Fitz,

I disagree that the ID movement isn't creationist. It simply is repackaged, politically savvy creationism.

Follow the money, hell look at the Discovery Institutes's logo changes over the last two decades.

Agreed, also the court cases. ID isn't an answer to the philosophical problems, it's an answer to Edwards V. Aguillard.

Nope just too many like you.

Listen loops. 30 years ago, every single public school science classroom in the US was teaching darwin straight up matter of fact, and almost every single private one. And they had been doing it for 30 years before that. The biggest concession you would see is an option for parents to pull their kids out of those classes and give tham a different option (chemistry instead of bio maybe).

Compare that with today.

If it's so easy to beat them, then why the **** aren't you?

Just because we beat them doesn't mean people aren't dumb as **** and follow them anyway.

ID seems to be an attempt at a compromise by creationist trying to still insert god into the picture, and trying to say that 'were compromising see we you have to listen to us, compromises are good' totally ignoring the fact that science doesn't work like that

If it's so easy to beat them, then why the **** aren't you?

Because people are afraid of the dark.
Anyone that has actual interactions with the more sophisticated elements of ID/creationism recognize the real threat they pose. I've had very interesting conversations about this with both Massimo Pigliucci and Micheal Ruse on the topic (as well as Ruse's perceived appeasement). The reality is you don't get in a discussion with the DiscInstitute folks unless you're well aware of all their tricks. You can't just be a good scientist.

extroplations of schroedinger's cat, the uncertainty principle, the nature of electrons, the idea of superpositions, the results of the EPR experiment and the indeterminence of particle states before observation. especially the way observations cause things to 'fall out' of superpositions suggest that an observer of some kind is required for the universe to exist. I personally believe that the falling out could occur by other means which we don't understand yet, but I haven't ever read anything which successfully eliminates the need for an observer... yet.
although even if that was explained it would be impossible to disprove the deist's idea of a god, because god doesn't actually do anything in that view.

Pertaining to the "observer = god, so says QM" idea: it's bullshit.

The wavefunction (i.e. where a particle could be) can be complicated as hell, because the particle is a wave.

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/934/70017298.JPG

If I asked you "where is the wave?" You couldn't tell me. It's a wave.

Well that's where the particle is. When we look at it, we have to alter it. You can't detect something without touching it in some way, be it via photon (shining a light on it to see it) or having it hit a detector or something. Then the wave function collapses into a dirac delta function and now the wave function is some eigenstate. Because now we know where it was, therefore it no longer is "somewhere here" and doesn't follow a huge superposition of sines and cosines.

This of course dissipates again, but to assume "OH **** WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS = GOD DID IT!" is dumb fucking retarded.

Because people are afraid of the dark.
Anyone that has actual interactions with the more sophisticated elements of ID/creationism recognize the real threat they pose. I've had very interesting conversations about this with both Massimo Pigliucci and Micheal Ruse on the topic (as well as Ruse's perceived appeasement). The reality is you don't get in a discussion with the DiscInstitute folks unless you're well aware of all their tricks. You can't just be a good scientist.
That first line. Exactly right. That is exactly the kind of condescending bullshit that is why you lose. This guy (http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Politics-Right-Wrong-Doesnt/dp/0060558288) is trying to tell you how to win. I wish more would listen.

Pertaining to the "observer = god, so says QM" idea: it's bullshit.

The wavefunction (i.e. where a particle could be) can be complicated as hell, because the particle is a wave.

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/934/70017298.JPG

If I asked you "where is the wave?" You couldn't tell me. It's a wave.

Well that's where the particle is. When we look at it, we have to alter it. You can't detect something without touching it in some way, be it via photon (shining a light on it to see it) or having it hit a detector or something. Then the wave function collapses into a dirac delta function and now the wave function is some eigenstate. Because now we know where it was, therefore it no longer is "somewhere here" and doesn't follow a huge superposition of sines and cosines.

