Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Martin Gardner, Fundamentalism, and Adam’s Navel

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The enormously influential mathematics and science writer, skeptic, and encourager of many, Martin Gardner, has died at the age of 95. I came to know Gardner through a mutual friend, the late science writer and skeptic Bob Schadewald (1943-2000), who occasionally visited Gardner at the latter’s home in North Carolina. [Here’s a tiny but relevant fact that shows the surprising reticulations of the science-and-theology debate in America. During one such visit, Gardner gave Schadewald much of the contents of his library, which he found had grown unwieldy. Then, years later, following the devastating fire that destroyed nearly all of YEC paleontologist Kurt Wise’s library, Schadewald packed much of his personal library into boxes to send to Kurt. Schadewald died a few days later, at nearly the same time his books arrived at Kurt’s home in Tennessee. Kurt unpacked the books, carefully wrapped in tissue, in tears, knowing that the person who sent them had just died. So, chances are, at least some of Martin Gardner’s personal library now resides with Kurt Wise. Go figure.] Schadewald told Gardner about this crazy YEC philosophy of science graduate student he knew, at the University of Chicago, and in response, Gardner sent back a letter to me.

He wanted to know if Adam had a navel. (More about that below.)

It is not generally known that Gardner grew up as a Christian fundamentalist in Oklahoma, and indeed entered the University of Chicago as an undergraduate zealous to defend his faith, and to return America to its Christian heritage:

In his adolescent fantasies he saw himself as chosen by the Lord to lead this new awakening. And to carry out this stupendous undertaking he conceived a brazen plan….He would enter the very citadel of the enemy. He would master all the science and modern learning that a great secular university had to offer. Every false and infernal argument would be examined and exposed. He would probe the diseased heart of twentieth century theology, dissect it nerve by nerve, artery by artery.

The passage comes from Gardner’s autobiographical novel, The Flight of Peter Fromm (1973), which Bill Dembski has used as a textbook in seminary courses he’s taught. While Gardner’s fundamentalist Christianity died a long and painful death, his theism never did. See his fascinating and utterly readable The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener (1983), where Gardner vigorously defends his fideistic conception of God, as well as his belief in the efficacy of prayer, and personal immortality.

It’s hard to say where Gardner would have stood in the current New Atheists versus Accomodationists debates. While he loathed woolly-minded, fuzzy and imprecise thinking, suspecting it of concealing (deliberately, perhaps) deep confusions — and such thinking is much on display among many defenders of “theistic evolution” — he also disdained the imperialistic and often inhumane reductionism of scientific materialism. I like to think, if Gardner had been found the strength for another decade, or two, of writing and thinking, he would have drafted a book challenging the New Atheists. Heck, why not. He refused to fit into anyone’s categories.

In the mid-1980s, when Gardner asked me about Adam’s navel, I found the question sophomoric, and told him so. Who cares? In what possible scheme of the universe would the existence of a small indentation (or not!) in Adam’s abdomen make the least bit of difference to anything? Now, almost 25 years later, Gardner’s question makes more sense to me, at least as far as its motivation is concerned.

Critics of intelligent design start their reasoning with a model of God and His rationality. The world as we find it must fit with that model. For Gardner, a rational Designer faces a dilemma in making the first human being, if He is creating him de novo. Navel or no navel? The former possibility entails the deceptive appearance of history; the latter leaves Adam looking somehow odd, facing awkward questions from the kids.

Just the sort of question Gardner delighted in asking.

In honor of his memory, let’s give Gardner the last word, from his chapter (in Whys) on immortality:

Lord, remember me! If God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, if every wave and particle is what it is, does what it does, because God remembers it, then we exist now because God remembers us. And if God remembers us after we die, we may continue to exist. That is all a theist need say to establish in his or her heart the possibility of immortality.

Amen.

