genesis for I.D. followed by an exodus from Christianity?

The statement by Marvin Cohen, president of the American Physical Society, that only scientifically validated theories should be taught in the nation’s science classes, is most encouraging, and deserves our unconditional support. However if he considers common descent from a simple beginning a scientifically validated theory, then he needs to be reminded of the inviolable Principle of Causality, stating that no cause can generate an effect greater than itself. If a simple beginning could cause greater complexity than itself, then it would invalidate the cause-and-effect relationship.

Because science is, above all else, about cause-and-effect relationship, the true test of a theory or explanation in science, and in philosophy as well, is the central question: Is the proposed cause of a phenomenon sufficient to bring about the effect attributed to it?

Most importantly, we have to keep in mind that the proposed cause of a phenomenon in question must be, in terms of value or qualities, proportional to the value and qualities of the phenomenon it caused. Again, we have to be reminded that any kind of cause cannot produce an effect greater than itself - i.e., no cause can give more than what it has. Or, whatever is in the effect, must be in the cause.

If we attribute to a cause an effect greater than itself, then the extra effect is without a cause, and could come only from nothing, which is contrary to reason and, by extension, to science. After all in reality we never get anything from nothing.

From the Principle of Causality necessarily follows that the actual cause of the universe cannot be less complex than the complexity of the universe, just as the parent seed of a tree cannot be less complex than the complexity of the tree it created.

Also the Principle of Causality tells us that when we try to derive the richness of life from a simple beginning, as Darwin did, we are deluding ourselves. We are trying to get from a simple cause what it clearly does not have, namely greater complexity.

The U.S. novelist, Margaret Deland (1857-1945), pertinently remarked: “A pint can’t hold a quart - if it holds a pint it is doing all that can be expected of it.” I suggest that evolutionist cosmologists and biologists should keep this fact in mind, as well as science teachers, unless they want to teach hocus-pocus.

In short, there is hardly anything more evident than the fact that the paradigm of evolution from a simple beginning to life's complexity violates the Principle of Causality, of the cause-and-effect relationship, which is ideally the cornerstone of science.

Because complexity's evolution from any kind of inferior cause is irrational, we have no choice but to postulate that the initial cause of the universe can be no lesser in qualities than what we find in the universe. Thus this logical inference from a highly complex effect to a cause no lesser than the effect itself points in the direction of an agent that we may call the Parent Seed, Common Ancestor, or Cosmic Genotype of the phenotype universe.

Put simply, when we reverse the expansion of the universe in time, what we find is not matter in a supercondensed state, but the Seed of the Universe in the midst of chaos. Based on the observation of nature's systems on smaller scales it is inferable that the Cosmic Seed, by acting on the inert fundamental particles of chaos, generated the cosmic structure for the production of seeds or output in its own image.

Because the existing highest form of life constitutes the cosmic system's input and output -- just as an acorn constitutes the mighty oak's input and output --, and because we know of no higher form of life than human life, the logical inference is that human life (or, if you wish, the human genome) generated the universe for the production of human life in its own image, just as a seed generates a tree for the purpose of self-reproduction.

Thus, whereas the theory of evolution posits common descent from a simple beginning, the scientific theory of creation posits common descent from the highest form of life that we know exists. As we have no confirmable evidence that a life form superior to human life exists, we are allowed to propose that human life constitutes the Seed of the Universe, pending the discovery of a superior non-human form of life.

Of course it is not mandatory to take it for granted that human life constitutes the Seed of the Universe. This theory of creation is testable and can be falsified. After all the proposed sole actor, namely human life, most definitely exists, and is available for observations and experiments.

