You're right on about MS being just as bad. People tend to forget that MS doesn't *need* a rootkit. Windows is its own rootkit, when you're the one writing the OS!
That said, though, Sony was very wrong for releasing such a nasty piece of software. If I put a CD in my machine and it installs spyware, I'm going to be PISSED.
As for being a hypocrite, though, it's really unavoidable. The world is too complex to always behave consistently, and nobody has time to keep track of every issue even within their own specialty. Boycotts can be powerful, but they have to be focused in order to make a difference -- and that may mean putting on the blinders to other issues.
Me? I'm boycotting the 360 (fat difference it'll make, though) but I'm reserving judgement on the PS3 until we get closer to the release. Not because I like Sony, but because I've got more current (and arguably much more important) issues to concern myself with. I'm not "allied" with a company if I buy a said company's product even though I disagree with their business practices. Such an action may be hypocritical, but it's due to my own inability to be perfect rather than some kind of evil pact. I don't have an infinite amout of time to make sure that all of my actions are perfectly consistent. Nobody does -- we all have to pick our battles.
No, it's not just about seeing past the lie. It's also about seeing the harm caused by the lie. If the majority of people on the planet were living a harmless lie that would be one thing, but the fact that their unsubstantiated assumptions cause them to make irrational decisions that affect my life really pisses me off. Oh, to live in a world where everyone had to justify their opinions before forcing them on others.
Cutting out the middleman is good, but steam also takes control out of the hands of the customers (us). I'm not buying a game that requires a phone home to install, and that forces software updates. *I'll* decide what patches I want to run with, thank you very much. I would also prefer not to run a simulated steam server or crack my game so I can install it when Valve's server is down.
Do what you want, but I wrote introversion and told them straight up that I'll be buying Darwinia before it goes to steam exclusively (dec 14) but that they're losing me as a potential customer in the future.
I didn't mean it as a troll, it's something that I'm legitimately concerned about. I don't give a shit about soft drinks, but I happen to enjoy video games. Sure, all corporations are only out for themselves, but MS has a pretty consistent track record when it comes to muscling its way in with heaps of cash and then dominating the market. My first thought when I heard about the XBox was, "Oh shit, in ten years there will be nobody else." That wasn't based on their technical specs, or on what games were coming out, it was based on the way that MS fights.
Oh well, with all the Slashdotters excited about it I know this is a lost cause. The competition that MS is fostering is a good thing in the short run -- I just hope it lasts.
Me personally, I'm not getting an XBox. Maybe it will have some fun games, but the risk isn't worth it.
The entire package of the 360, the games, the service (xbox live) and the experience is going to make for one hell of a system.
Yeah, so wake me up when somebody besides Microsoft makes one. Owning a hell of a system is not worth having them expand their monopoly to include the console market.
Go ahead, deny that the XBox is marketed towards kids! Go ahead! Deny it!
Who do you think the "mature" rating appeals to? Adults don't give a shit what the game is rated, any more than they go see a movie just because it's rated R. Fourth graders brag about seeing R rated movies, but adults don't even look at the rating. The Incredibles and The Big Lebowski are both good movies, and as an adult I don't have to distinguish between them based on how many swear words they contain. It's irrelevant.
When video game advertising brags about how "mature" a game is, or shows "cool" 20 year olds playing the system with their "hip" friends, who do you think will respond? The answer: 12 year olds who want to fit in. Adults find it laughable, and will judge the game on its own merits. Yes, Nintendo's marketing appeals to kids too, because kids are suckers. Arguing that "Nintendo is for kids" is going to require more than saying "the GC is marketed towards kids." It's a pointless statement.
The problem with the question that you propose is that it's designed to fail: "Apart from a creator, how do you explain how this got here?"
That is NOT the question that I asked. Please try to follow my argument carefully, or we'll get nowhere. Look at my perspective -- I see you as blinded by your preconceived ideas, and I'm trying to get you to confront them. Of course you'll disagree with my perception, but if you're really sure of yourself then you'll open your views up to critical analysis. From my perspective, you seem to want to be open minded, but you (either purposefully or not) keep driving us off onto tangents. If you don't really want to think about this then please let me know, and we'll both save a lot of energy.
So, back to the point, the question wasn't "find an explanation apart from a creator," it was "show some evidence that it was a creator". Don't assume that there has to be an answer, either. We're starting from a position of ignorance. It's better to admit that we don't know the answer than to mislead ourselves into believing something that is unlikely to be true. Nothing is more deadly in trying to understand the world than to build upon shaky foundations.
Now, listen carefully -- you think that you presented some evidence of a creator, but you did not. Seriously. Look at what you said:
It is known, for example, through scientific inquiry, that cell interactions are complex and interdependent, and that complex structures such as the eye are finely tuned for a specific purpose. Both of these are evidence for Intelligent Design.