Comments
b77 @ 50: not only does the author of this piece rely on decimal fractions - which didn't arrive in Europe before 800 A.D., he uses the versification of the Bible, too: an human invention of the 7th-11th century (Old Testament) resp. 16th century (New Testament). This would have been a field day for M. Gardner!DiEb
May 28, 2010
May
05
May
28
28
2010
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
@b77: This is really silly: The author uses an ad-hoc method to derive a very big number of which the leading six digits are the leading six digits of π when expressed in decimal notation. Shouldn't the Bible use base 60? Or even better, a representation independent of a base? I'm sure that I can use similar methods to derive the value of π from the works of JRR Tolkien.DiEb
May 28, 2010
May
05
May
28
28
2010
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
Warehuff asks: "Are you sure that the author didn’t just hunt around in the Bible for sequences that produced numbers that were close to PI and e and this was just the best that he could find?" Seeing as it is Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 that produce the results I would say the only one hunting around for "the best he could find" would be you.bornagain77
May 28, 2010
May
05
May
28
28
2010
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
ba77 @ 50: "This related website has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages respectively: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/" Are you sure about that? I can't get the math to come out, but it's early in the morning and I may have made a mistake. I did notice that in the sixth colored block from the top, the website clearly states that Biblical PI = 3.1416E16 which is off by about 314 quadrillion. The tenth colored block says that Biblical e = 2.718E40 which is off by about 27 billion quadrillion quadrillion. Both these numbers are in "standard form format", whatever he means by that. The eleventh colored block then says that the Biblical value of PI is actually just 3.141554508..., and the Biblical value of e is 2.718312812... and that these add up to 5.859867320... and that this is only 0.000007 off from the true sum of PI and e. Are you sure that the author didn't just hunt around in the Bible for sequences that produced numbers that were close to PI and e and this was just the best that he could find?warehuff
May 28, 2010
May
05
May
28
28
2010
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
zephyr, I believe it was Galileo, Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. Galileo Galilei The Underlying Mathematical Foundation Of The Universe -Walter Bradley - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491491 The Five Foundational Equations of the Universe and Brief Descriptions of Each: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNDdnc3E4bmhkZg&hl=en Systematic Search for Expressions of Dimensionless Constants using the NIST database of Physical Constants Excerpt: The National Institute of Standards and Technology lists 325 constants on their website as ‘Fundamental Physical Constants’. Among the 325 physical constants listed, 79 are unitless in nature (usually by defining a ratio). This produces a list of 246 physical constants with some unit dependence. These 246 physical constants can be further grouped into a smaller set when expressed in standard SI base units.,,, http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/constants/constants.html Michael Denton - Mathematical Truths Are Transcendent And Beautiful - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003918 Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012bornagain77
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
So if God made Adam to appear to be in his 30s let's say, yet chronilogically is brand new, then couldn't God also create a universe that appears to be 13.7 billion years old yet is also brand new?? Just a thought.wagenweg
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
In response to bevets's point at #46 (not directly above). The point you make that the days of Creation in Genesis cannot be interpreted as eons or epochs of any kind, that this modern Bilblical apologetics fails, I agree with you. I don't care for that kind of thinking either, it's apologetics and it doesn't wash with me either. You misunderstood the point I was making when I speak of the symbolism of the Genesis Creation myth, so your above criticism (#46) is a straw-man. I didn't clarify my point here, namely I do not care for the intepretation that the days of Genesis equall epochs (so bevets couldn't be expected to know) but my post was overlong as it was and I can't write a book here. Symbolism/allegory doesn't mean interpreting the days of Genesis as epochs/eons, I never said or even implied that it did. However this is a common mistake made by both Jewish and Christian theologians and their adherents. Interpreting it symbolically means interpreting it SYMBOLICALLY, having nothing to do with a literal time period, whether that time period is 24 hour days or each day being seen as a a hundred million years or whatever. The latter more modern interpretation is still