In view of the claim that science only considers theories that can be falsified, we can challenge anyone to disprove the validity of this scientific theory of creation. Any person can prove it wrong by providing verifiable evidence establishing, among others, the following:

•Human life is not immortal;
•Human life is the product of lower forms of life;
•Human life did not exist prior to the universe;
•The universe is a closed system;
•Closed systems can generate open systems, i.e. living systems;
•Nonlife alone self-generated the universe and life;
•The generation of the first form of life by nonlife is observable and testable;
•The formation of structures is the basic quality of nonlife, not that of life;
•From a most simple beginning evolved life’s present complexity;
•Human life has the potential to generate life forms superior to itself;
•A life form superior to human life exists in fact;
•The cause of the universe can produce effects superior to itself because it is possible to get something from nothing.

Let me note that the seed of the universe is perpetual because the universe, being only the effect, is not in the position to act upon the cause of its own origin, just as a tree is not in the position to act upon the seed of its own origin. The effect’s action on the cause would constitute causality violation. However in the case of the universe the cosmic system’s human output, being the initial human input’s reproduction, has the potential to provide feedback to the initial input. That communication between the output and input is called “prayer.”

Most people who are serious about science recognize that rationality and the claims of evolution from a simple beginning are two different things.

So in essence the theory of creation is evolution's descent from a simple beginning turned upside down. It derives all things created from the highest known form of existence, which Common Ancestor is human life, pending the discovery of a superior nonhuman life form. In case we find that such a superhuman life exists in fact, then it will constitute the Seed of the Universe, and we'll be only one of the animals.

To conclude, contrary to what we are being told in the name of science, to the best of our knowledge human life constitutes the highest form of life, and it has never been observed or demonstrated in any way that at one time no human life existed, or that human life comes from lower forms of life and eventually from nonlife. Also, to the best of our knowledge, no non-human life exists which is superior to human life. So the evolutionist "simple beginning" idea for the origin of human life is just as irrational as the contention that God, or a life form other than human life, created life and human beings in its own image.

Please, not this cause and effect story.

I know for sure that If I smash two half spheres of subcritical enriched Uranium together, that the effect will be much bigger then the little deformation, the little heat and the small sound effect I would get as when I had used Lead.



ID is not science. Science tests its theories on models. And improves models based upon those tests and new theories. ID just says "It is God, now shut up"

Science uses facts, ID is based on Faith/believe, and faith has nothing to do in science.

Excellent point, and as far as I am concerned the end of the argument. The only "evidence" I have heard supporting ID is that there are gaps in our knowledge of evolution--"Well, how do you explain X? You can't? Ah, well that must mean God did it!"

And as far as the "theory" of ID goes, that is a little optimistic in my opinion. I would grant them "hypothesis" at best, especially when you consider the other scientific theories out there. If they can find as much evidence (and that means hard evidence...not "common sense" arguments they put forth) for their ideas as we have for the "theory" of general relativity I would be happy to put ID in the textbooks. Theory is not just a word...it has certain criteria that must be met, and one of those criteria is certainly NOT finding holes in competing theories. Those holes or inconsistencies are where you start your own hypothesizing.

I don't quite get the inviolable Principle of Causality. If the effect of something is more complex, then why must this extra complexiness come from the thin air? Isn't the 2. law of thermodynamics saying pretty much the opposite?

But anyway, I can't really see any big problems in teaching creationism in schools. As I see it, science is just human perception of the world around them. If this perception is religious, then why shouldn't science be?

After all, what difference would it make?

The funny thing is that Kazmer Ujvarosy is actually making a classical scientific argument for creationism. To me that looks self-contradictive. I think it will be an uphill battle to falsifie science itself with classical scientific reasoning. Creationism differs from classical scientific reasoning right down to the basic structure of the argumentation, as the comic neatly points out.

It all comes down to faith.

So... if you can come up with a scientific argument for faith, then I'll give you a standing applause.

Science is not just human perception of the world around us. Flat Earth theory is. Intelligent design isn't even that. It's creationism dressed up in a lab coat without the simple charm of sincerity. The creationists don't want equal billing. They want to do away with Darwinism and this is the best roadside bomb they've managed to wire together so far.

