Home » Darwinism » Darwinism and popular culture: So we really ARE allowed to critique the little god Darwin now?

Darwinism and popular culture: So we really ARE allowed to critique the little god Darwin now?

Apparently, the sort of comments made in my article in Touchstone – about the little god Darwin – have been noticed by at least one person.

THE DARWIN MOVIE’S NOT SELLING, but John Scalzi doubts those evil Creationmongers are a part of the reason:

How about this: The movie is not selling because it is not believed … Huh? Maybe the story is not believable?

People now generally guess that Darwin was a materialist atheist long before his daughter died. And his whole coterie was committed to promoting the view that he lost his faith over her death , and it is still fronted today.

Fact: In North America, you cannot legally line up people at gun point and force them to watch some propaganda film worshipping Darwin – or worshipping anything – and threaten to shoot or otherwise punish them if they say they do not believe it. If that is not the law where you live, please hold a revolution now.

As a traditional Canadian, I am not a fan of revolution in general. Nature is our vast antagonist, not man. Check a map. But in some places maybe people need a revolution, to get the point across that there are some areas government must not infringe, including freedom of religion and freedom of media. (We have big problems with that just now, but we are getting the message across.)

While I am here, one of the most significant books published this year, because it – potentially – rids us of much Darwin nonsense, endlessly iterated in textbooks, teacher’s manuals and popular films, is Michael Flannery’s republishing, with a useful introduction, of Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory Of Intelligent Evolution . We would be vastly better off if Wallace, rather than Darwin, had been the main theorist. For example, we would never have dealt with the awful eugenics movement and the completely ridiculous evolutionary psychology movement. Wallace was far wiser than his co-theorist, Darwin, about the stuff that really matters.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

156 Responses to Darwinism and popular culture: So we really ARE allowed to critique the little god Darwin now?

  1. The reason why the Darwin stuff does not sell out in the real market is the same reason that left wing talk radio doesn’t either. People dont believe in this stuff and don’t want to hear it. If Darwinian evolution, and the war against ID and creationism was so important to people’s idealistic view of reality, and their beliefs about what is sceince and what it should be, then you would have people going around admittedly defending Darwin as a great thing. They would be calling up on the radio and defending it- talking about how “wonderful” it is to science, and how sad they are that people are questioning it…

    This is not reality. The reason why is because the value of Darwinism claimed by the institions and intelligensia is not reality. Period. Basically you can make all kinds of convoluted philsophical arguments about anything being of great value but they do not make it so. People are in general smart enough to know what is good and what it not. People know the benefits of money, of new technologies, of good food, of big beautiful homes, of free vacations, of new medicines, the list is endless regardng the truth telling of the free market.

    I think Cicero said,

    “There are some things so absurd only a philosopher could have said them.”

    You might change that to “there are some positions so absurd only a philosopher could defend them.” This is why only at the intellectual level do you really see a pretend love for the materialist philosophy that’s associated with and advocated by Nazism.

    The proximate mechanism explaining why we see Darwin glorified primarily at the educational and elitist level is because the Darwinian philosophy is seen by the individuals in these sectors as good for their business. Here you have the market working but just as compition between the state and it’s regulations (law, legislation) and the private sector. Public schools dont like to compete with private schools and would rather have a total monolopy on education. Then they have have bigger classrooms and bigger budgets without criticism by comparison to competition. That is in reality, if the government subsidized private education the public schools would be struggling massively. This produces a secualr government vs religious private school compition over resources. Similar situation exists with government and the sceince/government complex- which has to do with grant money for research programs. And Statists, or leftists want to the state to be the highest power so then superceed people’s individual feedoms – and one way of progressing that agenda is to remove the argument from God that we see underpinning the constitution’s explicit defineiton of inalienable rights edowed by the creator.

    Freedom is not good business for governments.

    This ideal of God and freedom is what the intelligent mainstream people of the market want and understand. That is those who are not entrenched in the web of government careers and politics. BTW the bit about inalienable rights from our Creator obviously totally DEVASTATES the notion of “separation of Church and State” which does not appear anywhere in the constitute at all.

    The US is by it’s own definition a theistic nation. It is merely the greed of the power hungry who want to change that. Freud was right in this case though about projection – as the left claim it is greed which seeks to protect human freedom and uphold the constitution. They choose not to see their own greed and motivations.

    It is ok to criticism Darwinism and call it the beliefs system that it is but only as long as their wallets are not effected. Unfortunately you apparently need a government mandate to make movies like these profitable.

  2. Of course since the article was written “Creation” has gained a US distributor.

    However, as Scalzi says, it is not the controversy or credibility that made the distributors nervous and will probably means sales are moderate. “Life of Brian” sold well.

    It is just not the kind of subject that makes for a box office smash hit.

  3. Elite society is now post-modern—the direct result of believing Darwin. Nothing matters except questioning that nothing matters. There is no truth, no logic, and language’s only purpose is political.

    Not all ordinary folk are on board, and though a logical argument no longer interests the sophisticates, it draws the plebs.

    So maybe the only solution is to shut down free speech. That’s been dead in the academy for a couple of generations now—might as well extend it to the prolies.

  4. I have always counselled my students, when dealing with the Internet, “If it sounds unbelievable, don’t believe it.”

    The death of Darwin’s daughter was, of course, sad – but not a reason for a Christian to lose his faith, given that all humans are mortal.

    It is a reasonable guess that in Annies’ father’s mind something else was going on. Forget Annie’s box. Darwin had other issues on his mind, issues he had long before she was born.

  5. O’Leary one of his issues was his grand father who came up with most of “his” theory before he did. The idea of evolution was known at his time- minus a few tree of life details- in fact the theory of evolution in general goes back a long way. I once read in a biography about Leibniz that he was very enthusiastic about the potential of evolutionary theory to guide science. Leibniz died over 100 years before Darwin.

    All of this coupled with Darwin’s position in life which was his and his family’s desire to see him become an intellectual light of England- accounted for his issues. He spent time in medical school and even clergy school- but did not like either of these professions. So he settled on developing evolution theory. Once again his material philosophy was deemed beneficial to the institutions and the intelligentsia but not by the general public. Only recently with the public largely indoctrinated with anti-religious propaganda- and of course Darwinian theory presented as fact and truth or at least as “the only viable theory”- has the public began to show some support for it. But this is expected as people tend to support what the have been lead to believe. And of course that has been the plan- to “educate” people into what to think and weed out what not to know about (like ID).

    As Einstein said,

    “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”

  6. Frost “in fact the theory of evolution in general goes back a long way. I once read in a biography about Leibniz that he was very enthusiastic about the potential of evolutionary theory to guide science. Leibniz died over 100 years before Darwin.”

    In fact the roots of evolution go back much further than 100 years:

    The Ancient Pagan Root Of Evolution
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtC-vU7ufeg

    The Roots and Fruit of Evolution
    http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/roots.xml

    The Fruit of Evolution
    http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/fruit.xml

  7. The book, “Social Darwinism” has a good history of evolutionary thought all the way back to Epicurus (?) the Greek philosopher.

  8. Frost at 5, you quoted Einstein: “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.” And what happened? In Einstein’s three 1905 papers, he blew classical physics apart.

    It was okay to disagree with orthodox theorists, even if, like him, you are only a patent office clerk somewhere, but you make sense.

  9. I think you are just further elucidating my point there. Right O’Leary?

    Yeah, I am a fan of Einstein, despite his obvious bad flaws.

    Einstein was actually denied, I think it was the Nobel award for his Special relativity the first time it was being considered because the people who were judging it did not understand it- and said they could not award a theory which was beyond their understanding. Which to me from Einstein’s perspective must be hilarious. Imagine waiting to find out if you won and they say no because they cannot comprehend the mathematics. You would be thinking to yourself “this is pathetic, here I am awaiting approval from a bunch of people way below by intellectual level.” It makes a joke out of institutionalism.

    Einstein was a smart self taught dude. He was way beyond his math teachers by his early teens- studying day and night- and he digested Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason by age 15 I think. Which is insane when you think that Kant was like one of the wisest Philosophers and people to ever live and his Critique was written after studying all the age old Philosophers etc in his old age. So Einstein was already up with Kant, and in a sense beyond over 2000 years of philosophy when he was just 15.

    Now he was plenty flawed and got some things way wrong too but like Babe Ruth and Brett Favre sometimes to break all the records you have to lead in strike outs and interceptions as well.

    The only person I have ever seen have it all is Joe Montana. Looks, family, money, and a perfect record holding 4 for 4 wins in super bowls.

    How all of this relates to instituitonal Darwinism imop is that it was the freedom that Einstein developed through, which ennobled his creativty and perseverence and inspired his timeless quotations- which actually are symbolic of an excellent philosophy

    “Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.”

    The image of God in the spark of man is that freedom of choice and creativity lead by a spiritual guidance of right and wrong.

    Yet it is Darwinism which seeks to limit our personal beliefs about nature. That is by taking away the dimension of design it has put a false constraint on knowledge. We cannot ask nor think about that life and the universe was designed via an intelligence.

    This drains the spirit and mystery of science for a lot of people. That is why I think ID should be taught about- even if briefly, so at the least the people who are interested in pursuing it can find inspiration there, and those who see it as useless, or false can ignore it and pursue science the same old boring way it has been. Like Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics, you can choose to follow the old paradigm or pursue a new one. True science is the search for new things, and it is part of the search for truth- as physicists like Einstein knew, physics was actually part of philosophy- or science is shaped by the science of science. All science Einstein said were part of the same tree.

    “All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are
    directed toward ennobling man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and
    leading the individual towards freedom.”

    Darwinism looks at everything though through a very lame reductionist perspective of chance and selection. This is at the very least a blind ally.

    “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

    The biggest flaw I personally think he had was a heavy skepticism in the belief of a personal God. I would add a line to his quote about science and religion which is “religion without good spirituality is worthless.” Ad this makes a personal judgment about individual’s moral values which of course guide science and determine it’s level of value.

    ID, however, in contrast to DE, looks for deeper design principles. And Steve Meyer is on to something more than idealism when he argues for the potential fecundity of ID. There is nothing wrong science being simple – but as Einstein also pointed out it should be as Simple as possible, but not simpler. And DE does not answer the questions of the origin of form and improbability of specified complexity etc- so it is too simple an explanation to count as an acceptable one.

    You know, Einstein certainly had plenty of flaws but one thing that was great about him was he got the ultimate last laugh over all those teachers and people who said he was practically retarded in early grade school. He had his weaknesses but compensated for them by maximizing the abilities and talents he did have. Luckily for him he was allowed to pursue his interests and was at least INTRODUCED to the subject mater of philosophy and advanced mathematics etc.

    The institutions tried to set him back in life but he proved that with the right ideas and enough hard work and development the truth can win out. While I dot think it was developed enough, Einstein did have a certain deep respect for God, design and spirituality- As he never liked the dead end philsoophies which bar you from aksing the higher question like DE does…

    “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.”

    “The important thing is not to stop questioning.”

    And maybe my all time favorite quotation…

    “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

    ^Which puts “everything” into perspective.

  10. Einstein was neither considered for the Nobel Prize for his theory of special relativity (published in 1905) nor his landmark 1905 paper on Brownian motion, which effectively validated the atomic theory of matter. He was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922, “for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”. This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, “On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light”, which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time, and which laid the groundwork for the theory of quantum mechanics.

    Scientists recognize Darwin’s contribution to the science of biology as essentially equivalent to Einstein or Newton’s contributions to the science of physics. This is why Darwin is often referred to as the “Newton of biology”. Indeed, there was no science of biology until after the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859 (for more on this, see: http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm , written by Theodosious Dobzhansky, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism and a devout Russian orthodox Christian).

    Darwin called himself a naturalist, as did virtually all of his colleagues. Their name for what they did was “natural philosophy”, not biology, which became a systematic natural science as a result of Darwin’s work.

    The term “biology” was coined and popularized by Jean-Batiste Larmarck, the author of the second most influential theory of evolution, published in 1809 as Philosophie Zoologique. His theory of evolution was virtually identical to Darwin’s, with one exception: Lamarck thought that evolution was progressive, leading inexorably to more complex forms as the result of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

    The overwhelming majority of scientists worldwide are celebrating three milestones this year: the 200th anniversary of the publication of Philosophie Zoologique by Lamarck, the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species.

    Furthermore, the scientific theory of evolution has never been more widely respected among scientists, nor has it ever experienced as rapid an expansion into other fields of science. There is now the equivalent of a Nobel Prize for biology — the Crafoord Prize, awarded since 1984 by the Norwegian Academy of Sciences. The list of winners for biology reads like a list of the leading lights of modern evolutionary theory: Robert Trivers (2007), Carl R. Woese (2003), John Maynard Smith, Ernst Mayr, & George C. Williams (1999), Sir Robert M. May (1996), Seymour Benzer & William D. Hamilton (1993) Paul R. Ehrlich & Edward O. Wilson (1990), Eugene P. Odum & Howard T. Odum (1987), and Daniel H. Janzen (1984). Curious isn’t it, that only two of these Crafoord Prize winners has ever been mentioned at this website (Carl Woese and Edward O. Wilson), and that even in their cases no mention has been made of their contributions to biology in general nor evolutionary biology in particular.

    Could it be that the contributors and commentators at this website aren’t interested in the science of biology, except insofar as it can be distorted for political purposes?

  11. Denyse: off topic but I thought this would interest you
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea.....l?ITO=1490

    Kissing evolved to spread germs!? LOL

  12. So we really ARE allowed to critique the little god Darwin now?

    You do not seem to have had any trouble doing that for as long as I can remember. In fact a large part of the traffic on this blog is devoted to just that.

    Fact: In North America, you cannot legally line up people at gun point and force them to watch some propaganda film worshipping Darwin – or worshipping anything – and threaten to shoot or otherwise punish them if they say they do not believe it.

    As far as I know, nobody has suggested the people be forced to do anything of the sort.

    Although, FACT, there are some so-called Christians in North America who would like to do something similar: statements of Christian belief on the currency and plastered all over public buildings, mandatory participation in Christian services for children in school whether they are Christian or not and mandatory public prayers before official meetings of public bodies or sporting events regardless of what faith the attendees follow, other religions tolerated as long as they don’t make a nuisance of themselves but atheists and agnostics banned from holding public office and possibly even disqualified from US citizenship – a sort of Christian Talibannination.

    Nature is our vast antagonist, not man.

    Nature is not our antagonist, it is something of which we are an integral part. There are many aspects which are dangerous, yes, but we treat it as hostile at our peril since we are entirely dependent on it.

    But in some places maybe people need a revolution, to get the point across that there are some areas government must not infringe, including freedom of religion and freedom of media.

    The problem is not freedom of religion, just look at the sheer number of churches, chapels, cathedrals and other religious buildings dotted all over the landscape. No, the problem in this country is freedom from religion for those who want nothing to do with it. There is also the question of freedom from the worst excesses of the mass media but I’m afraid that is the price we pay for freedom of expression.

  13. There is no “little god Darwin” except in the minds of those who need an Emmanuel Goldstein for their Two Minutes Hate.

    Pace to Mr StephenB, Wallace wrote
    I will pass over as utterly contemptible the oft-repeated accusation that sceptics shut out evidence because they will not be governed by the morality of Christianity…

    Is there something predictive to Wallace’s teleology that would earn it a place at the table of science? His enthusiasm for Spiritualism? What part of Wallace’s thought would have prevented Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” from being applied to contemporary society? In some other part of the multiverse where Darwin dies in 1858, and Wallace publishes on his own, does the Holocaust not happen? Does Columbine not happen? Why do you think so? Wouldn’t Richard Weikart be publishing a book called “From Wallace to Hitler”?

  14. As to Annie Darwin and Darwin’s loss of faith see Mark Pallen’s excellent historical posts:

    http://roughguidetoevolution.b.....faith.html

    http://roughguidetoevolution.b.....han-i.html

    http://roughguidetoevolution.b.....hesis.html

    Darwin had no faith in God prior to engaging to his cousin Emma.