No, they are not. Repeat, they are not. You can say that they're arguments against evolution if you want, but that does NOTHING to support Intelligent Design. You're looking at features of the physical world and coming up with an explanation, but you can't distinguish that explanation from the infinite number of other explanations that exist. Just for thought, let's come up with another explanation. Say, for example, that our universe is nested inside of a meta-universe, and that meta-universe invisibly influences our universe. Is it not possible that purely deterministic laws in that universe somehow cause certain structures to form in our universe? You can make up any kind of magical laws you want for the meta universe in order to make it work. Voila, you have a competing explanation. Which is right, the deterministic meta-universe or the intelligent creator? How about the highly improbable (but still possible) possibilty that the entire universe takes on a new, completely random form periodically, and ours just formed 10 minutes ago? Isn't this completely possible? Unlikely, yes, but possible. Maybe every possible configuration of the universe (including ours) exists simultaneously. Therefore our universe would *have* to exist, and would not need to have been "designed."
Do you see the problem yet? These are a whole class of explanations that share a common feature -- you can't distinguish between them. There is no test to see which is more likely to be true, because they are not materialistic explanations. They do not attempt to explain the universe in terms of itself. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that we can't entertain any of these explanations. Sure, any one of them *may* be true, but since there are an infinite number of them any particular one is infinitely unlikely to be the true one.
So, when I ask for evidence of a creator, I mean material evidence. You're telling me that a creator is possible, but you're not telling me that a creator is likely. This is why the Kansas school board had to redefine science in order to get intelligent design into their science classes. In real science, only materialistic arguments have any weight. You can create a new branch of science that does not require materialistic evidence, but I guarantee that you'll quickly meander away from an accurate description of the physi
I'm starting to doubt your sincerity a bit, so I'm going to force you to get to the real point of this discussion.
I'll throw out the chimp argument and while I'm at it I'll toss the whole theory of evolution. Let's assume that the theory of evolution does not exist, or has been discredited or something. Now, we witness the existence of life on earth. You claim that ID is a scientific theory that explains the existence of life. I say that your theory is not scientific. What evidence do you have that you can convince me with? I looked briefly at the site you referenced, but all I could find were attacks on evolution. Either give some evidence in your own words, or link to a page with a specific piece of evidence.
I've asked this question about 5 times now, so if you don't have an answer, I'll assume that you don't have one.
Have you heard the common complaint that ID is not a theory, it is merely an attack on existing theory? You're just proving my point by arguing about my evidence rather than presenting any evidence of your own! We can battle back and forth all day with arguments about evidence in support of evolution, but that does nothing to change the fact that evolution is a scientific theory (or would you seriously argue that there is absolutely *no* evidence for evolution?) and ID is *not* a theory.
The primary reason why nobody listens to ID proponents is because they don't present anything that supports their proposition. You're attacking my evidence, but you have no evidence to attack!
I've pressed you on this issue several times, but unless I missed it you've never responded. Either present at least 1 clear piece of evidence that supports the conjecture that life was "created" or admit that ID is not a scientific theory.
There is a ton of evidence that animals evolved from other animals. All mammals have the same bones, human embryos have tails, we share 98% of our DNA with chimps, we've found fossilized ancestors of whales that lived on land, we've found the remains of a whole chain of human ancestors that display gradually changing physical traits going back to stooping hairy small-brained big-browed apelike creatures. Where did all of this evidence come from? There are an infinite number of explanations, but I can only think of one that makes any sense.
Now, I take this as evidence that animals *did* come from other animals. It is in no way *proof* that animals came from other animals, but it is *evidence* that they did. There is *no* evidence, as far as I know, that anything anywhere was created by a supreme being. I challenge you to come up with any evidence at all. The fact that I exist is *NOT* evidence that I was created -- there are an infinite number of possible explanations. The fact that 98% of my DNA is the same as a chimp's, however, is physical evidence that must be of some importance. The fact that I can construct a tree showing how closely related I am to each other living organism based on DNA similarity is also pretty interesting.
OK, so maybe you think this evidence is weak. Whatever. You don't have to believe it, but if you're going to argue another possiblity (like creation) you have to have some evidence that supports your position. Let me repeat again that the very existence of life is *not* evidence! The existence of life is what we're trying to explain, so using it as support for your explanation means nothing.
Remember that we're not *proving* anything. We're supporting our arguments with physical evidence. So far I have a few points (I could come up with a lot more and back them up with references) and you have none. Can you justify your position, or will you admit that it is not a scientific explanation (and no I don't mean the Kansas definition of science)?
Too bad you're a lousy AC so you'll probably never see this response, but I'll clarify for anybody else's appreciation. My exact quote was:
In fact, according to our current knowledge, it's impossible to know any absolute truth about the universe.
Note that I said, "according to our current knowledge." I suppose it would have been even better to say "MY current knowledge" but that's picking at nits. I'm not so foolish as to think that I can be absolutely sure of anything.
What we are saying instead is that a scientist can study natural phenomena and reach a conclusion that it has been designed, just as he/she can reach the same conclusion by studying artifacts of human civilization.
If the "natural phenomena" that you're referring to is life on Earth, then I would disagree with that statement. I think that it's possible to conclude, scientifically, that life *could have been* designed (in fact the argument would be trivial), but to say that it *was* designed is something else entirely. You would have to find a test that would show that it was designed rather than, say, just suddely appearing because of the highly unlikely arrangement of a buch of atoms. Both of those things are possible, but to argue that one of them is worthy of being a theory requires evidence and testability.
In the case of artifacts of human civilization, you have a ton of evidence that intelligent creatures were around to create those artifacts. I'll leave it to ID to come up with some evidence that life *was* designed rather than *could have been* designed, but I won't hold my breath. Until then ID is speculation, not theory.