ID doesn't help anyone to make predictions about the universe. It raises more questions than it answers. I'm all for the discussion of alternatives to accepted theories, but teaching ID will only detract from science courses. Think our kids are falling behind in math and science now? Wait until ID is taught all over the US.

All ID is teaching children is that there's an easy way out of any scientific proof - put the blinders on and chalk it up to a supreme being. And if it sneaks into science classes, how long til they start clamoring for more time in history classes? ID is a foot in the door, and it makes me sick to think that so many children are going to be shortchanged like this.

Remember the cartoon showing a mathematical proof with "And then a miracle happened" as one of the steps? Soon teachers are going to have to accept that as a valid alternative to the "theory" of calculus.

No, science is not just human perception...science attempts to remove that variable as much as possible!!! That is why science has rigorous methods that try to eliminate variables such as perception-- I think it's blue, you think it's grey...which is it? Lets measure the wavelenghts to see who is right.

What difference would it make? Oh, I don't know...our future doctors, growing up thinking you don't really need evidence to proceed with removing my liver! After all, my perception tells me that's what's causing your melancholy. And my perception tells me you don't really need your liver anyway.

It is scary, that an institution, that is taking care of a large and larger part of the education of the next generation, starts teaching theology instead of learning students science.

Pol Pot with his Khmer Rouge did almost the same, but he just killed all the scientific educated people and reset the year to zero before re-education started. In this case it will go slower, but a more effective way though to make the USA a Theocracy.



Why are all those ID and Creationism supporters so annoyingly stupid. like little children with their fingers in their ears shouting that they can not hear you. The difference between Science and Religion is the difference between Fact and Faith. One can be tested over and over again, the other is heresay speculation.

The Apostel Thomas was a Scientist.

I am absolutely against teaching ID in schools. My objections, besides the total lack of scientific support, and that ID promotes religion, are two:

1) How in the hell are you supposed to "teach" ID? What the hell do you say? Will there be an intensive six-week session ending with a test on which you write "A higher power might have been involved in the creation of man and his world"? There is nothing to teach about creationism, unless you want to delve into the juicy details, bringing me to my second objection:

2) Which creation myth are you going to teach the kids? The Christian myth? The Hindu myth? The Sumerian myth? One of several hundred (or thousand) American Indian myths? What about the one I just came up with, that a giant sea turtle from the Andromeda galaxy was flying through our neck of the woods when it was hit by an asteroid, and it used the pieces of its shell that broke off to form the planets? There are probably hundreds of thousands of creation stories, one for every culture, each one made valid only because at least a few people believe in it. Unless you want the curriculum to involve "creation story of the day" or the test to have "write your own creation story!" on it, "teaching" ID will have to be biased towards a certain story (three guesses which one), which is RELIGIOUS.

Come on, GW: you should know better than anyone that evolution is valid! You're the clearest evolutionary link one could ask between man and monkeys.

When the Menonites reject science it comes with conviction. When the majority of fundamentalists drive home, pop in a CD of praise music while thawing dinner in the microwave, opposition to science doesn't have a lot of integrity. There is a duality there that is surely born of ignorance. Certainly president Bush knows smart bombs are not put together by prayer teams.

What's really...amazing...is how smart people (especially scientists) think they are. Guesses and theories have come and gone ever since the beginning of humanity. For someone to dream that they, in their tiny little instance of existance, can dream up and understand the creation of the universe...which is much more complex than their minds can imagine...is so utterly stupid that it boggles the mind.

If every human in existance throughout the stretch of time all worked together to make their guess, their combined theories would still end up being nothing but a worthless guess...which boils down to an opinion.

What form of arrogance can blind humans (who think themselves so utterly rational) into believing that as a tiny specks on a rock, they can use their atom sized brains to piece together and understand the marvels of the universe?

In my life as a scientist, I have more respect for my "Theory of the Arrogance and Foolish Pride of Scientists" than I have for anything Darwin or anyone else ever dreamed up. Spend some time looking through history, and you will see how every age had its "thinkers" who just knew that they knew everything...and then a few years later, the arrogant future generation labeled them as incompetent and unlearned as they labeled themselves as the smartest.