  15. WHO CARES if or why Darwin believed or didn’t believe in God? And who cares what Darwin was like as a person? Evolution stands on the scientific merits. The rest is all straw men.

  16. Seversky states:
    “No, the problem in this country is freedom from religion for those who want nothing to do with it.”

    All God does in the end with people is give them what they most want, including freedom from Himself.

    ‘There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it’ : CS Lewis

  17. BA:

    All God does in the end with people is give them what they most want, including freedom from Himself.

    Amazing that anyone can believe such an obvious falsehood. Tell it to the millions dying from disease or lack of food.

  18. Enezio E. De Almeida Filho @ 13

    Darwin had no faith in God prior to engaging to his cousin Emma.

    The following is a sentence from Dr E B Aveling’s account of a conversation with him:

    Then the talk fell upon Christianity, and these remarkable words were uttered: “I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.”

    If true, that would put it at about 1849, some ten years after his marriage to Emma and shortly before the death of Annie.

  19. —-Mr. Nakashima: “Pace to Mr StephenB, Wallace wrote,

    ‘I will pass over as utterly contemptible the oft-repeated accusation that sceptics shut out evidence because they will not be governed by the morality of Christianity…’”

    I salute you for presenting that quote since it indicates that you do, indeed, get my point. Clearly, I assert that which Mr. Wallace finds contemptible. You would be surprised how many people who are hooked on pornography also find it impossible to believe that Christ, who warned against the vice of lust, was preannounced hundreds of times in Old Testament prophecies. Notice that the latter point is an easily verifiable fact, yet those mired in sin don’t seem to be able to face it. What we believe affects how we behave, but how we behave also affects what we believe.

  20. bornagain77 @ 14

    ‘There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it’ : CS Lewis

    “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.

    And this is a damnable doctrine

    –Charles Darwin in his Autobiography

    His wife Emma, a devout Christian also wrote in a note on that passage in his autobiography:

    “Nothing can be said too severe upon the doctrine of everlasting punishment for disbelief — but very few now wd. call that ‘Christianity,’ (tho’ the words are there.)”

    In my view, Lewis and those who share his belief are damned for their support of such a “damnable doctrine”

  21. Mr StephenB,

    Well, I suppose my point in quoting Wallace was that ID is a pretty big tent if Mrs O’Leary can be charmed by him, yet you would oppose him quite strongly.

    I’ve looked at a few of these lists of hundreds of prefigurations of Jesus in the Hebrew Bible that are on the Web and I find most of them poor stuff. Nor is there a sense of double blind experiment to the situation. If every educated Jew in the country knew a verse about a white ass, Jesus would be a fool to pass up an opportunity to ride one. I find the whole toting up of places where Jesus fulfills a prophecy (which starts in the text of the Gospels themselves) a very weak reed. Do you really want to give your allegiance based on a metric like “number of prophecies fulfilled”? Anyone can kick snakes and ride white donkeys.

    On the whole you’ve been posting in several threads recently with an argument that can be countered simply as correlation is not causation. That doesn’t even bother challenging whether the correlations you assert actually do exist. What you write here is more reasonable about behavior and belief, but it also isn’t rising much above ‘you are what you eat’ in the gravitas of its message.

  22. Seversky wrote:

    In my view, Lewis and those who share his belief are damned for their support of such a “damnable doctrine”

    LOL! Damned by whom would be my question.

    If there is no God (or gods), then there are only other human beings to damn him (or anyone for that matter).

    If Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Jeffrey Dahmer, Klebold & Harris, Bonnie & Clyde, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, James Earl Ray, or any other person whom have been labeled “evil” are any example to go by, then the most certain way to attain immortality in a godless world is to be damned by your fellow human beings.

  23. Seversky, So now we get to the meat of the matter. It is not about, nor was it ever about the science, upon which this site is ultimately based in the first place, it is about your deep seeded fear that your loved ones may be in hell. And that is what is too much for you to bear. It doesn’t matter to you if all the scientific evidence in the world echos the glory of God, which it does,, all that matters to you is that you are not in control of this situation and you have a deep seeded anger about that,,, How in the world do you expect us here on UD to deal with that? Do we somehow possess the knowledge to tell you exactly what awaits each person on the other side? Do we know the fate of each of your relatives? I know I don’t know,,, If I told you to go in prayer to God about this matter to find peace you would not listen anyway,,,so what is the point??? Why do you visit a science site when you clearly need spiritual healing?

  24. LOL! Damned by whom would be my question.

    Great question…

    If I am damned by believing what God wrote then let it be so.

  25. —-Mr. Nakashima: “I find the whole toting up of places where Jesus fulfills a prophecy (which starts in the text of the Gospels themselves) a very weak reed.”

    Can you be a bit more specific. I am referring to prophecies that were made prior to the New Testament. A prophecy that starts in the text of the Gospels would not be a prophecy but rather a redacted fraud.

    —”Do you really want to give your allegiance based on a metric like “number of prophecies fulfilled”? Anyone can kick snakes and ride white donkeys.”

    The prophecies to which I refer are not even remotely similar to anything of that texture. I am baffled by your comment.

    —-”On the whole you’ve been posting in several threads recently with an argument that can be countered simply as correlation is not causation. That doesn’t even bother challenging whether the correlations you assert actually do exist. What you write here is more reasonable about behavior and belief, but it also isn’t rising much above ‘you are what you eat’ in the gravitas of its message.”

    You are being uncharacteristically vague in the above paragraph and your comment is usually wide sweeping, so I cannot respond to that which has not been made explicit.

    In terms of the relationship between belief and behavior and vice versa, I don’t get the relationship between that and your foray into human diet and the “gravitas” of the message. Are you challenging the proposition that behavior affects belief? Once again, clarity will serve your purpose. It is not like you to waste words in this way.

  26. So Nak, will scrutinizing prophecy, relieve you of the the intellectual suicide you committed when you denied the implications of the fine tuning of the universe?

    ————–

    The numerical values of the transcendent universal constants in physics, which are found for gravity which holds planets, stars and galaxies together; for the weak nuclear force which holds neutrons together; for electromagnetism which allows chemical bonds to form; for the strong nuclear force which holds protons together; for the cosmological constant of space/energy density which accounts for the universe’s expansion; and for several dozen other constants (a total of 93 as of 2006) which are universal in their scope, “just so happen” to be the exact numerical values they need to be in order for life, as we know it, to be possible in this universe. A more than slight variance in the value of any individual universal constant, over the entire age of the universe, would have undermined the ability of the entire universe to have life as we know it. To put it mildly, this is a irreducibly complex condition.

    Anthropic Principle – God Created The Universe – Michael Strauss – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjn8poWD7tM

    On and on through each universal constant scientists analyze, they find such unchanging precision. It should also be noted that the four primary forces/constants of the universe are said to be “mediated at the speed of light” by mass-less “mediator bosons”. Thus since time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light this gives these transcendent universal constants the characteristic of being timeless, and thus unchanging, as far as the temporal mass of this universe is concerned. i.e. We should not a-prori expect that which is timeless in nature to change in value, and if a constant is found to have changed in value, during the entire history of the universe, we should presuppose an external transcendent Agent “adjusting” the constant for a higher purpose.

    Psalm 119:89-91
    Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans.

    Here are a few sites that list the constants:

    Fine-Tuning For Life In The Universe
    http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe

    Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
    http://www.godandscience.org/a.....ignun.html

    Evidence For God In The Cosmos – Fine Tuning of Constants – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDm9nBD-w_A

    There are no apparent reasons why the value of each individual transcendent universal constant could not have been very different than what they actually are. In fact, the presumption of any materialistic theory based on blind chance expected a fairly large amount of flexibility, and variability, in the underlying natural laws/constants for the universe, since the natural laws themselves were postulated to arise from some material basis. They “just so happen” to be at the precise unchanging values necessary to enable carbon-based life to exist in this universe. All individual constants are of such a high degree of precision as to defy comparison to the most precise man-made machine ( which is 1 part in 10^22 – for the gravity wave detector). For example, the individual cosmological constant (dark energy) is balanced to 1 part in 10^120 and the individual mass density constant is balanced to 1 part in 10^60.

    Fine Tuning Of Dark Energy and Mass of the Universe – Hugh Ross – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B0t4zSzhjg

    To clearly illustrate the stunning degree of fine-tuning we are dealing with in the universe, Dr. Ross has used the illustration of adding or subtracting a single dime’s worth of mass in the observable universe would have been enough of a change in mass density to make life impossible in this universe. This word picture he uses, with the dime, helps to demonstrate a number used to quantify that fine-tuning of mass for the universe, namely 1 part in 10^60 for mass density. Compared to the total mass of the observable universe, 1 part in 10^60 works out to about a tenth part of a dime, if not smaller.

    Where Is the Cosmic Density Fine-Tuning? – Hugh Ross
    http://www.reasons.org/where-c.....ine-tuning

    Hebrews 11:3
    “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.”

    Although 1 part in 10^120 and 1 part in 10^60 far exceeds, by many orders of magnitude, the highest tolerance ever achieved in any man-made machine, 1 part in 10^22, according to esteemed British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (1931-present), the odds of one particular individual constant, the “original phase-space volume” of the universe, required such precision that the “Creator’s aim must have been to an accuracy of 1 part in 10^10^123”. This number is gargantuan. If this number were written out in its entirety, 1 with 10^123 zeros to the right, it could not be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe, even if a number were written down on each sub-atomic particle in the entire universe, since the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles in it.

    The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose
    Excerpt: “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”

    This 1 in 10^10^123 number, for the time-asymmetry of the initial state of entropy for the universe, also lends strong support for “highly specified infinite information” creating the universe since;

    “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.”
    Gilbert Newton Lewis

    This staggering level of precision, for each individual universal constant scientists can measure, is exactly why many theoretical physicists have suggested the existence of a “super-calculating intellect” to account for this fine-tuning. This is precisely why the anthropic hypothesis has gained such a strong foothold in many scientific circles. American geneticist Robert Griffiths jokingly remarked about these recent developments;

    “If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use anymore.”

    ———————-

    So please do tell me a bedtime story about how all this fine tuning came to be Nak,,,

  27. —Mr. Nakashima: “Well, I suppose my point in quoting Wallace was that ID is a pretty big tent if Mrs O’Leary can be charmed by him, yet you would oppose him quite strongly.”

    You used Wallace’s quote as an example of someone who is scandalized by my very specific argument that immoral behavior affects religious belief. On the other hand, I perceive nothing at all in my response that alludes to ID, “big tents,” or anything that places O’Leary on one side of an argument and myself on the other. Have you been getting enough sleep?

  28. Mr StephenB,

    The allusion was all mine sir.

  29. Mr BA^77,

    We’re talking about Wallace. Just carpet bombing the thread with another topic is chatterbot behavior.

    The charming opening statement of accusing your partner in dialog of intellectual suicide is funnier if you stick to the canonical “Jane, you ignorant slut…”

  30. Mr StephenB,

    Sorry to miss your earlier rejoinder.

    On the topic of fulfilling prophecies, for the sake of specificity could you give a link to such a list that you think is worth discussing?

  31. Allen_MacNeill

    Could it be that the contributors and commentators at this website aren’t interested in the science of biology, except insofar as it can be distorted for political purposes?

    You’re a commentator, and I think all of your contributions are political.

  32. Im begginning to see the pattern here.
    The defenders of ID always seem to end up invoking religion.
    (Bornagain77 & StephenB Im looking at you)

    And why their posts so loooong ?

  33. Seversky (#20)

    Regarding Darwin’s characterization of hell as a damnable doctrine: see http://www.angelfire.com/linux.....ieve8.html and read the attached essay and articles. I think a fair-minded person would conclude: case not proved.

  34. Darwin’s case, that is. Judge the other case for yourself.

  35. Seversky,

    You wrote: The following is a sentence from Dr E B Aveling’s account of a conversation with him:

    Then the talk fell upon Christianity, and these remarkable words were uttered: “I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.”

    If true, that would put it at about 1849, some ten years after his marriage to Emma and shortly before the death of Annie.”

    Darwin wrote in his autobiography: “I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.” Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. (1958 version)

    I don’t know if Enezio E. De Almeida Filho may have you there, but if his apostasy was complete with the first two thirds of the Book, then it’s not hard to think that the latter third was not well-considered in this time frame either.

  36. BA77,

    here are no apparent reasons why the value of each individual transcendent universal constant could not have been very different than what they actually are.

    Just as there are no apparent reasons they could not be what they are.

    It is like you shuffle and deal a deck of cards; each distribution has a very low probability of being dealt but it happens anyway, all of the time! Sooner or later, any distribution is bound to come up.

    This universe happened too, our existence her is the evidence. We just don’t know anything about the 1 to the 66th versions of universes with constants we wouldn’t enjoy, just as we know nothing about God except we know that we don’t know

  37. Darwin was no apostate, and his autobiography prose on his belief in God is a pretty sneaky one. You cannot even read between the lines.

  38. Cabal,

    You have been dealt 5 Aces over and over and you think you are just lucky.

  39. Allen_McNeil # 10

    Dobzhansky in that famous paper “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense
    Except in the Light of Evolution”, also declared: “I am a creationist and an evolutionist”, and I fear that this intriguing statement has not been given proper divulgation.

    He worked in Brazil for a few years, and Dobzhansky told one of his graduate students (a creationist) that she was right in being so, and that he also was a creationist, but it was too late for him since he had gone too far in science…

    She is a living witness to Dobzhansky’s confession above, and she was ostracized for many years for making this confession public. She had been called a liar, till I fully disclosed Dobzhansky’s paper, and now Brazilian Darwinians have shut up their mouths, and because this woman in science has been vindicated, Dobzhansky’s mantra about evolution is not so often used in Brazil.

  40. Cabal, do you really want to “hide in your imagination” with a multiverse which you have not one shred of positive evidence for? Will you even listen if I expose the fatal errors with your line of materialistic reasoning/imagining? If you won’t follow the truth why?

    The only other theory possible for the universe’s creation, other than a God-centered hypothesis, is some purposeless materialistic theory based on blind chance. Materialistic blind chance only escapes being completely crushed, by the overwhelming weight of evidence for design, by appealing to an infinity of other un-testable universes in which all other possibilities have been played out. Yet there is no hard physical evidence to support this blind chance conjecture. In fact, the “infinite multiverse” conjecture suffers from some very serious flaws of logic. For instance exactly which laws of physics, arising from which material basis, are telling all the other natural laws in physics what, how and when, to do the many precise unchanging things they do in these other universes? Plus, if an infinite number of other possible universes must exist in order to explain the fine tuning of this one, then why is it not also infinitely possible for a infinitely powerful and transcendent Creator to exist? Using the materialist same line of reasoning for an infinity of multiverses to explain the extreme fine-tuning of this one we can surmise; If it is infinitely possible for God to exist then He, of 100% certainty, must exist no matter how small the probability is of His existence in one of these other infinity of universes, and since He certainly must exist, then all possibilities in all universes automatically become subject to Him since He is, by definition, All Powerful. To clearly illustrate the absurdity of what the materialists now consider their cutting edge science: The materialistic conjecture of an infinity of universes to explain the fine tuning of this one also insures the 100% probability of the existence of Pink Unicorns no matter how small the probability is of them existing. In fact a infinity of universes insures the existence of an infinity of Pink Unicorns an infinite number of times. Thus it is self-evident the materialists have painted themselves into a inescapable corner of logical absurdities in trying to find an escape from the Theistic implications we are finding for the fine-tuning of this universe.