This of course dissipates again, but to assume "OH **** WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS = GOD DID IT!" is dumb fucking retarded. but it has to be interacted with for it to collapse and more speficically it has to measured otherwise it remains in a superposition, the need for measurement is where the idea of the observer. and its actually much more complicated than what you said, the particle is in a superposition of all the places where the wave function has value, in otherwords it is in all of those places at the same time, it is the act of measureing it which forces it to 'collapse' into a certain position, and the idea is not that the observer put it there, its that in order for the universe to exist as we believe it does matter has to be in a determinite state, which seems to be impossible without an observer, it's also possible that the universe could have developed to the state it is in, in a superposition, but no theory I've read or heard of illustrates how that would happen. this doesn't mean the god we normally think of, the Higgs field if its ever found could qualify, its not the personality most people think of.

extroplations of schroedinger's cat, the uncertainty principle, the nature of electrons, the idea of superpositions, the results of the EPR experiment and the indeterminence of particle states before observation. especially the way observations cause things to 'fall out' of superpositions suggest that an observer of some kind is required for the universe to exist. I personally believe that the falling out could occur by other means which we don't understand yet, but I haven't ever read anything which successfully eliminates the need for an observer... yet.
although even if that was explained it would be impossible to disprove the deist's idea of a god, because god doesn't actually do anything in that view.

Right. I'm familiar with the idea.

To my mind, it doesn't 'suggest' God at all. It's a plain, garden-variety gap that believers have filled with God.

It's like 'God of the gaps' meets Berkeley.

That first line. Exactly right. That is exactly the kind of condescending bullshit that is why you lose. This guy (http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Politics-Right-Wrong-Doesnt/dp/0060558288) is trying to tell you how to win. I wish more would listen.


Somewhat tongue and cheek. The persistence of religion, particularly fundamentalist views, in the face of contradictory facts is an interesting topic.

I tend to view the development of religion along the lines of the DS Wilson model (probably due to my sympathy for multilevel selection views) but view its persistence along the lines of Dawkins, that is religion is a parasitic meme (probably due to my own biases since I typically frown on the meme crap).

As for "winning", sympathizing and combining forces (as I'm guessing is discssed in the book linked to) is certainly one approach. However, I am unwilling to lend the implicit support to the corollary beliefs that such cooperation would necessitate. I participated in a discussion group awhile back focused on a publication by the world bank entitled "Faith in Conservation". I took a similar stance there. It sounds great to get mullahs involved in conservation and get conservation imposed via shari law. However I'm unwilling to pursue that course of action. I'm probably wrong but I've got few enough ethical guidelines I adhere to as it is.

How about we instead just teach logic and reasoning throughout the K-12 and things can go back to their former NOMA status pretty rapidly.

Right. I'm familiar with the idea.

To my mind, it doesn't 'suggest' God at all. It's a plain, garden-variety gap that believers have filled with God.

It's like 'God of the gaps' meets Berkeley. Basically yeah, right now its a problem theory has yet to successfully explain, but a being can be suggested as the solution, though I am convinced there is a better one.

I typically frown on the meme crap

And God bless you for this.

I typically frown at my wife when she says "god bless you" after I sneeze too.

but it has to be interacted with for it to collapse and more speficically it has to measured otherwise it remains in a superposition, the need for measurement is where the idea of the observer. and its actually much more complicated than what you said, the particle is in a superposition of all the places where the wave function has value, in otherwords it is in all of those places at the same time, it is the act of measureing it which forces it to 'collapse' into a certain position, and the idea is not that the observer put it there, its that in order for the universe to exist as we believe it does matter has to be in a determinite state, which seems to be impossible without an observer, it's also possible that the universe could have developed to the state it is in, in a superposition, but no theory I've read or heard of illustrates how that would happen. this doesn't mean the god we normally think of, the Higgs field if its ever found could qualify, its not the personality most people think of.

No, that's not it at all.

The particle is IN ONE PLACE. We just don't know where until we measure it. The best we know is where it could be. That's also why we have probabilities of finding particles, given a wave function. Because we can say where it is most likely.

The physics work at a subatomic level, that doesn't mean there needs to be someone for the physics to work.

It's like if I gave you a box that had a watch inside. You don't know what time it is until you open the box. That doesn't mean that the clock displayed every possible time all at once until you opened it.

I typically frown at my wife when she says "god bless you" after I sneeze too.

I was hoping your Irony Detector would be turned on.

I can never be sure.

There is an article in the most recent American Scientist regarding physics/cosmology and religion. Quite interesting. One aspect not fully discussed is the reality that with 10^1000 possibilities, string theory is really no different than religion in regards to generating untestable assertions. That and the anthrocentric requirement being misunderstood to be supporting anything metaphysical.

I'm not knowledgeable enough (or, likely, smart enough) to know crap about all that though.

I typically frown at my wife when she says "god bless you" after I sneeze too.

This is why I can never be married. I'd probably go off on her after a while, and eventually resort to physical violence. Then, when I woke up in the hospital, she'd throw the ring at my face.