What I'm trying to say is, that while evolution is a theory that can account for the present state of things, it is not the only scientific possibility unless you constrain yourself to a strictly naturalistic world view.
OK, but what I'm saying is that science is by necessity constrained to a strictly naturalistic wold view. Science is the study of what we observe. It is the study of things that can be measured and tested. You can redefine science to include that which is not a part of the material world, but I would argue that it would then become useless.
However, evolution looks very absurd when you look at it from an unbiased perspective.
I don't want to be insulting, but wouldn't an unbiased perspective require the same evidence for the existence of God that it requires for the existence of the Earth? Be careful about who you are calling biased -- the whole point of science is to try to be unbiased.
For instance, the probabilities involved, the lack of concrete fossil evidence, mutation evidence, the question of "first cause" and many other irreconcilable facts (that probably don't need to be listed in this response) give people more questions than answers.
Everything in the universe gives us more questions than answers. In fact, I'm pretty sure we'll always have more questions than answers, regardless of our achievements. That said, evolution is a very strong scientific theory. I'm not going to address these issues here, though, because I think that's an unnecessary tangent. Here are some answers to frequent misconceptions about evolution, which I would recommend if you're really interested in trying to understand the world. For the moment, however, suffice to say that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the majority of scientists. If ID is to upset the status quo, then the onus is on it to provide a better explanation, not to merely poke at the weaknesses in our current explanation.
I'm a bit confused by your last paragraph. You say that 'ID scientists do not attempt to explain natural phenomena with supernatural theories (such as "it was created to be that way")' but you don't say what their explanation is. I'm pretty sure that the intelligent design explanation either A) invokes the supernatural or B) gives no explanation at all. Can you tell me what the "real" ID explanation is? If you could give an explicit explanation of how something that is supposedly "irreducibly complex" exists without using evolution, then I'm sure I could point out the problems with the explanation. I'll also point out that my argument would probably hinge on showing why a non-materialistic explanation really doesn't provide us with any useful information (i.e. an untestable theory can't be used for anything) and is therefore not considered to be science.
Who knows, though, maybe you'll enlighten me. I aint afraid.:) The universe is what it is -- my goal is to explore that reality, not to try and prove it to be what I want it to be.
That's the definition that I think the ID proponents are using. It has 2 weaknesses:
1. It doesn't explain anything. It says, "Look, evolution can't explain this." There are a lot of things that are unexplained, which is why science is still worth pursuing. Since IC doesn't give an explanation of its own, the task is to figure it out. In order to figure it out scientifically, we must come up with an explanation based on observations of the physical universe. ID gives an explanation, but it invokes a supernatural creator. Therefore, ID is not a scientific explanation.
2. Many of the examples of IC have already been explained by evolution. It's common for those parts that are used in unison to have been used independently in the past. Here's an example: an explanation of how the bacterial flagellum might have evolved. I say "might have" because there are many different ways in which the flagellum could have evolved. We are reasonably confident that evolution was the mechanism, though, because A) evolution can explain it and B) we don't have better explanation.
In conclusion, irreducible complexity doesn't mean much. Pointing out unknowns does not weaken science, it strenthens it by highlighting new avenues to pursue. I suppose IC had some value in that respect, but it's lost in a sea of other unexplored facets of the universe. The political maneuverings of the IDers forced scientists to focus on that particular unknown, and so far it hasn't proven a very difficult challenge. ID itself contributed nothing to science, as its sole proposition is based on an assumption that has no evidence and is completely untestable. Some supernatural being could have created the eyeball, but it's just as likely that the entire Earth and everything on it suddenly formed from randomly moving particles out of pure chance in 1987. They both explain how we got here, but they're both untestable and therefore useless.
P.S., before anybody says that the evolutionary explanation is untestable, the flagellum example above is a test. Evolutionary theory says that the flagellum must have developed from more primitive components. Scientists looked at more primitive bacteria and found those components. That's evidence. How do you find evidence that the parts were designed by God? If you do, you will not only be famous, you will have a pretty big ego knowing that you proved God to be nothing more than a testable part of the physical universe just like the rest of us.
Yeah but you miss my point. Science doesn't prove anything at all. It builds a model that approximates reality, and we constantly refine that model as we perform experiments and gather information. The "truth" that science obtains is temporary -- it is always evolving, which is what makes it so accurate. The "truths" in the Bible are thousands of years old, written when humans really didn't know much about how the universe works. Biblical truths have changed very little in all of this time, which is why they're so out of sorts with reality at this point. Scientific theories from that era seem laughable now, which is why they were abandoned long ago.
I believe what you are saying here is that evolution is a proven fact
Then you completely misunderstood me. What part of "consensus conclusion" implies a "proven fact"? Nothing in the physical world can be proven -- things can only be supported by evidence.
It's the idea that life was not engineered, therefore assume life is faulty and ill-designed, or that life was engineered, therefore assume that life is well-designed.