    “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.”
    Gregg Easterbrook

    Another escape that materialists have postulated was a slightly constrained ” string-theoretic” multiverse. The following expert shows why the materialistic postulation of “string theory” is, for all intents and purposes of empirical science, a complete waste of time and energy:

    Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law:
    Peter Woit, a PhD. in theoretical physics and a lecturer in mathematics at Columbia, points out—again and again—that string theory, despite its two decades of dominance, is just a hunch aspiring to be a theory. It hasn’t predicted anything, as theories are required to do, and its practitioners have become so desperate, says Woit, that they’re willing to redefine what doing science means in order to justify their labors.

    Baron Münchhausen and the Self-Creating Universe:
    Roger Penrose has calculated that the entropy of the big bang itself, in order to give rise to the life-permitting universe we observe, must be fine-tuned to one part in e10exp(123)?10^10exp(123). Such complex specified conditions do not arise by chance, even in a string-theoretic multiverse with 10^500 different configurations of laws and constants, so an intelligent cause may be inferred. What is more, since it is the big bang itself that is fine-tuned to this degree, the intelligence that explains it as an effect must be logically prior to it and independent of it – in short, an immaterial intelligence that transcends matter, energy and space-time.

    Materialists also use to try to find a place for blind chance to hide by proposing a universe which expands and contracts (recycles) infinitely. Even at first glance, the “recycling universe” conjecture suffers so many questions from the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) as to render it effectively implausible as a serious theory, but now the recycling universe conjecture has been totally crushed by the hard evidence for a “flat” universe found by the “BOOMERANG” experiment.

    Evidence against the oscillating universe- Michael Strauss – video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9G8k02vpI

    Evidence For Flat Universe – Boomerang Project
    http://www.lbl.gov/ScienceArti.....-flat.html
    http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Art.....megal3.gif

    A “flat universe”, which is actually another surprisingly finely-tuned “coincidence” of the universe, means this universe, left to its own present course of accelerating expansion due to “Dark Energy”, will continue to expand forever, thus fulfilling the thermodynamic equilibrium of the second law to its fullest extent (entropic “Heat Death” of the universe).

    The Future of the Universe
    Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. — Not a happy ending.

    Psalm 102:25-27
    Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.

    Big Rip
    Excerpt: The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. Theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future.

    Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution – Part 1 of 3 – Thomas Kindell – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI1RiTOQ4do

    Romans 8:18-21
    I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

    The only hard evidence there is, the stunning precision found in the transcendent universal constants, points overwhelmingly to intelligent design by a transcendent Creator who originally established what the transcendent universal constants of physics could and would do during the creation of the universe. The hard evidence left no room for the blind chance of natural laws in this universe. Thus, materialism was forced into appealing to an infinity of un-testable universes for it was left with no footing in this universe. These developments in science make it seem like materialism was cast into the abyss of nothingness in so far as rationally explaining the fine-tuning of the universe.

    Cabal That is just the evidence against a multiverse, but You must also ignore the positive evidence that has gathered FOR “transcendent information” creating this universe. Thus you have both contradicting logic against the multiverse as well as positive evidence for the Theistic position against you! Do you really want to hide in the dark recesses of what your imagination can conjure instead of follow what the evidence is clearly and overwhelmingly indicating?

  41. Mr AussieID,

    The only reliable indicator of Darwin’s atheism was the growth of his unbridled sexual appetite and libertinism. The one is an index fossil of the other.

  42. Mr BA^77,

    Physical Reality of String Theory Demonstrated

    A first: String theory predicts an experimental result

    Stars In Other Universes: Stellar structure with different fundamental constants

    But please, continue to quote older material. After all, when contesting with a 150 year old version of a theory, the older the source the better. Genetic Entropy says so.

  43. Well, Nak, do you just look at what you want to see? As long as you can get to your delusion of materialism in some convoluted fashion?,,,If you noticed I also quoted this:

    Baron Münchhausen and the Self-Creating Universe:
    Roger Penrose has calculated that the entropy of the big bang itself, in order to give rise to the life-permitting universe we observe, must be fine-tuned to one part in e10exp(123)?10^10exp(123). Such complex specified conditions do not arise by chance, even in a string-theoretic multiverse with 10^500 different configurations of laws and constants, so an intelligent cause may be inferred. What is more, since it is the big bang itself that is fine-tuned to this degree, the intelligence that explains it as an effect must be logically prior to it and independent of it – in short, an immaterial intelligence that transcends matter, energy and space-time.

  44. And Nak, please do explain quantum wave collapse to a material basis so that materialism can have any currency whatsoever as a hypothesis in science!

  45. Nak though you ignore this following piece of evidence with a vengeance, the first law is violated in a controlled fashion by the “infinite information” of quantum teleportation thus providing “positive” evidence for the Theistic postulation of John 1:1., whereas for the materialistic conjecture of the multiverse all you have is highly debatable and unsubstantiated conjecture of very highly speculative manner that is not even within the domain of science proper since it can’t even be tested.

    Scientific Evidence For God (Logos) Creating The Universe
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQhO906v0VM

  46. Nak, in perusing the string paper you referenced, it seems that it was not a full fledged “prediction” which would have validated the string hypothesis into a accepted theory of science, to quote from your first paper:

    Not to say that string theory has been proved. Clifford Johnson of the University of Southern California, the string theorist on the panel, was very clear about that.”

    But none-the-less Nak, they did seem to be able to bring a “subset” of string theory to bear on certain phenomena, which is very interesting and will at least give me a little pause as to deriding it as pure conjecture. But in passing it is interesting to note that even if they were to “describe” this behavior with rigidity and regularity, with the math of “strings”, would not this just add more fine tuned constants for you, the materialist, to deal with? As to helping you explain the origination of the other finely tuned constants, or even the “material” universe itself, this does nothing but add interesting “mathematical dressing” to what is already a fatal problem for the materialist. Namely “WHY” are the constants exactly where they need to be? I may amend my paper a bit to reflect this and may suggest a line of investigation that would find a “anthropic” coincidence,,,but as for materialism gaining any credence it has no bearing.

  47. Mr BA^77,

    …whereas for the materialistic conjecture of the multiverse all you have is highly debatable and unsubstantiated conjecture of very highly speculative manner that is not even within the domain of science proper since it can’t even be tested.

    And your alternative is testable… how?

    I personally don’t argue in favor of a multiverse or many worlds hypotheses.

  48. Mr BA^77,

    If you noticed I also quoted this:

    An article posted by Dr I.D. Finetuneski on ENV? I thought you were a strong proponent of the peer reviewed literature! See if you can track down where the Penrose quote actually comes from.

  49. Mr BA^77,

    Your reaction to the string theory papers is reasonable and gratifying.

    Note that the paper you quote actually came out a few months earlier than the other one, and is a less powerful result, I think. But both show that there is some progress towards string theories making predictions that other theories do not.

    As to the question of whether a string ToE would help or hurt the questions of fine tuning – I think that a goal of at least some work in this area is to show that the constants we perceive are not fine tuned chance but are in fact necessity. So in general there would be a reduction in the number of constants to be explained, if not to zero then at least to a very few, such as the number of spatial and temporal dimensions, etc.

  50. Nak, It is very simple, The first law is violated in quantum teleportation, thus establishing the dominion of “transcendent information (Logos) over the material realm,,,That is clear cut science in its most pristine form,,,For you to have any credence you must prove the first law was not violated,,,it is as simple as that!

  51. Well this may not be so gratifying,,,if you think a full fledged string theory would reduce the number of finely tuned constants you are “on something”. The experimantal results you cite does nothing but point to another level of complexity to be dealt with, i.e. there IS NO reason to presuppose a reduction in the complexity being dealt with and every reason to presuppose an increase in the complexity (Logos)

  52. #12 said:

    Although, FACT, there are some so-called Christians in North America who would like to do something similar: statements of Christian belief on the currency and plastered all over public buildings, mandatory participation in Christian services for children in school whether they are Christian or not and mandatory public prayers before official meetings of public bodies or sporting events regardless of what faith the attendees follow, other religions tolerated as long as they don’t make a nuisance of themselves but atheists and agnostics banned from holding public office and possibly even disqualified from US citizenship – a sort of Christian Talibannination

    is that a fact? well post your proof of this ‘fact’.

    whenever I hear the words ‘christian taliban’ I have to laugh. its such a ridiculous, laugahble charge, that only a liberal could make. Of course these same liberals who are ‘shocked’ ‘shocked I tell you’ at the ‘christianization’ of America, have no problems with the islamization of the world…

  53. Mr BA^77,

    ,,,That is clear cut science in its most pristine form,,,

    Yet somehow passed over by the Nobel Committee,,,

  54. bornagain77 @

    Seversky, So now we get to the meat of the matter. It is not about, nor was it ever about the science, upon which this site is ultimately based in the first place, it is about your deep seeded fear that your loved ones may be in hell.

    Wrong, as usual.

    Since I have no belief in a god, I do not expect there to be a heaven or a hell awaiting us after death. I accept, because there is nothing that I can do about it, that all that lies ahead apparently is utter oblivion. If there is more to it than that, it will be a pleasant surprise.

    It is also possible to get along quite well without needing some great father-figure in the sky to metaphorically pat you on the head and reassure you that it will all be alright in the end.

    If anything irritates me it is the uncritical acceptance of what, in any other situation, would be considered atrocious immorality simply because it is written in the Bible.

    If the God of the Old Testament really exists, He might have the power to compel worship but He has not earned it.

  55. ellijacket @ 24

    If I am damned by believing what God wrote then let it be so.

    As far as I remember, God didn’t write anything himself, unless you count dictating a few commandments. All the rest was made up by sycophantic followers.

  56. AussieID @ 35

    Darwin wrote in his autobiography: “I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.” Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. (1958 version)

    Is it not possible that he came to distrust the Old Testament while still retaining a belief in the God of the New – at least for a while?

  57. So Nak since Albert Einstein never received a Nobel prize for special relativity are you going to disavow special relativity also? Do you not have enough independence of mind to earnestly seek out the truth? or are you such a Darwinbot, so programmed to to follow evolutionary thinking no matter how counter intuitive, that no truth is ever good enough for you to forsake your cherished deception?

  58. Well seversky, if you think oblivion is all that awaits you after death you are in for a big surprise. Hopefully and Prayerfully it is not a terrible surprise for you.
    What gets me is that you deny all the evidence presented to you for God with no hesitation whatsoever without ever even batting an eye, and then act like you are being totally reasonable with all the UD contributors who patiently put up with your self-deceived blindness, as well you never present any evidence that contradicts God actually existing (as if a “material” parameter could exist), You only ever voice your dissatisfaction with your self-deluded belief that God is not running the universe up to your high moral standards, and have the audacity to condemn this imaginary God you have built in your mind as if you have actually made any coherent argument whatsoever. It would be totally hilarious if it were not for the fact you actually think you are being rational in all this. In reality seversky, cold hard reality seversky, God created you, is far, far, wiser than you, and loves you more than you can possibly understand right now. If you would accept this truth as true, instead of thinking you know more than God, then you might find a way to accept what seems to be obvious to most everyone else, save for the “chip on their shoulder” atheists.

  59. tsmith @ 52

    whenever I hear the words ‘christian taliban’ I have to laugh. its such a ridiculous, laugahble charge, that only a liberal could make. Of course these same liberals who are ’shocked’ ’shocked I tell you’ at the ‘christianization’ of America, have no problems with the islamization of the world…

    According to Christians, the United States is already a Christian nation.

    As for fundamentalist extremism there is little to choose between Islam and Christianity. Muslims arguably have a greater propensity for violence at present but I suspect it is lurking just below the surface on the Christian side as well.

    As for Christian Taliban, you could start with Gary North:

    –”In winning a nation to the gospel, the sword as well as the pen must be used.”

    –”The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant – baptism and holy communion – must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.”

    –”So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”

    –“The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16).”

  60. Mr BA^77,

    Of the many things with which you are overly enamored, quantum teleportation and the implication to Logos is pretty high on the list. Find some way of testing your ideas, and then test them. Get the results published in a peer reviewed journal. Until then, color me unimpressed.

  61. Nak, Can Darwinbots ever be impressed with any evidence for design whatsoever? Or can Darwinbots ever be unimpressed with any convoluted deception for evolution? ,,, I think both are a given Mr. Nak Roboto

  62. Seversky

    1. Oliver North I’ve heard of, but who on earth is Gary?

    2. You write about a Christian Taliban, despite the fact that not one Christian priest or minister in the world today calls for the death penalty for non-believers or ex-believers.

    Here’s Sam Harris, a leading contemporary exponent of atheism:

    “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”
    (The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, London 2006, pp. 52-53.)

    And here’s the Secular humanist Web site, Better Human.org (click on the button labeled, “Our Tenets”):

    Tenet 21:

    All forms of ethereal belief organizations [i.e. religions and other groups with a belief in the supernatural - VJT] must be legally oppressed (enforcement definition) so as to avoid having these concepts escape the category of mythology. Mandatory reality education will also help to prevent the manifestation of religions.
    …. This is probably the greatest challenge we face as a society: the stepwise elimination of religion as an influence in our perspective… To begin, we could create a provocative propaganda campaign that discredits the notion of gods, perhaps by contrasting the differing beliefs of various religions, or by comparing directly to ancient mythology, or even common fairy tales such as Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny. Focusing this propaganda on the young would prove most effective as they represent the future. Next, we could introduce the subject, ‘evolution of religion’ into our children’s schools, which details the plausible origins of religious perspectives from the times of ancient humans, all the way through to their fully manifested forms as they are today. As well, evolution theory should be taught in tandem with religion – evolution theory such that the children can understand how religion forms a very necessary and yet now obsolete portion of human intellectual evolution. Over more time, as anti-religious sentiment grows, there will be a breaking point at which the majority of voting influence can pressure the governing body to legally oppress organized religions, thereby sparing the remainder of potential mythology victims from falling into the maddening trap of a fantasy perspective; only then will the human species finally have been vaccinated from the religious meme-virus (emphases mine – VJT).

    I respectfully submit that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

    3. Regarding Darwin’s religious beliefs, you might like to have a look at this article by Dr. Benjamin Wiker: What were Darwin’s religious views? at http://www.discovery.org/a/9501 .

  63. Rescuing Darwin

    Ever since the Origin of Species was first published 150 years ago, scientists and creationists have tried to spin the religious views of Charles Darwin their way.

    By Paul Fayter

    he “creation versus evolution” controversy was heating up again. It was the 1980s, and I was a published doctoral student in late Victorian Darwinism and theology. I had researched Charles Darwin’s life from womb to tomb, studied his published work, his unpublished archives at Cambridge University, his scientific circle of friends and a ton of theological responses to his work. I was teaching the specialist course Darwin and Darwinism at the University of Toronto’s history of science institute.

    And so I was invited to lecture biology professors of the faculty of zoology on “Darwin and the creationists.” The expectation, I suppose, was that I would keep Darwin on his pedestal and expose the religious fanatics for the ignorant dim-wits they were.

    I started with an analysis of the structure of The Origin of Species, noting the gaps in Darwin’s evidence and how they affected his argument. Murmurs in the audience grew louder as I described Darwin’s theological education and influences. From the 1820s through the 1840s, as he was developing his idea of natural selection, Darwin was a Christian who saw both evolution and design in nature, God’s creation. The Origin offered a scientific argument for how the Creator worked by means of natural laws.

    Read more here:

    http://www.ucobserver.org/fait.....ng_darwin/

  64. 64

    “I suspect it is lurking just below the surface on the Christian side as well”

    A bit Joe McCarthyish that statement?
    Beware of Christians they hide under your bed and before you know it they’ll take over the world. Oh mercy me! Please no!

    “Gary North”:

    Who’s Gary North?

  65. Interesting; the article by Paul Fayter (appearing on a website sponsored by The United Church Observer, a Christian organization) directly contradicts many of the assertions made by ID supporters at Uncommon Descent, not to mention Benjamin Wiker’s recent book, The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin.