interpreting the Genesis myth too literally, it is a semi-literal (not completely literal of course) reading of Genesis - just from the other end of the timescale. This is why I think Gerald Schroeder is mistaken with his attempt to reconcile modern Big Bang theory and the age of the universe, relativity of time, 'quark confinement' with the Six Days of Creation. Schroeder's writings here are certainly ingenious and clever, and I recommend reading him in this regard, but I still think it mistaken because it is based on a still too literal rendering of Genesis. Seeing the days of Genesis symbolically means just that, nothing more nor less - not as any measurable time periods whatsoever, not as 24 hour days, not as a hundred million years, or any rough measure in that regard, not a Jupiterian day, not time as measured in terms of any relativistic effects, not time (in this sense) as we commonly understand it, or perhaps misunderstand it. There is in fact a Jewish tradition that sees the 'day' in Genesis Creation exactly this way, symbolically. It is both an ancient tradition that has been added to over the historical eras, and it is a very highly revered tradition, coming as it does from the most learned rabbis and Jewish theologians (just like the Church there are different schools of thought here). The thing is that literal thinking about Genesis runs so deep, that the so-called non-literal belief that the days are epochs is largely not remarked upon, since largely not recognised, as still being a too literal interpretation! and not a symbolic one. In other words, this modern 'progressive' view of the Genesis Creation is not a radical symbolic notion at all (even though it is mistaken for one), but an updating/revamping of the Genesis myth to the modern age to make its literal rendering more believable/digestible! That is all. The symbolic meaning is still missed. bornagain77 that's kind of strange that you bring up Euler's formula, since that is a strange coincidence to me, I have not looked at Euler's formula in maybe two decades as far as I can remember and just the last two days I have had occasion to look at it very seriously! The reason itself is rather odd, but that's a whole other thing, on a whole other topic (not unrelated to ID actually, but something out of deep left field) Wasn't it Newton who remarked that God is a mathematician, so it would seem.zephyr
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Sometimes the debate about exegesis of Genesis ignores larger problems that would have to be resolved if certain views are taken. 1. The whole redemption story that is central to the Bible is built on the understanding that death, disease, and struggle were a punishment for sin that required a redeemer. To understand all of these as part of the original design, and as the vehicle for how species got here, does radical damage to a biblical view of God and His character. If death is natural, needed, and good, why would Jesus try to interfere with this process? 2. When evolution is understood as the vehicle that God used to create after the basic elements were put into place, there is no explanation for how humans came to be unique, and created in God’s image apart from all other creatures, which includes having a soul. Was there an exact moment in evolutionary descent when God considered apes to have advanced enough that he sent down a soul? The question sounds silly, but there is reasonable explanation if we feel that the Bible has to be squared with a materialistic view of origins.davidziegler
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
But the arguments for evolution that we shall consider are formulated in theological terms, usually explicitly so — a practice plainly inconsistent with methodological naturalism. We aren’t supposed to be able to say anything, scientifically speaking, about God. Whatever we claim to know about God may be true or false, considered theologically or philosophically, but that knowledge isn’t the stuff of scientific explanation. How, then, do so many evolutionary biologists speak with confidence about what God would or would not have done? ~ Paul Nelson Paul Nelson @ 47 My Post 31 was responding to Cabal @ 25 who was advocating MN.bevets
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
to add weight to the claim that God directly inspired scripture, I found the following very persuasive: Eulers Number - God Created Mathematics - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003905 This related website has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages respectively: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/bornagain77
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