No again. There are no assumptions, except in order to, as you say, explore where to go next. An actual theory isn't based on assumptions, it's based on observations. There are no observations that imply a designer. Yes, that includes the faulty observation of "irreducible complexity." Even if you somehow proved that an entity was "irreducibly complex," it wouldn't give you evidence of a designer. All you would know is that the entity's existence is unexplained. It's like the universe itself -- we don't know (and really can't know) how or why the universe exists, but we have to leave that as an unknown. It could have been created, but that is just one among an infinite number of possible explanations. Since we don't have any evidence that can distinguish between the possibilities, we cannot propose any theories.
Let me sum up - scientific theories are not based on faith or on assumption. They are based on observations of physical reality. Irreducible complexity is not a theory on its own because it doesn't give any explanations -- all it does is (incorrectly, as far as I can tell) point out that something is not explained by any theory. ID does give an explanation, but it is based on the assumption that there is a supernatural being involved. Sorry, but that's not a scientific theory either. Do you see where I'm coming from? Science is not excluding ID because scientists want to see evolutionary theory "win". Science is excluding ID because ID breaks the rules. Look at relativity and quantum mechanics! Those were totally off the wall theories that defied our perception of the universe, and yet they were accepted because they matched experimental data better than newtonian physics. They are scientifically useful. ID is not.
Your ideas are consistent within your own world, but the problem is that you've redefined science. Let me quote:
Quite the opposite, it means we are free to study our origins and the laws of the universe without having to either conform to a naturalistic explanation or throw out the data.
Right there is the fundamental misunderstanding. Science only studies that which is naturalistic. If you want to explain the origins of the universe scientifically, you can't consider the supernatural. If you do, you're not doing science. ID proponents can redefine science if they want to, but that doesn't mean that the "science" that they're doing is the same as what real scientists are doing.
If we can't explain something, saying that it was "created" is not a useful explanation. It would be far more useful to say "we don't know." Not only does this keep the subject flagged for further study, but it prevents us from basing later theories on an untestable assumption. Maybe it was created, and maybe not. The truth is, if we can't explain it based on the observable universe, then it's just an unknown. Making stuff up is not the solution.
The problem is you are either studying life under the belief that it evolved or that it was designed.
NO
I'm sick of people misunderstanding this. Biologists don't study life under "the belief that it evolved." That's asinine. If they're doing science, they don't study life under any kind of belief. They look at observations OBJECTIVELY, and draw conclusions. Right now the consensus conclusion is that life on our planet has evolved to its current state via mutation and natural selection. There's no belief there. There are only conclusions based on observation.
You can believe whatever you want, but don't confuse belief with science. In religion, you start with the "truth" and make your observations based on that. In science, you start with nothing and build an approximation of truth based on observation.
It's funny that you point out a book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," because it may be a hint as to why you missed my point entirely. I'm not an athiest. As the title says, I don't have enough faith to be an athiest. Being an athiest means saying, "God does not exist," which is a statement that I can't back up using observations of the universe. Of course, "God does exist" is in the same category.
I don't know if you're just trying to confuse the issue for fun, or if you really want to understand my point, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and clarify. When I say "truth" I mean an absolutely true fact about the universe. Say, for the sake of argument, that the statement "electrons are attracted to protons" is an absolutely true fact about the universe. When I say "science does not claim to know the truth, or even to be capable of knowing the truth" I mean that, even if the statement about electrons and protons is true, science can never prove it. Science can't prove that electrons and protons are real, much less how they interact with each other.
Now, if science can't prove anything, what makes it so useful? Science gives us an approximation of reality. Do you understand that? It's a model that represents how the universe works. It's not correct, but we keep making it more accurate as we make new measurements and look at things in different ways.
Think of it like this: you have a box with a set of inputs and outputs, but you have no way of looking inside the box to see how it is made. You can, however, mess around with the inputs, observe the outputs, and draw some conclusions. After a while, you come up with a theory that describes how the box works. If the box is sufficiently complex, then your theory won't be right, and you'll find out by doing more experiments and finding results that contradict your theory. When this happens you refine your theory, and as time goes on you get a pretty good approximation of what the box is. You NEVER KNOW for real what it is or how it works, but you have a really good approximation.
Just for contrast, apply the "universe as a black box" analogy to religion. What do you get? You get people that say they know what the box is and/or how it works, regardless of whether they can support their claims with observations of the box. That is faith, and it is the antithesis of science. Science is about forcing ourselves to be objective... to take the universe at face value. According to what we know right now (I'm basing this on Godel's theory of incompleteness), taking it at face value means never knowing everything about it. I'm fine with that. I'll find out what I can, and give up the rest as unattainable. Isn't that better than pretending to know something that is unknowable?
I love how this forum is full of people ready and willing to unite against ID and call ID proponents everything from fascists to fundamentalists to horrible people who should be silenced at all costs.
Well, some people may come off that way because they're angry, but I think you can agree that my post did none of the above. I'm merely pointing out that ID proponents are not very good at separating science from religion, if (as you claim) that's what they're trying to do.
Irreducible complexity is the idea that something is too complex to have arisen by purely natural processes (evolution), not that it is too complex to exist.
OK, I'll accept that definition. I don't think it has any bearing on my conclusions, though. By your definition of IC (I'm tired of typing that out!) some things are too complex to be explained by evolution (note: I've never seen an example that wasn't explained by evolution under scrutiny). However, IC does not give an alternative explanation. Without one, it just implies that we need to refine evolutionary theory -- it doesn't offer an alternative.