    Unlike the commentators here (and Benjamin Wiker), Paul Fayter has spent a significant fraction of his professional life studying Darwin and his work. Here’s what he found:

    - Darwin was not an atheist when he wrote the Origin of Species (and therefore could not possibly have written it as an “apology” for his atheism)

    - the most important factors in his eventual agnosticism were 1) the death of his daughter, Annie, and 2) his view that a benevolent deity would not have created a world with such horrors as parasites (and the indiscriminate death of innocents)

    - that despite his agnosticism, Darwin remained a “practicing” member of both the Church of England and his local parish church

    - that despite his embrace of evolutionary theory, he did not descend into a life of libertinism and immorality, nor did he distort his theory to support any political position (including eugenics or “social darwinism”)

    - he remained a dedicated scientist, a loving husband, a doting father, a devoted member of his parish, and an unwavering opponent of slavery and its concomitant evils

    - he also remained what would now be considered to be a “theistic evolutionist” until his death

    Here is Faytor’s conclusion:

    Darwin was able to reconcile the power and glory of a good and loving God with nature’s cold indifference and manifest cruelty – the infamous and pitiless “survival of the fittest” – by viewing struggle, pain, suffering and death not as the direct will of God but as the result of the impersonal operation of universal laws. The process of evolution by means of natural selection was deadly and wasteful, and yet, as Darwin concluded in The Origin, it had a higher, nobler purpose. Higher species would evolve. The Creator – the God of scientific theism – lawfully drew good out of evil and progress out of pain.

    Near the end of his life, Darwin thought it impossible to conceive that “this immense and wonderful universe” was “the result of blind chance or necessity.” No, it still seemed that the world had been willed into being. “I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man,” he wrote in his autobiography, “and I deserve to be called a Theist.” At the same time, Darwin believed that “the mystery of the beginning of all things” was simply unsolvable; and so he also declared, “I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.”

    All of this directly contradicts Wiker’s biography of Darwin and the opinions of most of the commentators here. Demonizing Darwin, especially when there are very good (and unbiased) biographies of Darwin (not to mention his own, very candid autobiography) does nothing to harm Darwin’s scientific reputation. By contrast, the fundamental misunderstanding among many ID supporters of how real science is done does quite a bit to harm ID’s scientific reputation.

    Neither evolutionary biology nor ID will be advanced or forestalled as scientific enterprises by pro- or anti-hagiographies of Charles Darwin (or any other individual scientist or ID supporter). This will happen only when sufficient field and laboratory work has been done and the results published in reputable scientific journals to decide between them. So far ID supporters have chosen to pursue a political program and the vilification of world-renowned scientists, rather than do the requisite science. Until they decide to abandon ad hominem political arguments and actually focus on the science, they will remain (like “scientific creationism”) a cautionary footnote to the history of the triumph of evolutionary biology.

    P.S. I find it quite significant that only ID supporters refer to Darwin as a “little God”. Like all evolutionary biologists, I consider him to have been a dedicated and talented observer of nature and a genuinely good person, but (like all of us) a plain and simple (and, of course, fallible) human.

  66. Allen,

    I think you should take up your discourse with Niles Eldredge who I believe considers Darwin an atheist. But in his society, there is no way he was going to admit it let alone proselytize it.

    I am certainly not an expert on Darwin but to me the key element in all this is his intransigence in letting any sort of design or intervention in on his theory. This level of unwillingness to me is telling. Even a true agnostic would consider alternatives such as a creator and what such a creator might do.

    No his tenacious refusal to consider a creator is what is compelling on how he actually thought.

  67. Re jerry’s comment #66:

    I’m not aware of Niles Eldredge’s views about Darwin’s atheism. I was specifically referring to the views of Benjamin Wiker and many of the commentators on this blog, who have often and vociferously accused Darwin (and, by extension, virtually all evolutionary biologists) of atheism and much worse besides.

    On the contrary, Darwin refused to call himself an atheist, preferring Thomas Huxley’s term “agnostic”. In his autobiography and much of later correspondence he was quite clear that he believed that the question of the existence or non-existence of God was one that science (including evolutionary biology) could not address. Should we believe Niles Eldredge, you or Darwin himself? Personally, I prefer to take people at face value and believe what they say (and write) until shown overwhelming objective proof to the contrary. Maybe it’s just the Quaker in me; to accept a simple yea or nay, and to assume that people mean what they say.

    As to Darwin’s “intransigence” and “unwillingness” to “let…any sort of design…into his theory”, what does that have to do with his atheism or lack thereof? Is it necessarily the case that a scientific theory of evolution must or must not include metaphysical speculation on the presence or absence of design in nature? Every year I assign my students the task finding where in the Origin of Species or Darwin’s other writings he either affirms or denies the existence of “design” or “purpose” in nature. So far, none of them have reported on either a negative or positive finding. If you can find such assertion or denial, please post it here, so I can show my students the error of their ways.

    It seems, therefore, that Darwin did not mention either design in nature or the lack thereof in any of his published writings. Once again, you may wish to speculate that he nevertheless held either positive or negative views on the subject, but to do so in the complete absence of evidence seems to me to be irrational.

    Finally, as to your assertion that “a true agnostic would consider alternatives such as a creator and what such a creator might do”, my response is to simply ask “why”? To be specific, why indulge in metaphysical speculation completely beyond any possibility of empirical verification or falsification if such speculation is neither necessary nor relevant to a scientific explanation?

    Furthermore, to speculate as to “what…a creator might do” would be to do precisely what stephenB (at http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-338647) and Tim ( at http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-338639), along with many other ID supporters at this website say is neither necessary nor warranted: to drag religious speculation into what should be a purely scientific enterprise.

  68. Allen_MacNeill,

    Near the end of his life, Darwin thought it impossible to conceive that “this immense and wonderful universe” was “the result of blind chance or necessity.” No, it still seemed that the world had been willed into being.

    Are you suggesting that Darwin was an advocate of Intelligent Design?

  69. Allen,

    I am sorry but your response does not make sense. Either there is an intelligence and that intelligence had an input or there in no intelligence and it is nonsense. There is a third position and that is the intelligence exists and does not have any input. But that is an absurd position.

    So by refusing to consider the possibility of an intelligence and not letting its consideration be a possibility, Darwin was making a choice. I have to assume that choice was based on internal beliefs.

    So logic and the evidence points to Darwin as an atheist and all the rest is posturing. He was just not in a position within his society to outwardly make such a declaration. But if he is consistent he was an atheist who did not want to deal with the implications of such a position.

    I know many people who go to Church and theoretically profess belief in a religion to actually respond on questioning that they really don’t believe in anything and only do it for the kids or to avoid uncomfortable discussions with family and friends.

    So to answer your point. I tend to believe Darwin. If he considered a creator as a viable potential input to life, he would have taken a completely different tack. So Darwin has spoken and I believe him. He was an atheist.

  70. Re Clive in #68:

    Again, I would prefer to let Darwin’s words speak for him:

    “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.” [emphasis added]

    From my reading of this (and many other passages from Darwin’s published works and correspondence) that Darwin believed that if there was a role for a deity (about the actual existence of whom he remained completely agnostic), it was to establish the “laws” of organic evolution, and that having established those laws, “…from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

    Personally, I believe that speculation about whence the “laws” of organic evolution have come from is outside the purview of the empirical sciences, and therefore I do not speculate about them when doing science. That’s best left for to practitioners of philosophical metaphysics (and theology).

  71. Re jerry in comment #69:

    Here are two direct quotes from Darwin:

    With respect to the theological view of the question [of evolution]; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

    On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can. [Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 2814 — Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa, 22 May (1860)]

    In his autobiography written in 1876 Darwin recalled that at the time of writing the Origin of Species the conclusion was strong in his mind that God existed due to

    “…the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.

    How do you reconcile these statements, made by Darwin himself at two very different times in his life, with your position that he was an atheist? You may, of course, assert that he was lying, but if so, please provide empirical evidence to support your assertion.

  72. BTW (and contrary to O’Leary’s assertions in the lead post for this thread), neither of these quotes from Darwin were taken from his publications. The first was from a private letter to the American botanist (and evolution supporter), Asa Gray (author of Gray’s Manual of Botany) and the second was from Darwin’s autobiography, which by his own account he wrote only for “amusement” and intended it only for the members of his immediate family (it was published widely only after his death by his son, Francis).

    Ergo (and directly contrary to O’Leary’s assertions), both Darwin’s public and private positions on the relationship between his theory of evolution and religion were:
    1) that he did not intend that they be considered to be related, and
    2) that he did not intend to either “prove” or “disprove” either.

    Once again, science is not about “proof” or “Truth”, it’s about formulating explanations for the patterns we observe in nature that have not yet been contradicted by the facts.

  73. Allen,

    I base my conclusions on how one acts and not on what one says. I am sorry but I do not take people at their word when their actions show otherwise. I can point to any number of current politicians as a case in point.

    I do not have the details at my finger tips and if I am wrong then I will retract my assessment of Darwin. It is based on my recollection that there was more than one occasion where he forcefully rejected the possibility of non natural causes when he did not have to. He went out of his way to dismiss the possibility and forcefully argue for only natural causes. This is my understanding and if I am wrong, then I will retract my assessment.

    There may be others reading this who are more familiar with all that Darwin did and I will bow to them. Maybe you have the examples and if you do then you should in all honesty present them. I haven’t got time to research this but there might be others here with more of the specifics.

    I find your defense of Darwin on this interesting. I get the feeling that many are sensitive to the coupling of naturalistic evolution theory and atheism not because they don’t think it is true but only because politically or socially the connection could cause a problem. Hence, your defense here. I wouldn’t be surprised if you actually believed Darwin was an atheist but those who defend him cannot allow such a connection to dominate the discussion especially when his theory is dead as you have proclaimed in the past.

    It is damaging enough to have a bad theory but to have it sustained because of its atheistic implications is beyond the pale. So best to deny the atheistic implications even when one knows they are at the heart of the discussion.

  74. “[L]ittle god Darwin”?

    The hatred some in the IDcreationism camp have in their hearts is almost frightening.

  75. Re Jerry in #73:

    “I base my conclusions on how one acts and not on what one says.”

    Please list those acts by Darwin (or me, or almost any other evolutionary biologist, for that matter) that indicate that he (and I, and we) are
    a) lying about our true motivations
    b) saying we are one thing (i.e. moral, objective, etc.) but, through our acts, demonstrating the opposite.

    “Maybe you have the examples and if you do then you should in all honesty present them.”

    I already have, in comment #70. I also recommend Janet Browne’s two volume biography of Darwin, which provides unusually detailed insights into his personal life and beliefs, as well as historical background for his scientific work. Her biography has been widely praised as the most complete and objective biography of Darwin ever published.

    But, of course, to some of the commentators here, she’s just lying to promote her atheist worldview, despite the fact that her biography of Darwin has been meticulously and copiously documented using Darwin’s own autobiography, correspondence, and private notebooks (and the fact that Browne herself has never publicly said or written whether or not she is an atheist).

    Benjamin Wiker, for instance, thinks that Darwin’s entire “atheistic/ materialistic” worldview was formed during his attendance at a few meetings of an “freethinkers’ club” (Wiker’s characterization) while he was a young student at Edinburgh University. Wiker believes that these few hours spent in what amounted to undergraduate bull sessions trumps the half century Darwin spent doing his scientific work, the tens of thousands of letters Darwin wrote to his friends and professional colleagues, and the intimate and candid observations of his life and character, drawn from his friends and family over his lifetime.

    It is based on my recollection that there was more than one occasion where he forcefully rejected the possibility of non natural causes when he did not have to. He went out of his way to dismiss the possibility and forcefully argue for only natural causes.

    Every word of all six editions of the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man and all of Darwin’s other published works (plus his autobiography and much of his correspondence) are available online here: http://darwin-online.org.uk/
    and here: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/
    Go ahead, read through it and when you find corroboration for your assertions, feel free to post them here.

    “I find your defense of Darwin on this interesting. I get the feeling that many are sensitive to the coupling of naturalistic evolution theory and atheism not because they don’t think it is true but only because politically or socially the connection could cause a problem. Hence, your defense here.”

    Using the links I provided above, please find for me precisely where Darwin “coupled naturalistic evolution theory and atheism” and post it here.

    “I wouldn’t be surprised if you actually believed Darwin was an atheist but those who defend him cannot allow such a connection to dominate the discussion especially when his theory is dead as you have proclaimed in the past.”

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Both Darwin and I have asserted that he was not an atheist, and you seem to think that you can divine the workings of my own mind. That’s demagoguery, bordering perilously close to mendacity.

    Furthermore, I have nowhere asserted that Darwin’s theory was “dead”. On the contrary, I have asserted that the “modern evolutionary synthesis” as it existed in the late 1950s was “dead”, by which I clearly meant it had been superceded by a much more comprehensive and realistic theory, based on half a century of detailed empirical research and theoretical analysis.

    “It is damaging enough to have a bad theory but to have it sustained because of its atheistic implications is [sic] beyond the pale.”

    The current theory of evolution is supported by hundreds of thousands of scientific journal articles and books, containing the results and interpretation of a century and a half of meticulous empirical research carried out by scientists of all religious persuasions, whose commitment was to science, not to religious (or atheist) dogma.

    However, nothing like this can be said about ID, for which there are a handful of books (only one of which was peer-reviewed) and no regularly published scientific journals of any kind. So I agree with you, with this slight modification: It is damaging enough to have a bad theory, but to have it sustained because of its religious implications is indeed beyond the pale.

  76. Allen,

    It is damaging enough to have a bad theory, but to have it sustained because of its religious implications is indeed beyond the pale.

    That’s called Darwinism. And I agree with you, it’s beyond the pale, just ask Richard Lewontin about his fear of the Divine foot in the door.

  77. Allen,

    I am afraid it is you who have the reading comprehension problem. I was careful with my words and maybe I made a mistake some place but I did not see you pick it up. You brought in a lot of extraneous information.

    I never questioned Janet Brown or anything she wrote, because I have not read it. I do not know where what I recollect came from but I believe there was more than one instance where Darwin insisted that non natural explications were not possible and they were in response to criticisms and thus would not be in his books. So I don’t think offering his books up is meaningful.

    You said and this is categorical

    “Go ahead, read through it and when you find corroboration for your assertions, feel free to post them here.”

    You are assuming that what I said is not true and that my recollections are wrong which they could be but suppose my recollections are correct, what will that mean.

    As far as any theory of evolution being proven, it has not been even close. And you know that as well as any one.

    You know and we know that the issue is macro evolution and when you had the chance to provide evidence you failed to do so. Your colleague Will Provine admitted that it is based on faith. And to me faith is religious in nature especially when it concerns origins. It is no different than those who have faith that a being created the world and the things in it.

    In the end the issue here is two fold.

    Whether Darwin reacted to criticism that his ideas could be supplemented by an intelligent input by categorically rejecting them.

    and

    Whether his theory/ideas have been proven or even to be shown reasonable.

    The second has never been shown and if I come across the evidence for the first, I will make sure I keep the cite this time since the first time around I did not anticipate this discussion. I haven’t got the time to look for it so maybe I will write Wilker and Flannery to see if they have any information. I said if I cannot find it then I will retract it and change my assessment. Did you read that? So until I find the information I remember seeing, consider my assessment currently retracted. In the last year I have watched a Teaching Company course on Darwin, read Wiker’s book, watched some videos on Darwin put on by Stanford as well as several other things that might contain what I am looking for and at present have no time to go over them again.

  78. In #77 jerry wrote:

    “You are assuming that what I said is not true”

    On the contrary, I am merely asking you to support your assertion with a citation that anyone reading this thread can verify. That’s how academic debate is properly carried out: you make arguments, supported by evidence, not just assertions supported by…well, by nothing really.

    “As far as any theory of evolution being proven, it has not been even close.”

    Science is not about “proof”, nor is it about “Truth”, at least not as these two terms are commonly defined (especially in mathematics). Rather, science is about reasonable explanations for observable phenomena based on empirical observations and/or experiments, which have not yet been falsified by contradictory observations. By this criterion (the only one used in the natural sciences), evolutionary biology is the explanation that fits the largest amount of the available data.