For those who think you are so smart, why don't you come up with some applied science instead of all of this philosophical theoretical worthless garbage? Why don't you figure out how to stop humans from ever dying? Not smart enough for that, huh?

Ahh - good call. Cause what we need is to have billions of people producing billions of children, none of whom will ever die.

Are you trying to characterize science as some sort of random guess? You label yourself a scientist, and yet you don't seem to have any understanding of how the scientific process advances knowledge.

You speak of scientists as if they're all very arrogant, while i see exactly the opposite. Most scientists - even those at the very top of their fields - are actually very humble. They understand that they're only really making incremental progress, and because of our flawed "atom sized brains", they may be headed in the wrong direction. What real scientist declares his theory completely unassailable? I just don't understand where your hostility is coming from.

And as to the "do something useful" statement - you see harnessing ZPE as worthless? How about fusion? What about understanding the way animals breed, the way they affect their environment, the way the EVOLVE? These "utterly stupid" ideas help us to better understand the universe - to better understand our world and our own impact on it. They help us understand how we can progress as a species, and for some of us it gives us a feeling of awe. These fantastic ideas (which could be way off) inspire new generations to tackle the same problems to refine our knowledge, and encourage people to examine other fundamental questions.

It's unbelievably short sighted to simply label theoretical work as useless.

You're right - maybe this generation won't have the answers to the questions the universe provides for us. So since we can't get it perfectly right, we might as well just give up.

Hello, all -

Your statement above is false on several levels - are you then claiming that massively cooperative behavior is a violation of causality? One post mentioned the 2nd Law, which is ENTIRELY applicable here. No violation of the 2nd law so everything is just peachy fine.

hello, Shocked -

I personally am shocked that you could make such ignorant statements. In fact, humans have done a great job of extending the human lifespan from approximately 30 yrs in 2000 b.c.e. to approximately 76 today. So far, WE scientists have done this through good ol' fashioned science - proper nutrition, discovery of vitamins, discovery (and subsequent avoidance) of toxins, discovery and exploitation of bacteria......

In fact, you don't even know how to properly use the definition of "theory" in your post. You also are not likely a scientist, since you haven't been keeping up w/ the remarkable advances w/r/t the C. elegans genome - how about a 14-fold increase in their lifespans??? How about new discoveries in mutation curves, yet another of the copious examples of evolution?

Nature 430, 679-682 (5 August 2004)

among many many others...Guesses (hypotheses) can either be disproven or fail to be disproven, pure and simple. Perhaps this is again something else you have forgotten from your college days...

ID is a total joke, since it is inherently unprovable. I will give you just a few examples of how LOUSY the human body design really is:

- embryoes are parasitic on the human female body, to the point where death or serious injury can and does occur due to pre-ecclampsia or full-blown ecclampsia, pregnancy-induced diabetes, etc.
- recently it has been estimated that over 65% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion due to the chronic failure of enzyme E3, w/r/t sex chromosome separation. Think about how profound that is for all you nutjob IDers out there - more babies have been spontaneously aborted in-utero than have ever lived on the planet - ever.
- telomeres - need I say more??
- over 60% OF ALL proteins manufactured by the human body are faulty and never leave the cytoplasm. Instead, they are tagged by ubiquitin and redigested.
- When the body gets injured, tissues swell to rush fluids (lymph, interstitial fluids, blood, etc.) to the affected site. TOOOOOOO BAD this same technique doesn't work w/ cranial trauma, due to the only slightly subtotal enclosure of the brain. Intracranial pressure (ICP) is the number one cause of death following blunt force head trauma.

Wake up and smell the formaldehyde, people, ID CANNOT BE PROVEN and the pseudoscience tenets it proffers CAN EASILY BE DISPROVEN.

- STILL gleefully spinning solids