Now ID comes along and gives that alternative explanation -- a supernatural creator (please don't go on a tangent about "natural" creators like aliens or something - that just moves the debate to how the aliens developed in the first place). Supernatural creator == not science. It's an explanation, but it's not a scientific explanation, and that's my point.
Ultimately, the hate I see here comes from a deep misunderstanding of our perspective
I think I can see your perspective just fine. Can you see mine?
you don't seem to know what irreducible complexity means.
Hold on, let's get to the root of my misunderstanding, so we can sort this out. I said that irreducible complexity is the claim that certain things are too complicated to have arisen as a result of natural processes. You then said that, "Irreducible complexity is applied to natural selection, not any physical process." This is kind of confusing, because the theory of evolution does describe (or attempt to describe, you could say) a physical process.
Then you say that, "Irreducible complexity is simply the claim that evolution does not allow for the development of organs or molecular machines that are all or nothing." OK, so you're saying that irreducible complexity implies that the theory of evolution is not sufficient for explaining the existence of certain physical entities.
Pretty weak, as I see it. Not only is that claim debatable (many of the examples touted by ID proponents have been explained by showing that the constituent parts of the complex organ were useful on their own) but it does not offer an explanation of its own. Saying that evolution is insufficient without offering an alternative is just saying that we need to study evolution more. Irreducible complexity on its own does not point to something else that we can look into.
This, of course, is where "intelligent design" comes in. ID purports to offer an alternative explanation for the development of biological life, and to explain irreducible complexity at the same time. ID is not, however, a scientific explanation. It is an explanation, but it is not a scientific explanation. It passes the buck to an entity outside of the observable physical universe, which just is not allowed in science.
OK, I'll attack the message. Ready? ID doesn't make its arguments very clear (it mostly just attacks evolutionary theory as being incomplete, to which we scientists say, "duh.") but the core foundation of ID seems to be "irreducible complexity."
Irreducible complexity claims that certain physical structures are too complex to have arisen by natural processes. Since science is the study of natural processes, the only way to proceed via scientific methods is to assume that natural processes were the cause, and to refine our theories so that the formation of such entities is explained by natural processes.
ID, on the other hand, jumps to the conclusion of a supernatural creator. That's not science. It's out of bounds. Anything concerning the supernatural is by definition not science. You can believe it if you want to, but please don't call it science and please keep it out of science class.
I'm afraid that you have a profound misunderstanding of what science is. Seriously, listen up. Science is not a belief system. Science does not claim to know the truth, nor even to be able to know the truth. Do you realize that? Let me repeat one more time -- science does not claim to know the truth, or even to be capable of knowing the truth. In fact, according to our current knowledge, it's impossible to know any absolute truth about the universe.
So, when you say things like, "now the ivory towers think themselves the purveyors and verifiers of truth" you are fundamentally wrong. The universe itself is the only purveyor and verifier of truth. That's the whole point of science -- to query the universe about its own truths. We come up with theories that try to describe truths about the universe, but the physical universe itself is what decides which theories we keep and which theories we throw away. If a theory can't be decided on by examining the physical universe, then we don't even consider it.
I realise that it [FSM] helps them laugh, and helps them pursuade themselves that they personally have a sound basis for their own beliefs even though they have taken as little effort to validate them as they think the "religious fundamentalists" have for theirs.
Wrong. FSM is satire, and has nothing to do with validating anyone's beliefs. In fact, the point is the exact opposite -- it's to discredit the beliefs of ID proponents. Let's put FSM aside, though, because I don't find satire very useful for a real discussion. Agree? It's much more useful to look at the real issues, like "irreducible complexity." Irreducible complexity is completely worthless. I'm not flaming here, I'm being serious -- and I'll back that statement up.
Think about what "irreducible complexity" means. According to IDers, it means that something is so complex that it could not have arisen from natural processes. Remember that in science, the physical universe is the ultimate truth. Also note that that "natural processes" are all of the processes that exist in the physical universe. Put this all together and you get a conjecture that says that this "irreducibly complex" entity cannot exist according to the physical laws of the universe. Not the laws as we know them, but any physical laws of the universe. IDers don't say, "Gee, this looks like it's too complex to exist, therefore we musn't have a complete understanding of the universe." No, they say, "this must be the product of supernatural intervention." In science, that's going out of bounds. IDers can go there if they want, but it is NOT science and should NOT be confused with science. In science, there is no supernatural. There is only the reality that we observe. No faith required.
You don't have to be a scientist, and you don't even have to understand why a woldview that's entirely based on physical observations is useful. But please, try to understand the fundamental difference between science and religion, and why science cannot allow the two to mix and still be science.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, though, Sony was very wrong for releasing such a nasty piece of software. If I put a CD in my machine and it installs spyware, I'm going to be PISSED.
As for being a hypocrite, though, it's really unavoidable. The world is too complex to always behave consistently, and nobody has time to keep track of every issue even within their own specialty. Boycotts can be powerful, but they have to be focused in order to make a difference -- and that may mean putting on the blinders to other issues.
Me? I'm boycotting the 360 (fat difference it'll make, though) but I'm reserving judgement on the PS3 until we get closer to the release. Not because I like Sony, but because I've got more current (and arguably much more important) issues to concern myself with. I'm not "allied" with a company if I buy a said company's product even though I disagree with their business practices. Such an action may be hypocritical, but it's due to my own inability to be perfect rather than some kind of evil pact. I don't have an infinite amout of time to make sure that all of my actions are perfectly consistent. Nobody does -- we all have to pick our battles.