    “You know and we know that the issue is macro evolution…”

    Not true; ever since the publication of the Origin of Species a century and half ago, the theory of evolution has been about two separate, but related phenomena:
    1) the origin of adaptations by means of natural selection, and
    2) the divergence and diversification of reproductively isolated populations (i.e. species) from reproductively panmictic ancestral populations.

    These two subjects correspond directly to the two subdivisions of evolutionary biology today: microevolution, or the origin of the biological characteristics of individuals as the result of differential survival and reproduction, and
    macroevolution, or the origin of reproductively isolated and diverging groups of organisms.

    “…when you had the chance to provide evidence [for macroevolution] you failed to do so.”

    False: I posted a link to my blog post on macroevolution (here it is:
    http://evolutionlist.blogspot......dence.html ), and I recommended reading several of the current books on the subject (including an anthology of articles on the subject, edited by Elizabeth Vrba and Niles Eldredge: Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency (Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould) (2005) The Paleontological Society/Allen Press, Lawrence, KA, 210 pages).

    My colleague, mentor, and co-instructor for evolution at Cornell, Will Provine, never said that macroevolution was a “fantasy”. What I suspect he said was that the idea that one could write the kind of mathematical equations that form the conceptual basis for microevolution was a “fantasy” with respect to macroevolution. This is because, unlike microevolution, the processes that drive macroevolution cannot be mathematically modeled, any more than virtually any process which includes some form of historical contingency can be mathematically modeled.

    “In the last year I have watched a Teaching Company course on Darwin, read Wiker’s book, watched some videos on Darwin put on by Stanford as well as several other things that might contain what I am looking for and at present have no time to go over them again.”

    Interesting that you should mention The Teaching Company. I have auditioned for them to do a lecture series on the Darwinian Revolutions. I have also just completed a series of videos on the same subject for Cornell’s CyberTower program. You can watch them online here:
    http://cybertower.cornell.edu/lodetails.cfm?id=421
    The official launch date for this series is 24 November, the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

  79. Allen,

    I ordered Janet Browne’s book. I believe my cite will be in there or not. My assessment has to do with how Darwin reacted to Gray’s, Lyell’s and Wallace’s criticism of his ideas. Obviously all three supported parts of his theory but none supported all of it.

  80. bornagain77 @ 58

    Well seversky, if you think oblivion is all that awaits you after death you are in for a big surprise. Hopefully and Prayerfully it is not a terrible surprise for you.

    We shall see, if you are right.

    If I am right, we won’t.

    What gets me is that you deny all the evidence presented to you for God with no hesitation whatsoever without ever even batting an eye, and then act like you are being totally reasonable with all the UD contributors who patiently put up with your self-deceived blindness, as well you never present any evidence that contradicts God actually existing (as if a “material” parameter could exist)

    If you want me or anyone else to believe in your God it is up to you to provide the evidence.

    And evidence is a lot more than the fact that a lot of people believe in God. For a long time a lot of people believed the Sun went around the Earth but that didn’t make it true. It is a lot more than the fact that you can’t imagine how it all came about if it wasn’t created. We can’t even imagine everything yet, let alone know it. Our ignorance is evidence only of our ignorance. As for a holy text of highly dubious provenance being evidence, you might as well argue that The Lord of The Rings is evidence for the existence of Sauron.

    You only ever voice your dissatisfaction with your self-deluded belief that God is not running the universe up to your high moral standards, and have the audacity to condemn this imaginary God you have built in your mind as if you have actually made any coherent argument whatsoever.

    It isn’t me pushing the idea of an objective morality deriving its authority from being decreed by some impeccable deity.

    I’m thinking of Darwin watching helplessly as his beloved daughter died by inches in front of him. I’m imagining him being tortured by the question of what possible divine purpose her death could have served.

    I’m remembering the family that stood around praying as their daughter died from diabetes on the floor in front of them, not one of them lifting a finger to help her. Where is the evidence of your God in all that?

    I am also mindful of the fact that, like millions of others, I also have diabetes and that disease is held in check, not by prayer but by the products of medical science. They have been tested and they work. That is evidence, cold, hard, replicable and reliable. Give me evidence like that for your God and I will believe.

  81. Seversky:

    That is evidence, cold, hard, replicable and reliable. Give me evidence like that for your God and I will believe.

    Well though cold and impersonal,,,and a long step short of what I consider having a “personal relationship” with God,, here is repeatable evidence:

    Scientific Evidence For God Creating The Universe – 2008 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQhO906v0VM

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) — Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

    Reflection on the quantum teleportation experiment:

    That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation of its “infinite” information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Thus, this is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means, yet a photon of energy is destroyed by this transcendent means. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, energy, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities. i.e. All information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist. Another line of evidence, corroborating the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information, is the required mathematical definition for infinite information needed to correctly specify the reality of a photon qubit (Armond Duwell).
    The fact that quantum teleportation shows an exact “location dominion”, of a photon of energy by “a specified truth of infinite information”, satisfies a major requirement for the entity needed to explain the missing Dark Matter. The needed transcendent explanation would have to dominate energy in a very similar “specified location” fashion, as is demonstrated by the infinite information of quantum teleportation, to satisfy what is needed to explain the missing dark matter.

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

    Moreover, the fact that simple quantum entanglement shows “coordinated universal control” of entangled photons of energy, by transcendent information, satisfies a major requirement for the entity which must explain the missing Dark Energy. i.e. The transcendent entity, needed to explain Dark Energy, must explain why the entire space of the universe is expanding in such a finely-tuned, coordinated, degree, and would have to employ a mechanism of control very similar to what we witness in the quantum entanglement experiment.

    Job 9:8
    He stretches out the heavens by Himself and walks on the waves of the sea.

    Thus “infinite transcendent information” provides a coherent picture of universal control, and specificity, that could possibly unify all of physics upon further elucidation. It very well may be possible to elucidate, mathematically, the overall pattern God has chosen to implement infinite information in this universe. This following article powerfully backs up my assertion:

    Is Unknown Force In Universe Acting On Dark Matter?
    Excerpt: It is possible that a non-gravitational fifth force is ruling the dark matter with an invisible hand, leaving the same fingerprints on all galaxies, irrespective of their ages, shapes and sizes.” ,,Such a force might solve an even bigger mystery, known as ‘dark energy’, which is ruling the accelerated expansion of the Universe. A more radical solution is a revision of the laws of gravity first developed by Isaac Newton in 1687 and refined by Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity in 1916. Einstein never fully decided whether his equation should add an omnipresent constant source, now called dark energy. ,,Dr Famaey added, “If we account for our observations with a modified law of gravity, it makes perfect sense to replace the effective action of hypothetical dark matter with a force closely related to the distribution of visible matter.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....154644.htm

    “I discovered that nature was constructed in a wonderful way, and our task is to find out its mathematical structure”
    Albert Einstein

    Further reflections on the “infinite transcendent information” framework:

    Mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. As well, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for mass at the speed of light (i.e. the mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light.). For us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, only gets us to first base as far as quantum teleportation is concerned. That is to say, traveling at the speed of light only gets us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, “past and future folding into now”, framework/dimension of time. This “eternal” inference for light is warranted because light is not “frozen within time” yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light.

    “I’ve just developed a new theory of eternity.”
    Albert Einstein

    “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.” – Richard Swenson

    Also, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, but, and this is a big but; this “timeless” travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework/dimension of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. In information teleportation though the “time not passing”, eternal, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but also in our temporal framework/dimension. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks/dimensions, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus “pure information” is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks/dimensions. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which It resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned). Logic also dictates “a decision” must have been made, by the “transcendent, eternal, infinite information” from the primary timeless (eternal) reality It inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive. The restriction imposed by our physical limitations of us ever accessing complete infinite information to our temporal framework/dimension does not detract, in any way, from the primacy and dominion of the infinite, eternal, transcendent, information framework/dimension that is now established by the quantum teleportation experiment as the primary reality of our reality. Of note: All of this evidence meshes extremely well with the theistic postulation of God being infinite and perfect in knowledge.

    “An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality”
    Akiane – Child Prodigy

    As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler’s footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is “information”.

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.” Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation:

  82. further reflection:

    In what I consider an absolutely fascinating discovery; 4-dimensional (4D) space-time was created in the Big Bang and continues to “expand equally in all places” i.e. The universe is not expanding into anything outside of itself. Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular spot in the universe is to be considered just as “center of the universe” as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered “center of the universe”.

    Where is the centre of the universe?:
    Excerpt: There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a “Big Bang” about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/.....entre.html

    This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live.

    There Is No 3D Center To This Universe – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_7Ta5igSEc

    So in a holistic sense, as facts revealed later in this paper will bear out, it may now be possible for the earth to, once again, be considered “central to the universe”. This intriguing possibility, for the earth to once again be considered central, is clearly illustrated by the fact the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), left over from the creation of the universe, forms a sphere around the earth.

    Earth As The Center Of The Universe – image
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....QydzV2OGhz

    Psalm 102:19
    The LORD looked down from His sanctuary on high, from heaven He viewed the earth,

    On top of this “4D expanding hypersphere geometry”, the primary reason the CMBR forms a sphere around the earth is because quantum wave collapse, to its “uncertain” 3D particle/state, is dependent on “observation” in quantum mechanics; i.e. 3D reality does not truly “materialize” until a observer is present (A. Aspect). Moreover, this wave collapse, to its “uncertain” 3D particle/state, is shown by experiment to be instantaneous, and is also shown to be without regard to distance. i.e. It is universal for each observer. As well, CMBR ultimately indicates that information about all points in the universe is actually available to each “central” observer, in any part of the 4D expanding universe, simultaneously. i.e. The CMBR will form a sphere around any observer in the universe, no matter where they are in the universe, because quantum waves will collapse instantaneously, and universally, to each and every individual observer in the 4D expanding universe.

    This following study solidly refutes the “hidden variable” argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of this instantaneous “spooky action at a distance” found in quantum mechanics.

    Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
    Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm

    (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for “spooky” forces, as Einstein termed them—forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.)

    I find it extremely interesting that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its “uncertain” 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that I exist?

    Proverbs 15:3
    The eyes of the LORD are in every place,,,

    This is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence they seem to be having a extremely difficult time “unifying” mathematically (Einstein, Penrose). Yet, a unification which Jesus apparently seems to have joined together with His resurrection:

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do2KUiPEL5U

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31 – William Dembski
    Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.” http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf

    Philippians 2: 5-11
    Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    “Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature.”
    St. Augustine

    Thus, much contrary to the mediocrity of earth, and of humans, brought about by the heliocentric discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus, the findings of modern science are very comforting to Theistic postulations in general, and even lends strong support of plausibility to the main tenet of Christianity which holds Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.

    Matthew 28:18
    And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth.”

    Of related interest, this following article is interesting for it draws attention to the fact that humans “just so happen” to be near the logarithmic center of the universe, between Planck’s length and the cosmic horizon of the cosmic background radiation (10^-33 cm and 10^28 cm respectively) .

    The View from the Centre of the Universe by Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel R. Primack
    Excerpt: The size of a human being is near the centre of all possible sizes.
    http://www.popularscience.co.u.....feat24.htm

  83. Further reflection:

    In conjunction with the mathematical necessity of an “Uncaused Cause” to explain the beginning of the universe, in philosophy it has been shown that,,,

    “The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment.”
    Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2......html#more

    I find this centuries old philosophical argument, for the necessity of a “First Mover” accounting for change occurring at each moment, to be validated by quantum mechanics. This is since the possibility for the universe to be considered a “closed system” of cause and effect is removed with the refutation of the “hidden variable” argument. i.e. There must be a sufficient transcendent cause (God/First Mover) to explain the quantum wave collapse to the “uncertain” 3D effect for “each moment” of the universe.

    Why, who makes much of a miracle? As to me, I know of nothing else but miracles, Whether I walk the streets of Manhattan,
    Or dart my sight over the roofs of houses toward the sky,,,
    Walt Whitman – Miracles

    Moreover, the transcendent cause must be sufficient to explain the semi-unique effect of 3D centrality witnessed by each individual observer in the universe.

    Quantum Mechanics – The Limited Role Of The Observer – Michael Strauss – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elg83xUZZBs

    That the “mind” of a individual observer would play such an integral yet not complete “closed system role”, in the instantaneous quantum wave collapse of the universe to “3D centrality”, gives us clear evidence that our “mind” is a unique entity. A unique entity with a superior quality of existence when compared to the “uncertain 3D particles” of the “material” universe that won’t even collapse until a conscious observer is present. This is clear evidence for the existence of the “higher dimensional soul” of man that supersedes any “material basis” that the soul has been purported to “emerge” from. These following studies lend strong support to this “superior quality” of our minds:

    In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a “mental intention” preceded an actual neuronal firing – thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether. http://books.google.com/books?.....8;lpg=PT28

    “As I remarked earlier, this may present an “insuperable” difficulty for some scientists of materialists bent, but the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.” Eccles

    “Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder.”
    Heinrich Heine – in the year 1834

    Genesis 2:7
    And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    Of more importance though, the “effect”, of universal quantum wave collapse to each “central 3D observer”, gives us clear evidence of the extremely special importance that the “cause”, of the “Infinite Mind of God”, places on each of our own individual minds.

    Psalm 139:17-18
    How precious concerning me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!
    Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you.

    Intelligent Design – The Anthropic Hypothesis
    http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/

  84. Bornagain77

    You might be interested to know that Professor David Oderberg (an old friend of mine from university days) gave a talk on Aquinas’s First Way, at the Joseph Butler Society, Oriel College, Oxford, in May 2009. The talk is 1 hour, followed by 1 hour of Q&A. If you go to his Web page at http://www.reading.ac.uk/AcaDe.....so/dso.htm and scroll down to the bottom, you’ll find the mp3 and wma links to the talk. Enjoy!

  85. Mr BA^77,

    That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation of its “infinite” information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

    Can you cite a reference to a photon being destroyed in a quantum teleportation experiment?

    Also, from the abstract of the Duwell paper you cite:

    I will also argue that that information transfer, understood as something more than simple qubit transfer, is not necessary for teleportation to occur.

    I’m personally sympathetic to “it from bit” thinking, just not your word salad version of it.

    BTW, did you know Duwell has an unpublished Darwin paper on his site? It is an interesting read. It has this quote from Darwin in 1838:

    On August 16th Darwin writes:
    What a magnificent view one can take of the world Astronomical <a unknown> causes, modifed by unknown ones. cause changes in
    geography & changes of climate superadded to change of climate from physical causes.—these superinduce changes of form in the organic world, as adaptation. & these changing affect each other, & their bodies, by certain laws of harmony keep perfect in these themselves.—instincts alter, reason is formed, & the world peopled <<with Myriads of distinct forms>> from a period short of eternity to the present time, to the future— How far grander than idea from cramped imagination that God created.

    (D36-7 Barrett, et al. 1987, 342-3)

    Another interesting quote:

    No other passage seems to indicate Darwin’s Lyellian commitments more than the following. Lyell, in his Principles, argues that geologists should not speculate on the origin of the earth. Instead, they should focus only on explaining the present state of the earth in reference to observable causes.(Lyell 1969 vol I, 105) Darwin writes:
    it is useless to speculate <<not only>> about beginning of animal life.: generally, but even about great division, our question is not, how there come to be fishes & quadrupeds, but how there come to be, many genera of fish &c &c at present day.— (C58 Barrett, et al. 1987, 257)

    Just another example of how we have moved on from the man’s positions, that we now do think that OOL and macroevolution are open to scientific investigation.

  86. Nak, still enamored with all deceptions Darwin? Do you have a little shrine of Darwin in your room that you bow down to,,,sort of like a little bearded Buddha thing?