zephyr - YECs don't ignore the symbolism in Genesis, but believe that it results from God acting in ways that are both true and poetic. This is also the way that the early Christians and Jews thought of scripture. Early Jewish thought clearly put Genesis - including the early parts - as historical. See, for instance, Josephus' work, the Genesis Rabba, and others. In addition, as many commentators have pointed out, there is not a break in the story between Genesis 11 and the rest of the book. Divine intervention slows down and starts occuring from afar off, but, at least as far as the text of Genesis is concerned, that is simply part of what happened. I graduated from a progressive seminary that believes what you do. The problem is that it is difficult to say that Genesis is obviously just allegory when the early commentators were overwhelmingly convinced of its historicity. To say that modern scholarship has found the *original* meaning of the text would mean that the *original* meaning wasn't understood by the culture and language that created it, and, magically, the modern era, in a completely different time, culture, language, and literature, was able to discover what was *really* meant by the Biblical authors. It's also amusing that they always say that the original culture would have understood it in the same way that they do, but the historical evidence is against them. As I said, no one has denied the symbolic meanings. But instead of being the result of human creative history-making, YECs believe it to be primarily the result of God's divine plan. As to the "two stories" of Genesis, the "difference in time order" that is usually used to separate out these accounts is based on an overly-specific reading of Hebrew tenses. Hebrew doesn't properly have tense (though it has many indicators of tense). There are many places in scripture where the expected tense from the indicators doesn't match with the narrative. These are always simply redefined with the proper tense. The exception is Genesis, where the original tense is kept against what the narrative would say. The fact is, Hebrew isn't specific enough tense-wise to make the case.johnnyb
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
To all, The passage from me, quoted above --
We aren’t supposed to be able to say anything, scientifically speaking, about God. Whatever we claim to know about God may be true or false, considered theologically or philosophically, but that knowledge isn’t the stuff of scientific explanation.
-- is my presentation of the standard argument for methodological naturalism (MN). But MN does not represent my own understanding of the optimal science / theology interaction. The quote, however, makes it seems that MY view is being presented. In the original complete context, I'm presenting MN arguendo.Paul Nelson
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
The Bible “literally” does not tell us whether or not Adam had a navel. It is fun to speculate, but to state anything with surety is to go beyond that which is written. “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. Exodus 20:8-11 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6 (Jesus Christ quoting from Genesis 1 & 2) 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. I Timothy 2:13-14 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks. Hebrews 11:4 12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous. I John 3:12 Did the New Testament writers consider Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel historical figures?suckerspawn
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
zephyr@42 Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Christ Church, Oxfordbevets
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
Zephyr: I suggest you read here. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
Just a minor but important correction, Gardner's query on Adam's navel, is not "silly" as I wrote, since Gardner is making a valid point. It's only silly if one takes a totally literal or the flip side atheistic it's-all-silly-made-up stuff approach (which Gardner being a theist did not) and then to respond to Gardner's query literally. This is like arguing about whether the fruit on the Tree in the Garden of Eden was an apple or maybe it was a fig or a date even, and this kind of argumentation actually proves the point Gardner was making. Such a question on Adam's navel can only be seen as a straw man question if one is not a Biblical literalist of course.zephyr
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT
kairosfocus commented above that it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I agree with the sentiment here, assuming he/she is thinking the same that I am on this front, and not something different! Cabal gets taken to task above, but really Cabal's commentary is just the flip side of the literal Creationist take on the story of Adam and Eve. Sigh - anybody out there heard of allegory, symbolism, metaphor? I trawled through the comments waiting for somebody, anybody to point out the obvious, but unless I missed it no. Martin Gardner's query on Adam's navel is thus a silly straw man question, but to literal Creationists, it can't be because they take metaphors and allegories literally, so they bend themselves like pretzels putting round literal pegs in symbolic/metaphoric square holes. In fact there is a massive and sophisticated Jewish exigetic commentary on the symbolic meaning in Genesis, recognised by the more sophisticated Catholic and Protestant theologians and philosophers over the centuries. There is much to say here, but really I can't be bothered too much with knocking my head