Do what you want, but I wrote introversion and told them straight up that I'll be buying Darwinia before it goes to steam exclusively (dec 14) but that they're losing me as a potential customer in the future.
Oh well, with all the Slashdotters excited about it I know this is a lost cause. The competition that MS is fostering is a good thing in the short run -- I just hope it lasts.
Me personally, I'm not getting an XBox. Maybe it will have some fun games, but the risk isn't worth it.
Sorry, I forgot the </sarcasm> tag. Obviously it doesn't matter what kind of TV you have when you play Blaster Master.</obvious>
Who do you think the "mature" rating appeals to? Adults don't give a shit what the game is rated, any more than they go see a movie just because it's rated R. Fourth graders brag about seeing R rated movies, but adults don't even look at the rating. The Incredibles and The Big Lebowski are both good movies, and as an adult I don't have to distinguish between them based on how many swear words they contain. It's irrelevant.
When video game advertising brags about how "mature" a game is, or shows "cool" 20 year olds playing the system with their "hip" friends, who do you think will respond? The answer: 12 year olds who want to fit in. Adults find it laughable, and will judge the game on its own merits. Yes, Nintendo's marketing appeals to kids too, because kids are suckers. Arguing that "Nintendo is for kids" is going to require more than saying "the GC is marketed towards kids." It's a pointless statement.
That is NOT the question that I asked. Please try to follow my argument carefully, or we'll get nowhere. Look at my perspective -- I see you as blinded by your preconceived ideas, and I'm trying to get you to confront them. Of course you'll disagree with my perception, but if you're really sure of yourself then you'll open your views up to critical analysis. From my perspective, you seem to want to be open minded, but you (either purposefully or not) keep driving us off onto tangents. If you don't really want to think about this then please let me know, and we'll both save a lot of energy.
So, back to the point, the question wasn't "find an explanation apart from a creator," it was "show some evidence that it was a creator". Don't assume that there has to be an answer, either. We're starting from a position of ignorance. It's better to admit that we don't know the answer than to mislead ourselves into believing something that is unlikely to be true. Nothing is more deadly in trying to understand the world than to build upon shaky foundations.
Now, listen carefully -- you think that you presented some evidence of a creator, but you did not. Seriously. Look at what you said:
No, they are not. Repeat, they are not. You can say that they're arguments against evolution if you want, but that does NOTHING to support Intelligent Design. You're looking at features of the physical world and coming up with an explanation, but you can't distinguish that explanation from the infinite number of other explanations that exist. Just for thought, let's come up with another explanation. Say, for example, that our universe is nested inside of a meta-universe, and that meta-universe invisibly influences our universe. Is it not possible that purely deterministic laws in that universe somehow cause certain structures to form in our universe? You can make up any kind of magical laws you want for the meta universe in order to make it work. Voila, you have a competing explanation. Which is right, the deterministic meta-universe or the intelligent creator? How about the highly improbable (but still possible) possibilty that the entire universe takes on a new, completely random form periodically, and ours just formed 10 minutes ago? Isn't this completely possible? Unlikely, yes, but possible. Maybe every possible configuration of the universe (including ours) exists simultaneously. Therefore our universe would *have* to exist, and would not need to have been "designed."
Do you see the problem yet? These are a whole class of explanations that share a common feature -- you can't distinguish between them. There is no test to see which is more likely to be true, because they are not materialistic explanations. They do not attempt to explain the universe in terms of itself. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that we can't entertain any of these explanations. Sure, any one of them *may* be true, but since there are an infinite number of them any particular one is infinitely unlikely to be the true one.
So, when I ask for evidence of a creator, I mean material evidence. You're telling me that a creator is possible, but you're not telling me that a creator is likely. This is why the Kansas school board had to redefine science in order to get intelligent design into their science classes. In real science, only materialistic arguments have any weight. You can create a new branch of science that does not require materialistic evidence, but I guarantee that you'll quickly meander away from an accurate description of the physi
I'm starting to doubt your sincerity a bit, so I'm going to force you to get to the real point of this discussion.
I'll throw out the chimp argument and while I'm at it I'll toss the whole theory of evolution. Let's assume that the theory of evolution does not exist, or has been discredited or something. Now, we witness the existence of life on earth. You claim that ID is a scientific theory that explains the existence of life. I say that your theory is not scientific. What evidence do you have that you can convince me with? I looked briefly at the site you referenced, but all I could find were attacks on evolution. Either give some evidence in your own words, or link to a page with a specific piece of evidence.
I've asked this question about 5 times now, so if you don't have an answer, I'll assume that you don't have one.
The primary reason why nobody listens to ID proponents is because they don't present anything that supports their proposition. You're attacking my evidence, but you have no evidence to attack!
I've pressed you on this issue several times, but unless I missed it you've never responded. Either present at least 1 clear piece of evidence that supports the conjecture that life was "created" or admit that ID is not a scientific theory.