    If I listed the reference what difference would it make to you Nak?, you would just ignore it as you do everything else and move on to some other piece of crap darwinists evidence. As far as I can tell, You have absolutely no interest in being fair and objective with the evidence ,,so why should I even give you the time of day much less references?

  87. Mr BA^77,

    You regularly give references to many things unasked for, but you can’t supply one for an idea that is very basic to your whole argument? Just one peer reviewed article showing photons are destroyed during quantum teleportation, is it too much to ask of you? Your reticence is uncharacteristic.

  88. Well sorry Nak, I did not know this blog was created to please you and that everybody has to stop whatever else they me be involved in to satisfy your pointless meanderings of self-deceived delusion,,, but do not feel to bad, from my perspective I do not talk to brick walls either since they , as well as you, offer nothing constructive to meaningful conversation! Though they may offer insightful help in the quest for truth.

    Missed Opportunities

    There they are smiling as they pass you by
    You smile back and wave a courteous hi
    You blink, and they laugh in that peculiar way
    as they melt into the brick wall of yesterday

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....c253dDRkMw

  89. Mr BA^77,

    Yes, a real missed opportunity to show you had a basis for all your posts, your many many posts, about quantum teleportation. Not even a YouTube vide of a photon being destroyed? I’m shocked, shocked.

  90. Hmmm Nak just how committed are you to the “material” photon not being destroyed? Would you forsake your faith in your bearded Buddha? Or is that to much to ask?

  91. Mr BA^77,

    I’m not committed to it being destroyed or not destroyed. You’ve made a grand claim (repeatedly) (and often) without evincing any support for said claim. It came up most recently on this thread when you responded to Seversky’s request for cold, hard evidence. You responded with a Youtube video (no doubt peer reviewed) (or at least viewed by some of your peers) and then your usual suspects, quantum teleportation, etc etc etc.

    But perhaps the YouTube video was the extent of the cold, hard evidence, and what followed was merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.

  92. Nak here is the proof:

    Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research
    In 1993 an international group of six scientists, including IBM Fellow Charles H. Bennett, confirmed the intuitions of the majority of science fiction writers by showing that perfect teleportation is indeed possible in principle, but only if the original is destroyed. In subsequent years, other scientists have demonstrated teleportation experimentally in a variety of systems, including single photons, coherent light fields, nuclear spins, and trapped ions.
    http://www.research.ibm.com/qu.....portation/

    * I. Marcikic et al. Nature 421, 509-513 (2003) (photons, long distance)
    * M. Riebe et al. Nature 429, 734-737 (2004) (trapped calcium ions)
    * M.D. Barret et al. Nature 429, 737-739 (2004) (trapped beryllium ions)
    * R. Ursin et al. Nature 430, 849 (2004) (photons, long distance)

  93. Mr BA^77,

    Errr, no. What is being destroyed is the quantum state of the photon, not the photon itself. In the illustration on the page you linked to, see the part labelled “Disrupted Original”? There are three particles at the bottom of the illustration, and three at the top. Nothing got destroyed.

  94. Well Nak , but of course, IBM Research is not even good enough for you! Your dogmatism is pathetic!!! And sickening!!!

    I suggest you, in all the glory of your unfounded self-deluded genius,,, write IBM Research and inform these brilliant men that the original photon was not destroyed, and that the photon certainly still existed, so that they can make the needed correction to their blatant typographical error on their Research Page,,, I am sure they will stop all the important work they are doing right now when they find that the infamous pest of UD fame, Nak, has caught them in a severe error. How they will ever be able to live down the shame I do not know,,, but if you console them, and pull some strings for them, I am sure, after a long bout of depression, they may be able to pull themselves together and get a job at McDonald’s or something. They would forever be in your debt! (Or else they could have a good belly laugh for the day?)

  95. Mr BA^77,

    I disagree, this is wonderful research. There is no typo. It just doesn’t say what you wished it would say. Do you understand the difference between the photon and the state of the photon? Have you examined the illustration and counted the objects?

    This message is brought to you by the number three.

  96. Nak, the solution is simple, you write them and tell them to take out the word destroyed! Until then I am using the word destroyed just as they have used in in the same exact context as they have used it!!! As in the photon is “DESTROYED” when its information is teleported! If you object to me using the word destroyed because of it WRITE THEM not me! If you continue to object TOUGH potatoes!

  97. The Caltech group was able to read the atomic structure of a photon, send this information across 3.28 feet (about 1 meter) of coaxial cable and create a replica of the photon. As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.

  98. Mr BA^77,

    Just one problem, they never say the photon is destroyed. They use the word destroy three times, in their introductory paragraph analogizing to science fiction teleporters.

    The photon is disrupted, as the illustration puts it. Its quantum state is DESTROYED, the information represented by that quantum state is DESTROYED, but the photon survives.

    If you would like to use the D word in the same way as they do, please do so. That would eliminate from your discourse this whole ‘violation of the first law, dominion of information over time and space’ business. Thank you.

  99. Mr BA^77,

    Tell us what you are quoting. HowStuffWorks.com? Where is the reference to the scientific literature?

  100. Nak, It is funny you are debating a secondary issue that really has no bearing on the primary principle. The primary principle to be established by quantum teleportation is that “transcendent (superluminal) information” is exercising direct dominion of Energy, thereby establishing the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information. That is to say that anything exercising direct superluminal “transcendent” dominion of energy must of logical necessity possess the same qualities as energy has in its being. Thus since energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means, this provides a direct line of inference that Transcendent Information cannot be created or destroyed, thereby establishing the primary tenet of the Law Of Conservation Of Information. That you would argue over a secondary issue of whether the photon is completely destroyed is really pointless, and as far as the main overriding issue it has no bearing. But aside from that the plain fact is that you are wrong to argue the photon still exists for there are in fact zero qualities(information) of the photon left to measure. in Bennet’s words “perfect teleportation” i.e. The complete information content of infinite information of the photon is teleported since the teleportation is “perfect”,, the photon no longer can exist as far as we are concerned for there is zero information content left in the photon for us to measure! Or as Bennet’s team put it

    (photon A) itself is no longer in that state, having been thoroughly disrupted by the scanning,

    So all you have to do to prove the photon still exist, and to prove me wrong, is to perform a measurement, which will require you extracting some information from the original photon, yet this may prove to be a bit problematic for since the information teleportation was “perfect!

    l every time we check to see if a photon is there we extract a bit of information from the photon,,,or as Zeilinger states:

  101. And Nak, If you don’t mind I would appreciate that it be a peer-review article testifying to the fact that photon A does in fact still exist after teleportation.

  102. Mr BA^77,

    You persist in confusing the state of the photon and the photon. I don’t have to prove anything on this topic, you are the one making extraordinary claims.

    That is to say that anything exercising direct superluminal “transcendent” dominion of energy must of logical necessity possess the same qualities as energy has in its being.

    You have entered a semantics free zone.

  103. Nak, since you have no heart for this to be true and desperately want it not to be true, as you despise all the other Theistic implications coming from ID, I would hardly hold you as a unbiased judge in the weighing of this evidence. As your track record amply testifies.

    Yet, to try to reason with you in your unwillingness to reason, I maintain that your whole case for refuting what is crystal clear to me, rest on your prejudiced reading of the word “disrupt”. Bennet and company in fact stated “Thoroughly Disrupt” Since that is what they stated that is what I take them to mean: So to take a little English lesson, I looked up the meanings of both words:

    thor·oughly
    adj.
    1. Exhaustively complete: a thorough search.
    2. Painstakingly accurate or careful: thorough research.
    3. Absolute; utter: a thorough pleasure.
    prep. & adv. Archaic
    Variant of through.

    Disrupt \Dis*rupt”\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Disrupted; p. pr. &
    vb. n. Disrupting.]
    To break asunder; to rend. –Thomson.

    Thus “Thoroughly Disrupt” means;

    Exhaustively complete breaking asunder:

    Now I’ve quoted the prime reference that stated the photon was “destroyed”, as well as stating the photon was “Thoroughly Disrupted”, whereas you quote the drawing of same reference I had cited which says merely “disrupt” without the adjective Thoroughly in front of it. As well I cited one non-peer review from Cal-Tech that said “the Photon No Longer Existed”. Only the most biased of people would take your most charitable reading of the word “disrupt” to mean what you so fervently wish for it to mean.,,,which I can reasonably hold to mean “a mere disturbing” of the photon.

    The main point Nak, that you are loathe to even look at is, there are zero qualities/information left in the photon to measure after it is “thoroughly disrupted”… Or to make it crystal clear, It is a photon with zero properties left in itself to measure! (No angular momentum,, no brightness nada, zilch etc.. You may argue that the photon is still there until you are blue in the face, I really don’t care! But as for me you must show me a measurement of the photon, of some property or quality, to prove to me that the photon is still there ,,, As far as I am concerned, if the photon can no longer be measured it no longer exists.
    What is funny is that you are the one who usually derides everyone for believing in the invisible and transcendent Creator,,,but here you are arguing for the existence of a invisible photon that has no properties to see!

  104. Wow, well put BA =). As far as proof goes, there’s often a significantly steep double standard that the Darwinist must project in order to protect his/her beliefs, yet they so often disregard the fact that they remove themselves from their own celebrated naturalistic methodology in doing so.

    Such is the case that you’ve just illustrated quite well.

    Sorry Nak, but he does have quite a strong argument that’s very well-defined, making for very little room for misconstrual and semantic play.

  105. BTW, bornagain77, what is the Law Of Conservation Of Information? Is it a law of physics or of mathematics? Either way, can you point us to where it’s defined mathematically? Thank you.

  106. If I remember my basic physics, photons are being created and destroyed in vast numbers all the time.

    Think about it. When we look at our screens what we see is carried to our eyes by photons. Those photons are created and emitted by the monitor. When they reach our eyes, some of them strike the molecules of light-sensitive chemicals in the retina. They are absorbed and thus destroyed in that collision.

    The total energy of the system however, if measured, would be unchanged. The First Law is not violated.

  107. Ok Seversky perform a measurement on the photon with zero properties to measure (or cite the paper), tell me exactly what you find (or they find), and I will concede my claim for a controlled violation of the first law. Although, even if it turns out there is some ghost like property of the photon left to measure, I still will not concede the main claim I have for transcendent information’s dominion of energy, which is clearly demonstrated in the teleportation experiment, and which ultimately establishes Transcendent Information’s conservation, since energy is itself conserved.

    (of note: Don’t Virtual Particles Prove Something Can Come From Nothing?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clr8uL3M7Ow

  108. Actually now that I reread your post seversky, you have made some factual errors,,, I suggest you look up conservation of energy.
    Basically it will state something like this: Energy cannot be created or destroyed though it may change its form.

  109. Rob, If I remember you correctly, you are the guy who thinks himself such a whiz at math that you are willing to ignore all contrary empirical evidence in order to have your pet view of how reality should work be bent to conform to your materialistic based mathematics, all the while blatantly disregarding what the empirical evidence is screaming of reality,,, To me refusing empirical evidence its due place as final arbiter in the scientific method is inexcusable,,, and Frankly if that is who you are, forgive me if I have you mixed up, I would rather waste a day with Nak playing chase the meaning of a word around a rose bush, than to chase you through your mathematical fantasy land of anything is possible for materialism but not for Theism.

  110. bornagain77:

    forgive me if I have you mixed up

    You do seem to have me confused with someone else. I don’t think myself a whiz at anything, and I don’t even know what materialism means, much less “materialistic based mathematics”. The main object of my criticism in this debate has been the disconnect between certain mathematical frameworks and empirical reality, so you and I seem to be on the same page in that regard.

    I’d still like to know what exactly you mean when you refer to Law of Conservation of Information. Is it defined mathematically as other laws of physics and mathematics are? Can you point us to a definition?

  111. We will see how just how fair you allow empirics to guide your reasoning Rob!
    The empirical evidence I have cited clearly establishes the Conservation of “Pure Transcendent Information”. That is to say that by the demonstrated dominion, as well as the demonstrated “superior state of “transcendent” being”(pure information is not limited by any known physical constraint), of transcendent Information over energy, it is thus by logical necessity that it is established that all transcendent information that can exist, already must exist, for all events of energy. All events of energy, past, present, and future. This inference is warranted because anything demonstrating direct dominion of energy, the fundamental constituent of this universe, must possess the same, as well as greater, qualities. Since Energy is established by the First Law to not be able to be created or destroyed by any known Material means, this quality by logical necessity applies to pure information itself which exercises dominion over energy in entanglement and teleportaion. To suppose transcendent Information does not have this “eternal” quality, that energy processes, is to presuppose that something with a lesser state of being is superior to energy which is logically incoherent. This observation, of the independence and superiority of information over energy, is further solidified into a fact of science by the thorough refutation of the materialists “hidden variable” argument:

    Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
    Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm

    As well, it is now conclusively shown that a independent entity must exist to account for the “highly specified” origination of energy in the Big Bang (unless you want to hold the absurd position that nothing created this universe)

    Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete – Borde-Guth-Vilenkin – 2003
    Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

    “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” Alexander Vilenkin – Many Worlds In One – Pg. 176

    Thus Rob, Any reasonable man can see that Transcendent Information must be conserved by logical necessity, to suppose otherwise is to suppose that “things” with lesser states of being can dominate those with higher states, or the even presuppose that nothing can create everything. I would think it should be fairly obvious that if either of those two presuppositions were held to be true then science would be impossible. So Rob, Do you hold either of those two presuppositions to be false? If so I will not even waste my time discussing this issue with you!

  112. bornagain77 @ 108

    Actually now that I reread your post seversky, you have made some factual errors,,, I suggest you look up conservation of energy.
    Basically it will state something like this: Energy cannot be created or destroyed though it may change its form.

    Precisely, that was my point.

    If a building is demolished with explosives we say that it has been destroyed but what exactly does that mean? Before the explosion there was the building and the explosives, After, there was a pile of rubble. The building was destroyed.

    Yet, the First Law tells us that the total amount of matter and energy in the building plus explosives system is unchanged. It just got rearranged a lot. So what was destroyed?

    What was destroyed was the particular arrangement or pattern of matter and energy that made up the building and explosives, nothing else.

    When some of those uncounted billions of photons coming out of your monitor hit molecules of rhodopsin in your retina, they are absorbed and destroyed in the sense that that energy has been transferred to the rhodopsin where it triggers a cascade of chemical changes which lead to a signal being passed along the optic nerve to the brain. But the total matter and energy of the system is unchanged. The energy of the photon has not been annihilated or wiped out of existence. It’s just gone somewhere else.

    If you actually study the papers on quantum teleportation, I doubt that you will find in any of them a claim that the First Law has been violated. Again, the total matter and energy of the system is unchanged throughout the experiment.

    The problem with the so-called evidence that you keep dumping into these threads is that it looks like a Gish Gallop grab-bag of YouTube videos, blog posts, Biblical quotations, news articles, press releases and a few scientific papers which, on closer inspection, do not say what you claim they say. Maybe you find it persuasive but, for many others, it “don’t amount to a hill of beans” compared to the evidence amassed by practicing scientists over the years, evidence which is pointing to a Universe which is a whole lot stranger and more mysterious than that of some believers.

  113. Seversky,
    That you would dodge the primary question of “where did the photon?” go with such garbage of rhetoric is inexcusable, You may think you can dodge the issue but the plain fact is that the photon was there before teleporation and it is not there after teleportation, as far as measuring the photon is concerned. Do you want to hop onto Nak clown car and insist the photon is there even though there are no properties are left to measure? Go ahaead, I really don’t care! but DO NOT insult me by insisting you are maintaining scientific integrity by doing so. To prove me wrong provide the peer-reviewed measurement that shows exactly where the photon went in terms of its energy equivalent. To simplify this for you, The total system can be reduced to 3 photons in the beginning of the experiment, at the end of the experiment, as far as measuring properties of photons are concerned, only 2 photons remain, as well I have my doubts about photon B being measurable at the end of the experiment. That is not gish gallop contrary to your accusations,,It is a pure unadulterated question of science? i.e. Namely, where in the heck is the photon if we can’t measure its properties science energy is governed by conservation? And no you may not gish gallop your way out of the question by appealing to “virtual photons”.