against brick walls, but a few comments... You know those stories in those wonderful Greek myths, Greek heroes like Theseus battling the minotaur in the labyrinth, Perseus battling and slaying the gorgon Medusa, Bellerophon slaying the Chimera with its lion's head, goat's body, serpent's tail, the heroic tasks of Heracles, the centaurs, the numerous otherwordly creatures etc etc - well imagine if atheists were to ask how could there have been a creature that was half bull and half man, it's an impossible hybrid, how could the Chimera have had the head of a lion and the body of a goat and breathed fire, and there is no evidence of centaurs and sirens in the fossil record, that this was all impossible given what we know of the genotypes of lions and goats and none of them are physiologically capable of breathing fire and it's impossible for a bull and human to um have offspring, for obvious reasons without getting into their respective genomic differences blabla. And then the Creatonists here responded, wait, maybe God or some divine agent, created the Minotaur de novo and the Chimera as well, to test the Greek heroes. We haven't found their skeletons because they were one-offs and it would be like finding a needle in a haystack and maybe their bodies and bones were destroyed and consumed anyway given they were killed by our heroes and blabla. Of course Creationists defending and often enough atheists responding to literal argumentation for allegory and symbolism re Adam and Eve think this symbolism doesn't apply to Genesis, or that the Greek myths are silly tales for children, what symbolism? The story of Theseus and the Minotaur for one alone is a very profound SYMBOLIC myth as is the story of Achilles and his one point of mortality, his heel and the nature of his death at the hands of the Trojan prince Paris - to give just two examples. Just two. And of course this symbolism doesn't just apply to Greek (and Jewish) myth. And when I say myth I do not mean it in a pejorative sense, as in false (ie somebody else's religion rather than your own) I mean it in its proper meaning, the way Joseph Campbell meant it. Tell me, what about the talking snake, do you Creatonists really think that the Tree of Life (there are actually two Genesis myths on this front but beyond the scope of my post), the tree of knowledge is a LITERAL tree and that we are talking about a LITERAL apple or fruit? And that God literally created Eve from Adam's rib? PLEASE PLEASE I beg you - don't answer this question (I know how you answer it already of course), I am trying to make a point that will not be appreciated I fear by too many. On the story of Eve's creation from Adam's rib, this is where a fair bit is lost in translation ie to English, French, and before that Latin and Greek, but it's a long story to explain what I mean, hardly common knowledge. It's a Hebrew myth, althoug it is actually pre-Hebraic in many of it's aspects (Sumerian), the roots of Genesis are lost in the midst of time. Hebrew helps, in fact its indispensable. You want to talk lost in translation? Then taking the story of Cain and Abel literally is not possible (well it's fine if you want to continue to contort yourselves like teenage Romanian gymnasts - see that's called simile), its symbolic meaning is profound, albeit crudely expressed in parts. The Tree of Knowledge is no more literal than the Nordic Yggdrasil tree, the snake that tempts Eve is no more literal than the Gryphon, the centaurs, the Medusa and the minotaur. Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel are ARCHETYPAL characters, like Perseus and Heracles and Achilles. You know one of the things that sets man apart (at least in theory) from even the most advanced mammals like dolphins and whales and chimpanzees and apes is rich symbolic thought and conception, the ability to deal with sophisticated abstractions, story telling, and the sophisticated language associated with this (along with poetry and song and art and creative endevours in general), it's actually a big problem to explain in terms of orthodox Darwinian thinking. As I point out above, Creationists don't consider this little something called SYMBOLISM in the chapter of the Bible where it is MOST applicable (ie the pre-historic creation beginning part - Genesis), they pay no attention to other myths, when not entirely misunderstanding Jewish myths, because they think Greek, Celtic and Native Indian and world myths in general have nothing to teach them, because they are just tales no different to whatever is being sold in the discounted bins at Barnes and Noble (and there are psychological reasons why this is but that's a whole Pandora's box...). Or else they think, well those myths can't be true because they make no sense literally. How could Heracles have battled an impossible monster like the hydra (profound symbolism here) and Perseus have battled a bull-man that couldn't have existed literally etc? And then without batting an eye these selfsame people interpret obviously equally symbolic Biblical myths literally, but it's different with the Bible of course is what Creationists tell us! Talk about boxed thinking and irony. Religious myths are either