Now, I take this as evidence that animals *did* come from other animals. It is in no way *proof* that animals came from other animals, but it is *evidence* that they did. There is *no* evidence, as far as I know, that anything anywhere was created by a supreme being. I challenge you to come up with any evidence at all. The fact that I exist is *NOT* evidence that I was created -- there are an infinite number of possible explanations. The fact that 98% of my DNA is the same as a chimp's, however, is physical evidence that must be of some importance. The fact that I can construct a tree showing how closely related I am to each other living organism based on DNA similarity is also pretty interesting.
OK, so maybe you think this evidence is weak. Whatever. You don't have to believe it, but if you're going to argue another possiblity (like creation) you have to have some evidence that supports your position. Let me repeat again that the very existence of life is *not* evidence! The existence of life is what we're trying to explain, so using it as support for your explanation means nothing.
Remember that we're not *proving* anything. We're supporting our arguments with physical evidence. So far I have a few points (I could come up with a lot more and back them up with references) and you have none. Can you justify your position, or will you admit that it is not a scientific explanation (and no I don't mean the Kansas definition of science)?
In the case of artifacts of human civilization, you have a ton of evidence that intelligent creatures were around to create those artifacts. I'll leave it to ID to come up with some evidence that life *was* designed rather than *could have been* designed, but I won't hold my breath. Until then ID is speculation, not theory.
I'm a bit confused by your last paragraph. You say that 'ID scientists do not attempt to explain natural phenomena with supernatural theories (such as "it was created to be that way")' but you don't say what their explanation is. I'm pretty sure that the intelligent design explanation either A) invokes the supernatural or B) gives no explanation at all. Can you tell me what the "real" ID explanation is? If you could give an explicit explanation of how something that is supposedly "irreducibly complex" exists without using evolution, then I'm sure I could point out the problems with the explanation. I'll also point out that my argument would probably hinge on showing why a non-materialistic explanation really doesn't provide us with any useful information (i.e. an untestable theory can't be used for anything) and is therefore not considered to be science.
Who knows, though, maybe you'll enlighten me. I aint afraid. :) The universe is what it is -- my goal is to explore that reality, not to try and prove it to be what I want it to be.
1. It doesn't explain anything. It says, "Look, evolution can't explain this." There are a lot of things that are unexplained, which is why science is still worth pursuing. Since IC doesn't give an explanation of its own, the task is to figure it out. In order to figure it out scientifically, we must come up with an explanation based on observations of the physical universe. ID gives an explanation, but it invokes a supernatural creator. Therefore, ID is not a scientific explanation.
2. Many of the examples of IC have already been explained by evolution. It's common for those parts that are used in unison to have been used independently in the past. Here's an example: an explanation of how the bacterial flagellum might have evolved. I say "might have" because there are many different ways in which the flagellum could have evolved. We are reasonably confident that evolution was the mechanism, though, because A) evolution can explain it and B) we don't have better explanation.
In conclusion, irreducible complexity doesn't mean much. Pointing out unknowns does not weaken science, it strenthens it by highlighting new avenues to pursue. I suppose IC had some value in that respect, but it's lost in a sea of other unexplored facets of the universe. The political maneuverings of the IDers forced scientists to focus on that particular unknown, and so far it hasn't proven a very difficult challenge. ID itself contributed nothing to science, as its sole proposition is based on an assumption that has no evidence and is completely untestable. Some supernatural being could have created the eyeball, but it's just as likely that the entire Earth and everything on it suddenly formed from randomly moving particles out of pure chance in 1987. They both explain how we got here, but they're both untestable and therefore useless.
P.S., before anybody says that the evolutionary explanation is untestable, the flagellum example above is a test. Evolutionary theory says that the flagellum must have developed from more primitive components. Scientists looked at more primitive bacteria and found those components. That's evidence. How do you find evidence that the parts were designed by God? If you do, you will not only be famous, you will have a pretty big ego knowing that you proved God to be nothing more than a testable part of the physical universe just like the rest of us.
I'll bet he'd be pissed. ;)
Let me sum up - scientific theories are not based on faith or on assumption. They are based on observations of physical reality. Irreducible complexity is not a theory on its own because it doesn't give any explanations -- all it does is (incorrectly, as far as I can tell) point out that something is not explained by any theory. ID does give an explanation, but it is based on the assumption that there is a supernatural being involved. Sorry, but that's not a scientific theory either. Do you see where I'm coming from? Science is not excluding ID because scientists want to see evolutionary theory "win". Science is excluding ID because ID breaks the rules. Look at relativity and quantum mechanics! Those were totally off the wall theories that defied our perception of the universe, and yet they were accepted because they matched experimental data better than newtonian physics. They are scientifically useful. ID is not.
If we can't explain something, saying that it was "created" is not a useful explanation. It would be far more useful to say "we don't know." Not only does this keep the subject flagged for further study, but it prevents us from basing later theories on an untestable assumption. Maybe it was created, and maybe not. The truth is, if we can't explain it based on the observable universe, then it's just an unknown. Making stuff up is not the solution.
I'm sick of people misunderstanding this. Biologists don't study life under "the belief that it evolved." That's asinine. If they're doing science, they don't study life under any kind of belief. They look at observations OBJECTIVELY, and draw conclusions. Right now the consensus conclusion is that life on our planet has evolved to its current state via mutation and natural selection. There's no belief there. There are only conclusions based on observation.