  114. bornagain77, since you won’t point me to a definition of the Law of Conservation of Information, I have no way of knowing if it can be reconciled with the Law of Synergistic Transconfiguration. As all reasonable people know, the parametrical contrastability of hyperbolic physicodynamics has been proven by the Institute of Metachronology at the U of Toob.

  115. Rob, And what in the world does your mathematical fantasy land have to do with the empirical FACT that evolution has never demonstrated a gain in functional information? You denied it, but you are the guy who fancies himself to clever to be bothered by empirical evidence. Whenever you decide to join the real world present your empirical evidence for evolution (gain of functional information) and watch it be shot down as all other examples have been on UD!

  116. Mr BA^77,

    What do you mean there are no properties left to mrasure? Of course there are, they are just completely unorrelated to what those properties were before the teleportation took place. That is what ‘disrupted’ means in the illustration from the IBM Research page. Having transfered the state with the teleportation, we need to to remeasure the photon to know anything about it. But it is still there to be measured!

    Again, I suggest you count the photons in that illustration. Three at the bottom. Three at the top. Wakarimashita?

  117. bornagain77 @ 113

    Seversky,
    That you would dodge the primary question of “where did the photon?” go with such garbage of rhetoric is inexcusable, You may think you can dodge the issue but the plain fact is that the photon was there before teleporation and it is not there after teleportation, as far as measuring the photon is concerned.

    Perhaps you prefer your evidence in a more familiar format.

    For example, from the Conclusion of this paper:

    Let us briefly recapitulate what we have learnt. Quantum teleportation is a procedure whereby an unknown state of a quantum system is transferred from a particle at a place A to a particle at a place B. [My emphases]

    Note that this is about transference of a quantum state.

    Then there is the following passage from this article:

    Unlike the customary conception of “beaming”, it is not a matter here of a particle disappearing from one place and re-appearing in another. “Quantum teleportation constitutes methods of communication for application in quantum cryptography, the decoding of data, and not new kinds of transportation”, as Dr. Klemens Hammerer emphasizes.[My emphasis]

    If you prefer blog posts there is this

    The Transporters Aren’t Working. Again.

    So, having discussed how to do “quantum teleportation,” how does this get us to “Beam me up, Scotty?” Well, that’s the thing. It doesn’t, not in any meaningful sense. What gets “teleported” is just the state of the initial quantum particle, not the particle itself. There’s no reason why you couldn’t do “teleportation” with atoms instead of photons (indeed, that’s the next stated goal of the experimenters in the field), but again, all you’re “teleporting” is the state of the atoms, not the atoms themselves. To “teleport” a person by this method, you’d need to already have a gigantic person-sized collection of the appropriate atoms at Bob’s house, and copy the quantum state of the original patron of Alice’s Restaurant onto those atoms.

    It’s also not true that “teleportation” inherently requires the destruction of the initial object, as is sometimes claimed. For photons, this happens to be true, as most photon measuring schemes involves the destruction of the photon, but the only thing that’s necessarily destroyed is the quantum state of the original.[My emphasis] If you were to do “teleportation” of an atom, the original atom would still be sitting in the lab at the end of the experiment, it’d just be in a different state than when you started.

    Thus it would appear quantum teleportation concerns the transference of quantum states from one particle to another. The process of ‘scanning’ a photon to record its quantum state involves its destruction but that destruction, like the destruction of a building in my previous example or the absorption of a photon by rhodopsin, does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.

    It is a fascinating phenomenon no doubt but it does not warrant extravagant speculations about “pure transcendent information”.

  118. It is funny Seversky, the very article you cited wants it boths ways, as you and Nak do,,, they say “Well Yes the photon was destroyed,,,but it was not REALLY destroyed ,,,only its quantum state was destroyed”,,, Well excuse me seversky if the entire quantum state of the photon is destroyed, the photon is still destoyed. The photon CANNOT exist without a quantum state!!! Thus once again I ask you to please provide a measurement of the Photon AFTER teleportation.

    Nak here is a refresher on our English Lesson yeaterday

    Thoroughly Disrupted

    i.e.

    Exhaustively and Completely Broke Asunder

    i.e.

    The photon was Exhaustively and Completely Broken Asunder

  119. As well, Seversky, if you dig a little deeper into the “atom” I believe you will find they are referring to the experiment where only two atoms and a laser are used,,,which is a drastically different set up than the “base level of reality” experiment we are currently focused on.

  120. Nak And Seversky, I like this following quote:

    Ernst says. “While this work (quantum teleportation) has serious interpretational and philosophical implications, it also may provide the basis for future technological applications like interaction-free measurements, quantum computation, and quantum cryptography.”
    http://www.science.psu.edu/ale.....3-2002.htm

    Hmm Sev and Nak very interesting quote, since materialism is supposedly the reigning, unquestioned philosophy of science,,, This professor of physics must realize that materialism is in deep manure with quantum teleportation,,, Wouldn’t you think? Why did he not say that it presents minor philosophical implications??? NO NO he chose the word serious,,, But this puts you guys in a severe bind as atheist,, for as far as I know, if you guys completely lose your materialistic definition of reality you have no right to claim any currency in science proper whatsoever!
    Man you guys better find that measurement of that post-teleportation Photon quick!!!! Do you guys want me to help you look for the photon? It could be stuck between the cushions of my couch! LOL

  121. bornagain77 @ 120

    Hmm Sev and Nak very interesting quote, since materialism is supposedly the reigning, unquestioned philosophy of science,,, This professor of physics must realize that materialism is in deep manure with quantum teleportation,,, Wouldn’t you think?

    No, he makes no reference to any implications for a materialist position.

    He does, however say in the sentence before the one you quote:

    Using entangled photons, Zeilinger showed the teleportation of their quantum state over a distance of several kilometers, making headlines in journals including the cover of Scientific American…

    just like the other quotes in my previous post.

    I need hardly point out that all this research is being conducted, not by creationists or ID proponents, but by physicists who, so far, have not found it necessary to invoke supernatural beings or domains to explain what they are observing. The materialist ‘paradigm’, as in so many other areas, is proving to be more fruitful than any of the alternatives and, again so far, offers little comfort to persons of faith hoping hoping for something more tangible to support their beliefs.

  122. Seversky, As you clearly illustrate by your dogmatic refusal to “see” the “severe implications” for the materialistic philosophy, by not only quantum teleportation but by quantum mechanics in general with the refutation of the materialists “hidden variable” argument, so as you can’t truly help a wino who is not ready to admit he has a severe problem,,, You just like the wino have been brought to the depths of poverty, but unlike his physical poverty, yours is an intellectual poverty that prevents you finding out about the wondrous mysteries of reality, an intellectual poverty that forces you to lie to yourself and others that you really have no problem to deal with. You think the comparison unfair? Well I find it quite fitting after watching you and Nak continually do you damnedest to remain in denial about the true state of affairs,,, Maybe we can start a treatment program for you as there are for winos. We can call it AID,,,Atheists In Denial,,, As they say in AA Seversky,,The first step is admitting you have a problem.

  123. Mr BA^77,

    Sorry for missing it yesterday, but I don’t think an appeal to Messrs Merriam and Webster is going to improve your arguement any better than your previous appeal to HowStuffWorks.com or YouTube.

    At the sending station object B is scanned together with the original object A which one wishes to teleport, yielding some information and totally disrupting the state of A and B.

    Yes, I’ll see your ‘thoroughly’ and raise you a ‘totally’ and throw down not just A but A and B!!1! Totally disrupted!

    What does that mean, not in dictionary terms but in terms of the experiment? It means we no longer know anything about the quantum state of A or B. if we want to know some aspect of their state, they will have to be measured again (probably destroying them in the process). But they couldn’t be measured if they didn’t exist, even if their existence is in some indeterminate state.

  124. If the quantum state of the photon is destroyed the photon no longer exists,,, The photon cannot exist without its quantum state,,,this is basic stuff Nak… Do you believe the photon exists with absolutely no properties left to measure??? i.e. the ENTIRE information content of the quantum state of the photon (infinite information) was teleported to photon c, The quantum state of the photon was destroyed in the process. No literature exists that has any measurement of any photon a after the teleportation of its entire information content, for there can be no measurement of a photon that has no information/qualities/descriptions left within itself to measure,,,, as I stated before ,,If you want to believe that a photon which cannot, even in principle, be measured for any specific property or quality, go right ahead, but don’t ask reasonable men to believe in your invisible photon that can’t be seen.

  125. Of course Nak you can scour the literature for hours looking for the measurement of the photon after teleportation,,, I wish you the best of luck with that goose chase!!! LOL

  126. Nak and Seversky,,, If you guys get tired of looking for that photon that ain’t there, Here is another little nugget, savaging the foundation of materialism, for you guys to deny the relevance of:

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism – By Bruce L Gordon:
    Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.
    http://www.4truth.net/site/c.h.....ialism.htm

    here is a formal proof:

    P1. Materialism is the view that the sum and substance of everything that exists is exhausted by physical objects and processes and whatever supervenes causally upon them.

    P2. The explanatory resources of materialism are therefore restricted to material objects, causes, events and processes.

    P3. Neither nonlocal quantum correlations nor (in light of nonlocalizability) the identity of the fundamental constituents of material reality can be explained or characterized if the explanatory constraints of materialism are preserved.

    P4. These quantum phenomena require an explanation.
    ____________________________________________________________

    C Therefore, materialism/naturalism/physicalism is irremediably deficient as a worldview, and consequently should be rejected as false and inadequate.

    And if you guys get tired of trying to disprove that proof, you can then start to try to reestablish your hidden variables which were absolutely required for materialism to even be considered plausibly true: (references upon request)

  127. bornagain77 @ 126

    Nak and Seversky,,, If you guys get tired of looking for that photon that ain’t there, Here is another little nugget, savaging the foundation of materialism, for you guys to deny the relevance of:

    Before we deal with that, there is another point that needs to be cleared up. At #50, you wrote:

    Nak, It is very simple, The first law is violated in quantum teleportation, thus establishing the dominion of “transcendent information (Logos) over the material realm,,,That is clear cut science in its most pristine form,,,For you to have any credence you must prove the first law was not violated,,,it is as simple as that!

    Given our previous discussions, do you now concede that the destruction of a photon during the ‘scanning’ process in a quantum teleportation experiment does not constitute a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics?

  128. Seversky, you have got to be kidding!! The photon ain’t there, i.e. the photon is Thoroughly Disrupted, The original Photon Is Destroyed, i.e. The Photon NO LONGER EXISTS!!! How in the world you can maintain that the photon is still there is beyond me,, You have never showed me a measurement of the photon after it was throughly Disrupted, at least Show me exactly where the energy went within the system!!! As far as I can tell photon C is photon A,, the better question you should be asking, that actually might bear some fruit, is where in the heck did the information in Photon C go after it was turned into photon A. But no this question doesn’t intrigue you in the least it seems, In stead You want to maintain, against all reason that has been presented so far, that a photon, that for all intents and purposes instantaneously disappeared in the experiment, is still there… You are simply unbelievable Seversky,,, tell you what seversky, as I have told you before, you find the photon, or its energy equivalent within the system, and I will retract my claim to a controlled violation of the first law,,, You know what is funny Sev, it is only your false materialistic view of reality that is making this simple experiment so hard for you to understand.

  129. bornagain77, I’m still naively hoping that you’ll tell us what you’re referring to when you say “the Law of Conservation of Information”. Apparently that’s asking too much. Why not answer the question instead of releasing chaff in the form of bogus criticisms? Are you of the opinion that it’s not ID’s task to provide that level of detail, and it’s okay to keep your readers guessing?

  130. Rob, you have shown me that you have no heart for finding the truth, so to what avail would it be for me to discuss anything with you since you have set yourself to decieve?

  131. bornagain77, more chaff. I’m asking you what you mean by “the Law of Conservation of Information”, and you’re persistently dodging the question. And by your reasoning, I’m the one who has “no heart for finding the truth”.

    If you won’t tell me what you’re talking about, perhaps someone else here can tell me. Anyone?

  132. ROb, several times I’ve watched you ignore direct empirical evidence by alluding to obscure mathematics that have no foundation in reality. Yet you insist that your “scholarly privileged” view of the math you cite somehow precludes the empirics cited of reality from being true. Thus by your own self-deceived delusions of genius in mathematics, which you have convinced yourself of, you have ignored reality and have thus made the basic premise of the scientific method of no effect for you. Perhaps I am wrong, and I hope I am, yet I have not seen anything of promise from you to suggest that this is not so. So tell me exactly why should I discuss anything with you when you do not even respect the basic tenets of the scientific method in the first place? Are you going to recompense me somehow for having to go into hours of detail, when you will not even listen in the end anyway? Will I learn some new deep insight into reality by chasing you through your mathematical fantasy land? Of course not! All that I would get out of it is frustration.
    And this is another mystery I do not understand from evolutionists, especially now with stunning discovery after stunning discover into reality (1 in 10^60 for mass density for one example equals approx. 1 grain of sand). It is I am amazed that atheists/evolutionists would still willingly chose to believe they are a accident of a mud puddle billions of years ago, with absolutely no compelling evidence to support them, and with absolutely no purpose in the great scheme of things, instead of seeking out the wondrous possibility that we are indeed children of the Most High who created this universe. This is a thoroughly fascinating Question. And I investigate the matter as such intensely asking of the evidence, “Can this be true?” and every avenue I scour for proof that this might be, turns out to yield gems of truth telling me that YES INDEED!!! this wondrous possibility you are seeking answer to is indeed true to its core. My attitude is that I have been given the greatest treasure I could hope to ever possess, and that treasure is the promise of God Himself, sealed through Jesus Christ, that I am His child.

    THIRD DAY – YOU ARE MINE – LIVE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plwpdgae6UI

  133. Mr BA^77,

    I performed my scan of the literature by starting with the Duwell paper you referenced earlier, and noting that a Bell operator measurement has to be done. I then Googled “Bell operator measurement” and found this paper.

    Please examine Figure 1 on the top of page R1729. There you will see the detectors ‘det1′ and ‘det2′, which measure the state of the ‘totally disrupted’ photons.

  134. bornagain77:

    ROb, several times I’ve watched you ignore direct empirical evidence by alluding to obscure mathematics that have no foundation in reality.

    Then it should be very easy for you to point to an example of me doing this.

    Yet you insist that your “scholarly privileged” view of the math you cite somehow precludes the empirics cited of reality from being true.

    I’ve never insisted anything even remotely like this. I have no idea where you’re getting your bizarre ideas from.

    Thus by your own self-deceived delusions of genius in mathematics, which you have convinced yourself of, you have ignored reality and have thus made the basic premise of the scientific method of no effect for you. Perhaps I am wrong, and I hope I am, yet I have not seen anything of promise from you to suggest that this is not so.

    You are, in fact, 100% wrong.

    So tell me exactly why should I discuss anything with you when you do not even respect the basic tenets of the scientific method in the first place?

    Your premise is completely false. Regardless, you continue to discuss a variety of topics with me, several hundred words’ worth, while still avoiding the simple question.

    As to your religious message, I hope you realize that rejecting your arguments is not the same as rejecting Christianity.

  135. Thanks Nak, good work!

    OK from your referenced paper:

    http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk...../bmB95.pdf

    We find they state below your detector reference on page 2:

    “is effectively annihilating these photons to the vacuum state:

    Looking up vacuum state I find this article which states:

    Physics of optoelectronics
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

    “In QED, a state without any photons (the vacuum state) has an average electric field of zero, but non-zero variance (which is proportional to the square of the field).”

    Thus Nak from your reference, It seems my claim for a violation of the first law still stands firm.