seen as must-be-literal or the flip side false (as many atheists see things), irony is lost on both Creatonists and atheists that there 'thinking' here is so alike and two sides of the same coin. Ah Jesus spoke in parables, but never mind, apparently it doesn't apply to the Old Testament (more properly the Tanach) - even though symbolism and allegory and parable is universal in world religions. In fact it is fundamental, and inevitably and necessarily so. There are actually very pertinent reasons why Creationists take the story of Adam and Eve literally. In a fundamental sense they have to, by the very fact that they are Young Earth Creationists for the most part (or so it appears)! That is by the very fact that they are YECers, it follows consistently, ie the literal reading of the Seven Days of Creation would a fortiori lead to a literal interpretation of the very next myth in Genesis, that of human creation. So at least Creationists are consistent here, actually on this front it is psychologically inevitable. This consistency (of a literal reading of a symbolic myth) continues naturally when it comes to the New Testament's considerable symbolism. But never mind, that opens up another can of worms... God forbid somebody point out the obvious. Sigh. All this on a thread supposedly about Martin Gardner's passing!zephyr
May 26, 2010
May
05
May
26
26
2010
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT
Ilion wrote:
Myself, I always wonder whether the old earthers (whether they’re creationists or atheists) are taking relativity into account when they point to the light from stars millions or billions of light-years distant as “proof positive” that the universe *must* be vast ages old.
Yes, they do take relativity into account.
Does not that particular argument assume that earth stands as a “privileged frame of reference?”
No. For purposes of determining the age of the universe, astronomers use a frame of reference from which the cosmic microwave background (CMB) appears equally red-shifted in all directions. Earth is in a different frame of reference which is moving at 370 km/s relative to the CMB.
Does not relativity say that there are no “privileged frames of reference?”
Relativity merely says that the laws of physics remain unchanged in different reference frames. In that sense there are no privileged frames of reference, but that doesn't mean that they can't be "privileged" by other criteria. For example, the laws of physics are the same for the sun as they are for all of the planets; nevertheless, the sun clearly occupies a privileged frame of reference geometrically in our solar system.pelagius
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT
Off topic: Here is a very interesting TED talk on cymatics (creating form through sound) Evan Grant: Making sound visible through cymatics http://www.ted.com/talks/evan_grant_cymatics.htmlbornagain77
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
off topic: here is a cool electric motor you can show a kid how to make: Simple electric Motor http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318344bornagain77
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
this is sort of a cool video: Sound Waves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9GBf8y0lY0 referenced article: Cymatics Cymatics is the study of wave phenomena. It is typically associated with the physical patterns produced through the interaction of sound waves in a medium. http://www.rexresearch.com/cymatics/cymatics.htmbornagain77
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Phaedros:It’s been shown that light can be slowed through different mediums. Is it possible that light can be made somehow to move faster? …Light that travels faster than the speed of light … despite its title, this particular piece mentions only in passing that light can (apparently) be made to go “faster than the speed of light.” Myself, I always wonder whether the old earthers (whether they’re creationists or atheists) are taking relativity into account when they point to the light from stars millions or billions of light-years distant as “proof positive” that the universe *must* be vast ages old. Does not that particular argument assume that earth stands as a “privileged frame of reference?” Does not relativity say that there are no “privileged frames of reference?”Ilion
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
This "problem of the appearance of age" is pseudo-problem, it's an artifact of a certain wooden literalism ... you know, similar to the sort "oldies" are always accusing "youngies" of poessessing. Odd, isn't it?Ilion
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
Here's a 2008 interview with Gardner in which he talks about his religious beliefs and the New Atheism among other things. (One thing it doesn't mention is his early role in publicising public-key crypography.)anonym
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