You can believe whatever you want, but don't confuse belief with science. In religion, you start with the "truth" and make your observations based on that. In science, you start with nothing and build an approximation of truth based on observation.
I don't know if you're just trying to confuse the issue for fun, or if you really want to understand my point, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and clarify. When I say "truth" I mean an absolutely true fact about the universe. Say, for the sake of argument, that the statement "electrons are attracted to protons" is an absolutely true fact about the universe. When I say "science does not claim to know the truth, or even to be capable of knowing the truth" I mean that, even if the statement about electrons and protons is true, science can never prove it. Science can't prove that electrons and protons are real, much less how they interact with each other.
Now, if science can't prove anything, what makes it so useful? Science gives us an approximation of reality. Do you understand that? It's a model that represents how the universe works. It's not correct, but we keep making it more accurate as we make new measurements and look at things in different ways.
Think of it like this: you have a box with a set of inputs and outputs, but you have no way of looking inside the box to see how it is made. You can, however, mess around with the inputs, observe the outputs, and draw some conclusions. After a while, you come up with a theory that describes how the box works. If the box is sufficiently complex, then your theory won't be right, and you'll find out by doing more experiments and finding results that contradict your theory. When this happens you refine your theory, and as time goes on you get a pretty good approximation of what the box is. You NEVER KNOW for real what it is or how it works, but you have a really good approximation.
Just for contrast, apply the "universe as a black box" analogy to religion. What do you get? You get people that say they know what the box is and/or how it works, regardless of whether they can support their claims with observations of the box. That is faith, and it is the antithesis of science. Science is about forcing ourselves to be objective... to take the universe at face value. According to what we know right now (I'm basing this on Godel's theory of incompleteness), taking it at face value means never knowing everything about it. I'm fine with that. I'll find out what I can, and give up the rest as unattainable. Isn't that better than pretending to know something that is unknowable?
Now ID comes along and gives that alternative explanation -- a supernatural creator (please don't go on a tangent about "natural" creators like aliens or something - that just moves the debate to how the aliens developed in the first place). Supernatural creator == not science. It's an explanation, but it's not a scientific explanation, and that's my point.
I think I can see your perspective just fine. Can you see mine?Then you say that, "Irreducible complexity is simply the claim that evolution does not allow for the development of organs or molecular machines that are all or nothing." OK, so you're saying that irreducible complexity implies that the theory of evolution is not sufficient for explaining the existence of certain physical entities.
Pretty weak, as I see it. Not only is that claim debatable (many of the examples touted by ID proponents have been explained by showing that the constituent parts of the complex organ were useful on their own) but it does not offer an explanation of its own. Saying that evolution is insufficient without offering an alternative is just saying that we need to study evolution more. Irreducible complexity on its own does not point to something else that we can look into.
This, of course, is where "intelligent design" comes in. ID purports to offer an alternative explanation for the development of biological life, and to explain irreducible complexity at the same time. ID is not, however, a scientific explanation. It is an explanation, but it is not a scientific explanation. It passes the buck to an entity outside of the observable physical universe, which just is not allowed in science.
Irreducible complexity claims that certain physical structures are too complex to have arisen by natural processes. Since science is the study of natural processes, the only way to proceed via scientific methods is to assume that natural processes were the cause, and to refine our theories so that the formation of such entities is explained by natural processes.
ID, on the other hand, jumps to the conclusion of a supernatural creator. That's not science. It's out of bounds. Anything concerning the supernatural is by definition not science. You can believe it if you want to, but please don't call it science and please keep it out of science class.
So, when you say things like, "now the ivory towers think themselves the purveyors and verifiers of truth" you are fundamentally wrong. The universe itself is the only purveyor and verifier of truth. That's the whole point of science -- to query the universe about its own truths. We come up with theories that try to describe truths about the universe, but the physical universe itself is what decides which theories we keep and which theories we throw away. If a theory can't be decided on by examining the physical universe, then we don't even consider it.
Wrong. FSM is satire, and has nothing to do with validating anyone's beliefs. In fact, the point is the exact opposite -- it's to discredit the beliefs of ID proponents. Let's put FSM aside, though, because I don't find satire very useful for a real discussion. Agree? It's much more useful to look at the real issues, like "irreducible complexity." Irreducible complexity is completely worthless. I'm not flaming here, I'm being serious -- and I'll back that statement up.Think about what "irreducible complexity" means. According to IDers, it means that something is so complex that it could not have arisen from natural processes. Remember that in science, the physical universe is the ultimate truth. Also note that that "natural processes" are all of the processes that exist in the physical universe. Put this all together and you get a conjecture that says that this "irreducibly complex" entity cannot exist according to the physical laws of the universe. Not the laws as we know them, but any physical laws of the universe. IDers don't say, "Gee, this looks like it's too complex to exist, therefore we musn't have a complete understanding of the universe." No, they say, "this must be the product of supernatural intervention." In science, that's going out of bounds. IDers can go there if they want, but it is NOT science and should NOT be confused with science. In science, there is no supernatural. There is only the reality that we observe. No faith required.
You don't have to be a scientist, and you don't even have to understand why a woldview that's entirely based on physical observations is useful. But please, try to understand the fundamental difference between science and religion, and why science cannot allow the two to mix and still be science.