    To put it all together.

    photon A was totally disrupted to a vacuum state without any photons.

    i.e. the caveat being that it is extremely difficult (impossible?) to precisely measure the fluctuation of the electric field of the universe’s vacuum state of one single photon, Yet for the purposes of maintaining my claim, the entire “infinite transcendent information” of a single photon “c” was displaced when photon c turned into photon a, and since the information displaced is completely transcendent of any material basis, the total loss of photons to the universe, considering vacuum state of electric field and all, is still one, thus the first law stands as violated!

  136. Rob, I may be wrong, and am thoroughly sorry if I am, but I still do not trust you, and will have to keep a closer eye on how you argue your positions before I can trust you. Frankly I have been burnt to many times by atheists to offer too much trust to any I suspect of being disingenuous to the evidence.

  137. bornagain77, since the reasons you give for distrusting me are factually false, there’s not much I can do to remedy the situation. I find it incongruous that a barrage of completely unevidenced criticism would come from someone who appropriately stresses the importance of evidence.

    So let me ask you: If someone referred to a alleged Law, but they refused to tell you what the Law means on the grounds that they “don’t trust you”, would you believe them?

  138. Rob, my inference to the overriding principle of Conservation Of Information, i.e. that Pure Transcendent Information cannot be created or destroyed, i.e. all Pure Transcendent Information that can exist for all events of energy, past present, and future, already does exist, comes directly from the empirical evidence of what quantum mechanics is telling us of reality. For you to refute the principle, in the primary form Nak and I are currently dealing with it on in this thread, you will have to demonstrate, as Nak is trying to do, that energy is not being dominated by pure transcendent information in these quantum experiments. Thus nullifying the line of reasoning I am currently using and preserving the overall integrity of materialism as a legitimate scientific philosophy.
    The form of Law of Conservation, that I think you seem to be interested in, is the secondary form, and I believe you want to maintain the materialistic claim that natural/material evolutionary processes can generate information all by themselves with no teleological input. i.e. you want to falsify Genetic Entropy, Yet this level, of Conservation Of Information, you seem to be interested in is at present irrelevant to the level that I am currently addressing the subject from on this thread, since my address focuses on the primary level of reality before the “second order” information is encoded on top of “material” reality by God. As far as you rigorously falsifying Genetic Entropy, and rigorously proving “material reality” can seemingly generate information in a empirical manner, without recourse to teleology, in a scientifically comprehensible manner that all can clearly see. I refer you to Abel’s Null Hypothesis. If you can rigorously falsify that Hypothesis, within peer-review, I would at least concede that the position of Theistic Evolution is logically coherent.

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.
    http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf
    http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag

    Rob, Though I am surely no expert in math, To falsify the Law of Conservation Of Information as Dembski and Marks currently are addressing it in their last paper:

    “LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information”:
    Excerpt: Though not denying Darwinian evolution or even limiting its role in the history of life, the Law of Conservation of Information shows that Darwinian evolution is inherently teleological. Moreover, it shows that this teleology can be measured in precise information-theoretic terms. http://www.evoinfo.org/Publica.....fo_NoN.pdf

    It seems, that You just have to show that “it may be remotely mathematically possible” for what are “assumed to be totally material processes” to generate novel information. Thus the law as it is being debated from that perspective is irrelevant to the empirics that I would focus on if I were to address the matter head on.

  139. bornagain77, thank you for your answer. I have several points of response to 138, but I think that they would be a huge tangent, and I’ve polluted your thread enough.

  140. bornagain77 @ 128

    Seversky, you have got to be kidding!! The photon ain’t there, i.e. the photon is Thoroughly Disrupted, The original Photon Is Destroyed, i.e. The Photon NO LONGER EXISTS!!! How in the world you can maintain that the photon is still there is beyond me,,

    That’s because I don’t. Try reading what I wrote rather than what you wanted me to write.

    As with the photon hitting the retina, the photon no longer exists as a photon but the energy does. It has simply been transferred elsewhere. The form has been destroyed but the substance remains.

    Have you ever started a fire or burnt a hole in something using a magnifying-glass and sunlight? What do you think is happening? The lens is focusing a stream of photons on one small area. As each one smacks into the target it is destroyed but the energy is transferred to what it hits which then heats up. Do you think that is a violation of the First Law?

    Your modern digital camera forms an image from light focused on a light-sensitive chip. Those photons are absorbed and destroyed in the process. Do you think that every time you take a picture you are violating the First Law?

  141. Seversky, Let’s try to make this real simple; Photon a disappears with no measurement of energy dispersal, it is quantum mechanically annihilated into a “vacuum state”. Yet at the same time photon a instantaneously appears at photon c’s position with photon c instantaneously becoming photon a. The entire information content of photon c is transcendently displaced from the material universe when it instantaneously becomes Photon a, since there is no “material quantum state” for photon c to reside in.
    To make it even more clear, You have absolutely no measurement to back up your assertion that photon a was “destroyed by energy dispersal”, thereby maintaining the first law to the materialistic point of view, whereas I have direct empirical evidence that photon c was “transcendently displaced” from the “material” realm by photon a, thereby violating the first law. This is direct experimental evidence Seversky!!! You can jump up and down all day long saying the first law was not violated but until you provide a measurement of some type to explain what the evidence currently indicates you are merely trumpeting your personal beliefs of what reality should be (materialistic) over what reality is actually telling us in the experiment (theistic).

  142. Mr BA^77,

    It always helps to read to the end of the sentence. The sentence you quote ends with

    (this annihilation to vacuum by photodetectors will be made rigorous when we discuss Glauber photodetector theory).

    To review, no one disputed the ability of photodetectors (any atom that absorbs a photon) to annihilate that photon. What you had claimed is that there is no photon to be detected, that the act of quantum teleportation had annihilated the photon prior to any detector becoming involved. This paper shows that this interpretation of quantum teleportation (that it leads to violations of the first law) is wrong.

  143. Nak, save for one thing; you have zero evidence of energy dispersal of the photon within the local environment of the teleported photon: whereas I have direct evidence that the teleportation of “every” state of the photon was “perfect”

    Unconditional Quantum Teleportation
    Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.....2/5389/706

  144. Your materialistic presupposition is going to eat your lunch, or you will die trying to unsuccessfully substantiate it, Nak!

    A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    Max Planck

  145. By the way Nak, Planck was a Christian!

  146. Mr BA^77,

    For your reference, here is a link to the full text of Unconditional Quantum Teleportation. Please note the use of detectors in the schematic Fig 1. None of the lines that represents photon paths just stops at the point quantum teleportation takes place, as you claim they should.

    I think your quote of Planck is unduly pessimisstic, otherwise I would not continue this conversation as I have for so long.

  147. Nak, you must provide direct empirical evidence as I have done to refute what “perfect” teleportation of “every” state (not some states) of the photon,,, wishing to see a photon in a drawing does not equal refuting the FACT that they unequivocally say teleportation of the photon was perfect! To put it more bluntly, There ain’t NO PHOTON LEFT AT ALL to give you a measurement for energy dispersal thus maintaining the first law to a materialistic framework…. You got nothing to measure NAK!!!!

  148. Mr BA^77,

    You persist in confusing our knowledge of a quantum state and physical existence. The diagram I referred you to was in an article you appealed to. Had these scientists not needed the detectors shown, they would have had a result (the result you believe) that would have earned them Nobel prizes. However, they did need those detectors, as did the previous experiment whose annihilation to the vacuum state you trumpeted but have conveniently forgotten now that the issue of reading comprehension has been raised.

    The direct empirical evidence you request is contained in Fig. 2 A on p 708. This a measurement of the photons at Dx after the act of quantum teleportation has taken place. In fact, the experimental protocol requires these measurements.

    Given Alice’s measurement of (x(V), p(V)), the next step in the protocol is for her to send the (classical) photocurrents (ix(V), ip(V)) to Bob, who uses this information to generate a displacement (a coherent modulation at V) of the field in beam 2 by way of the modulators (Mx, Mp) and the mirror mBob.

    I hope this direct emprirical evidence which you requested will help you revise your notion of quantum teleportation violating the first law.

  149. Nice try but No deception Nak!!! try again: the measurement(scanning)is what teleports/annihilates the photon. You must provide a measurement after teleportation !!! i.e. where is the photon (energy dispersal) within the local system??? Remember, when a photon hits a retina in the human eye there is a precise sequence of energy interactions that gives you clear evidence the energy is still there in a continuous chain within the local system. Why was the energy of the photon no longer there to be measured after quantum teleportation?

    Read this again Nak:

    Excerpt: In brief, they found a way to scan out part of the information from an object A, which one wishes to teleport, while causing the remaining, unscanned, part of the information to pass, via the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect, into another object C which has never been in contact with A. ,,,, A itself is no longer in that state, having been thoroughly disrupted (annihilated, destroyed) by the scanning, so what has been achieved is teleportation, not replication.
    http://www.research.ibm.com/qu.....portation/

  150. “While this work (quantum teleportation) has serious interpretational and philosophical implications, it also may provide the basis for future technological applications like interaction-free measurements, quantum computation, and quantum cryptography.” Wolfgang Ernst, professor of physics
    http://www.science.psu.edu/ale.....3-2002.htm

    What serious philosophical issue is he talking about Nak? Since materialism is the only philosophy that could possibly be threatened by such findings,(I surely can think of no other) it must be materialism he is talking about? Don’t you agree? Or are you going to dodge this question as well?

    Nak the reason I know for a fact the first law was broken ,as far as your materialistic framework is concerned, is because I understand that all the photons of the universe, originally created in the Big Bang, were created by a completely transcendent entity, since no time nor space existed before the big bang. Thus whatever created energy must of necessity possess transcendence as its primary quality! Since the “information” displayed in entanglement and teleportation (and “information” is EXACTLY the word call it) is the ONLY entity to display complete transcendence of time and space in this universe, thus it (information) is the ONLY entity that is even candidate to create the energy/photons of the Big Bang! From that understanding of basic physics, it is simple to realize that since they are in fact subtracting the ENTIRE “infinite” information content of a photon and giving the entire information content to another photon, with the entire information content of a photon being displaced in the process, Then it is simple to see a photon cannot exist without any information and the first law is violated. i.e. the photon is destroyed when its information is removed!

  151. bornagain77 @ 141

    Seversky, Let’s try to make this real simple; Photon a disappears with no measurement of energy dispersal, it is quantum mechanically annihilated into a “vacuum state”.

    That’s right. It gets annihilated when it hits the photon detector. Just like the photons that are smacking into the back of your eyes right now.

    Or the photons focused by the magnifying-glass which can burn holes in things.

    Ever think that wouldn’t happen if photons disappeared into nothingness rather than their energy being transferred to whatever they hit?

    The entire information content of photon c is transcendently displaced from the material universe when it instantaneously becomes Photon a, since there is no “material quantum state” for photon c to reside in.

    What evidence and measurements do you have to support such a claim? Just sprinkling the word “transcendently” around the text adds nothing to our understanding if you do not describe what is being transcended and how.

    To make it even more clear, You have absolutely no measurement to back up your assertion that photon a was “destroyed by energy dispersal”, thereby maintaining the first law to the materialistic point of view,

    That is probably because:

    a) I did not say that photon a “was destroyed by energy dispersal”

    b) I was not conducting the experiment so I have no measurements one way or the other

    c) The people who were conducting the experiment were trying to demonstrate the phenomenon of teleportation not testing for violations of the First Law.

    whereas I have direct empirical evidence that photon c was “transcendently displaced” from the “material” realm by photon a, thereby violating the first law.

    No, you do not. You have an experiment demonstrating how the quantum states of one photon can be transferred to another by a process misleadingly called “teleportation”. It was testing a prediction of the extremely well-established quantum theory not some wild speculation about ‘transcendental displacement’.

    The experimenters did not test for violations of the First Law because they had no reason to suspect one might occur. If they had discovered such a violation it would have been a discovery of far greater magnitude than what was actually shown, eminently worthy, as others have pointed out, of the Nobel Prize.

    You can jump up and down all day long saying the first law was not violated but until you provide a measurement of some type to explain what the evidence currently indicates you are merely trumpeting your personal beliefs of what reality should be (materialistic) over what reality is actually telling us in the experiment (theistic).

    I am not the one being exercised by a delusion that I have found evidence for my ‘borne-again’ theistic beliefs which I feel compelled to trumpet all over the blogs.

    The fact is that neither of us are quantum mechanics – we are not even the oily rags – so if you really believe you have spotted a phenomenon of such ground-breaking proportions that was missed by professional physicists, then you should at least contact the researchers to ask them to re-examine their work and see if it supports your claim.

    If you really believe what you are saying, that is.

  152. Mr BA^77,

    Not close, and no cigar. The quantum teleportation does not take place upon detection, as you can tell from examining the figures in any of the web pages or scientific papers we have been discussing.

    On the IBM web page, the teleportation occurs at ‘scan’, the detection occurs at ‘disrupted original’. In the first Braunstein paper, the teleportation occurs at the beam splitter labeled ‘bs’, the detection at det1, det2. In the second Braunstein paper, the beam splitter is the heavy vertical line in the schematic where the two photon beams cross, the detectors are labeled Dx, Dp, etc.

    I have to admit that I am afraid your reading of these papers is shading over from casual misinterpretaton to wilful misinterpretation.

  153. Seversky you ain’t even in the right ballpark to play the game!!!: and No Nak you are completely and totally wrong when you state the following:

    “In the first Braunstein paper, the teleportation occurs at the beam splitter labeled ‘bs’, the detection at det1, det2.”

    For the experiment is actually exactly as such:

    Excerpt Braunstein:

    Our protocol is as follows: EPR beam 1 (Fig. 1) propagates to Alice’s sending station, where it is combined at a 50/50 beam splitter with the unknown input state xxxx, which is a coherent state of complex amplitude vin [ xin1 ipin. Alice uses two sets of balanced homodyne detectors (Dx, Dp) to make a “Bell-state”
    measurement.

    Thus Nak since you so willfully distort where teleportation actually took place (you said beam splitter), why should I not think you are completely disingenuous to what the results clearly indicating no matter what I point out to you? As far as I can tell you only want to see what you want to see in the experiment and are not looking for what the experiment is actually telling us of reality. i.e. You “don’t want” the experiment to be true!

  154. Mr BA^77,

    Thank you for highlighting the relevant portions. You would do well to compare across all three documents we have been discussing. You will see that the beam splitter occupies the spot labelled ‘scan’ on the IBM Research web page, a page you brought forward as authoritative.

    It is a complete about face for you to now, after many previous claims to the contrary, try to save face by claiming teleportation takes place at the detector. But according to you, if the photon is teleported, it is not there to be detected, but if it is detected, it has not been teleported.

    Bottom line: after shouting “Rabbit Season” interminably, you are now shouting “Duck Season”. Well, if you say so…

  155. You Know Nak, I have patiently pointed out your flaws of reasoning and yet you still try to find any place to hide so as to not face the reality of the theistic implications of the experiment. I stand behind my claim.
    As for you if you think dodging this one technical point of interpretation of quantum teleportation let’s you off the hook, you are once again severely misguided, for “hidden variables” which are absolutely essential for a materialist to maintain any coherent scientific claim to explaining reality has been completely overthrown.

    Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
    Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm

    As well you have no excuse for ignoring a transcendent origin of the universe:

    Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete – Borde-Guth-Vilenkin – 2003
    Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

    “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” Alexander Vilenkin – Many Worlds In One – Pg. 176

    As well methodological naturalism is itself shaken to its core since information “runs the show” for reality.

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.” Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
    http://www.metanexus.net/magaz.....fault.aspx

  156. Mr BA^77,

    “I stand behind my claim.” Which claim is that? That the first law is violated? That detectors are unnecessary? That beam splitters are unnecessary?

    I think you are safe with the claim that quantum teleportation has theistic implications. Claim away. Proclaim. Declaim.

Leave a Reply