Did the Creator create with the appearance of age? So did he perhaps create man through a long biological build up, procreation with periodic creation (design). I’ve always said that “evolution is evidence”—evidence for design, that is—and if by evolution we understand the traditional meaning: “gradual directional change esp. one leading to a more advanced or complex form; growth; development.” [Notice how Wiktionary doctors it for biology: “The change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.” Who could disagree with that?] But if God created Adam whole cloth then it would not be deception because he also spoke to them (Gen 1:28): “And God blessed them, and God said unto them…” And as the Targum elaborates at Gen 2:7 (“and man became a living soul”): wahawat b?’adam l?ruach m?mall?la ‘and there was in him a spirit of speech’. Well that was my wisdom for the day but now I see that O’Leary beat me to it in 24: “That is, I would never deny that I had designed them from scratch, and would in fact affirm it.” Well said!Rude
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
But the arguments for evolution that we shall consider are formulated in theological terms, usually explicitly so — a practice plainly inconsistent with methodological naturalism. We aren’t supposed to be able to say anything, scientifically speaking, about God. Whatever we claim to know about God may be true or false, considered theologically or philosophically, but that knowledge isn’t the stuff of scientific explanation. How, then, do so many evolutionary biologists speak with confidence about what God would or would not have done? ~ Paul Nelson toronto@32 ID proponents do not claim to know anything about the designer. They are starting with the object and suggesting the object exhibits traits of a design. I am a YEC. I start with the Word of God which tells me that God (designed and) created all of life. As for possibilities: It is possible that John McCain could have been elected in 2008. He was not.bevets
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
It would be funny if it were not so sad . . .kairosfocus
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
bevets @ 31,
Given that I freely claim the designer is God, do you understand the futility of an argument that suggests you have understanding that God does not?
But that is precisely what ID proponents suggest, that they know God well enough that they know he did not use random mutation and natural selection to generate the body plans that we see today. A question I often ask is, why is not "possible" for God to have done something that it is difficult for us to understand?Toronto
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Cabal@25 If I were the designer I would cunningly devise it so nobody would need to have a navel. The fact that he didn’t doesn’t speak well of his capabilities. But the arguments for evolution that we shall consider are formulated in theological terms, usually explicitly so -- a practice plainly inconsistent with methodological naturalism. We aren't supposed to be able to say anything, scientifically speaking, about God. Whatever we claim to know about God may be true or false, considered theologically or philosophically, but that knowledge isn't the stuff of scientific explanation. How, then, do so many evolutionary biologists speak with confidence about what God would or would not have done? ~ Paul Nelson We are far from understanding the complexity of individual organisms, let alone the entire ecosystem in which that organism lives. What appears to be less than optimal design to us with our limited knowledge may actually be an optimal design when the entire system is considered. Consider the thickness of armor plating on the side of a warship. Since the purpose of such plating is to protect the ship from the puncture of an incoming warhead, it is advantageous to make the plating as thick as possible. Yet the plating on actual warships is much thinner than it could be made. The reason is, of course, that an increase in plating thickness makes the ship heavier, and thus slower. A less movable ship is more likely to get hit more often and less likely to get to where it is needed when it is needed. The actual thickness of the armor on a warship is a tradeoff -- not so thin as to make the ship too easily sinkable, and not so thick as to make the ship too slow. We know too little about the complexity of organisms and the environment in which they live to conclude that any one particular feature is actually less than optimal. ~ Kurt Wise Given that I freely claim the designer is God, do you understand the futility of an argument that suggests you have understanding that God does not?bevets
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
Now seriously cabal would you want this Surgeon, who finds the body to be a stunning work of art, working on you???,,,, Dr. Ben Carson - The Humble Faith Of a Surgical Giant http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/january-11-2008/dr-ben-carson/656/ O would you want someone working on you who thought the human body was actually a cobbled together piece of junk???? It's alive! http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/weirdscience/Young%20Frankenstein.jpg.jpg ----------------- http://www.offthemarkcartoons.com/cartoons/1999-08-05.gifbornagain77
May 25, 2010
May
05
May
25
25
2010
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply