Guillermo Gonzalez is an astronomer who thinks Intelligent Design creationism is a scientific theory. Iowa State University is an educational institution where he wanted to help spread such silliness. ISU is also a place that said Gonzalez could take his nonsense elsewhere, and denied him tenure.
Discovery Institute is a "think tank" full of people who like to lie and say that creationism is correct. They whined and moaned when ISU told Gonzalez to take a hike. Gonzalez appealed to ISU, hoping that they would be foolish enough to say "Golly, maybe we should throw hundreds of years of scientific discovery out the window!"
They didn’t. In a 7-1 decision they told Gonzalez that his hike can still be taken.
As I said before, that is 100% the correct decision. Tenure is given for many reasons, but one criterion is how well the candidate will represent the University. Supporting Intelligent Design would reflect very poorly on ISU. They know that, so they dumped him. Well that, plus a host of other problems they had with Gonzalez.
I’m sure the Disco ‘tute will have some sort of golden parachute to soften the blow to Dr. Gonzalez. But I hope that other institutes (the real kind) will look to ISU as an example of how to deal with a shoddy track record and science blinded by faith.
Hat tip to Aetiology.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
7-1? who was the fool who voted against telling him to take a hike?
February 8th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
As I have stated on a number of blogs, this is, in some respects, a sad situation. Dr. Gonzalez started out in his tenure at ISU as a very promising young scientist working in a cutting edge area, namely extra-solar planetary systems. Somewhere along the line, he ran off the rails and turned into a crackpot. It would be interesting to discover why this happened. As for the brouhaha over his being denied tenure, better scientists then he have been denied tenure at one institution only to go on to a productive career at another institution. Examples include astrophysicist Sean Carroll and physicist Lawrence Krause. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Dr. Gonzalez will follow in their footsteps.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
As an ISU grad I was heartened to see the quick and decisive answer from the regents. It’s a good feeling to know that my degree is still worth at least a little something. Well, at least until ISU opens up the new College of Phrenology.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Wow… nicely said Keith. And it isn’t every day you can work ‘phrenology’ into a conversation. Extra point for that I think.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
The vote was 7 to 1…. So, there’s someone on the board who thought that Gonzalez DID deserve tenure. That is a little scary in itself.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Will someone please define the term creationism for me. I regard it as a beiief that heaven and earth were created by God within six 24 hour days and 6000 years ago - which is utter nonsense.
I also believe that God created the universe about 13 billion years ago and through a process of evolution created life as we know it today. Does this make me a creationist? I do NOT support the idea that life started spontaneously as there is no proof for this. There is also no proof that God started it all. But I believe this with my heart and soul.
If you atheists who have so many derogatory things to say about people who belief in God as our creator want to group me with “creatoinists” I must object strongly.
I am a medical specialist (nuclear medicine) and an amateur astronomer and would like to be treated with respect even though you disagree with me
Philip
February 8th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Michelle, you have a very foul mouth and I must object to the language you are regularly using.
Philip
February 8th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Hey BA, bad ad alert. (”Alert”, not complaint.)
I followed the link on this page to the blog “Silly Creationists, Tenure is for Scientists” entry. It was a large vertical banner ad, on the sidebar. It was the second one down, the top one was for a mortgage company. It caught my eye because of the photo of the attractive man with the piercing eyes, then I noticed what it said and I had to click on it. The ad said “Activating Evolution. Suresh’s Dream Study. Dreams are a window into the mind!”
This one is cracking me up! It is so cute, and sincere. Therefore very scary.
The site:
activatingevolution.org
It says:
“I am on a mission seeking information on how dreams affect us in our waking hours. Is it possible for one person to control another’s dreams? Or, are dreams really hidden secrets encoded in our DNA that are only revealed during the different states of consciousness?”
Check out the mailbag page. Apparently we are all evolving to have powers, like being able to read one another’s thoughts.
Sorry!
February 8th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
If you must ask, Michelle, it’s really rather sad.
If Creationism is true, then the Big Bang Theory isn’t. I would say Creationism is more or less the polar opposite of what the study of Astronomy is all about. After all, Astronomy clearly shows the universe is much much older than 6000 years.
And the language could use some adjustment if you’re going to participate in our discussions. Just my $.02.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
ISU grad here. I’d probably burn my degree if this went down any other way.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Folks: Michelle is a troll. Ignore her; I am marking all her comments as spam anyway.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Hey Laurie,
Just in case, there’s a tie-in to the “Activating Evolution” website from here:
http://www.nbc.com/heroes
It’s a part of the on-line fun associates with the TV Show “Heroes.”
February 8th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Laurie, that’s a viralfor the NBC TV show ‘Heroes’.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Philip:
1) Don’t feed the troll. “Her” “comments” will be deleted in due time.
2) Respect is earned, not given. If you behave like a decent human being, you’ll earn the respect of other decent human beings.
Your beliefs, however, are another matter entirely. I find no reason to respect them, and have no compunction about saying so. If you bring them up, you should expect them to be criticized.
I acknowledge the right of everyone to believe any crazy thing he or she wants to believe. That does not mean I have to respect any such belief.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Not to be picky (okay, yeah I am being picky) but it should be “AN educational institution”.
I did like the irony, though.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Phillip
As I understand it (not definitive by any stretch)
Creationism is AN attempt to “subvert” the evolutionary concept by making the statement that “God Created Everything, therefore this is a valid “theory” that should be studied in public classrooms.”
OK - I admit to being a bit fast and loose there, but I think it covers the ground.
Creationism - in an attempt to hide itself has been re-branded “Intelligent Design” and this has been shown to be a smokescreen (see “cdesign propensists”)
If you believe “God” created “everything” then you qualify to be a creationist, though you may not actually be one. I qualify to be a lot of things I am not, but you said it yourself by stating: “I also believe that God created the universe…” - that pretty much covers the entrance requirements, but does not mean you necessarily are forced to join the club.
I understand there to be copious evidence of the spontaneous generation of life - and more added recently. I also understand there to be absolutely NO evidence of a creative endeavor on any uber-natural being’s part, therefore I oppose any idea that places that for which there is evidence above that for which there is not.
Just my thoughts in response to “Wil someone please define the term ….”
JC
February 8th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Philip -
“If you atheists who have so many derogatory things to say about people who belief in God as our creator want to group me with “creatoinists” I must object strongly.”
How is you lumping people into a group you call “atheists” any less objectionable than any other person lumping you into a group called “creationists”? Please don’t do the exact thing you are criticizing others for doing. It comes off a little hypocritical.
Secondly, who exactly treated you with disrespect on this site and how? If you want to try and pursue an argument that God, or any other magical being, had anything to do whatsoever with the creation or evolution of life on this or any other planet, you are going to get a pretty healthy argument. But I don’t think that in and of itself is a sign of disrespect. If you speak and act with intelligence and respect, you will be treated the same. There are of course exceptions, but the BA is explicit about his general rule of thumb for posting on this site. You can read the rules here, but essentially, “don’t be a jerk”. That goes equally for all of us whether you support evolution, creationism, panspermatism… whatever your flavor may be.
But before you get all offended for being disrespected, I’d like there to be some evidence of it first.
Respectfully… Celtic.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
>”Will someone please define the term creationism for me.”
Basically, it means denying evolution. That is pretty much all that creationists have in common. As for the details, there are tons and tons of different creationists. There are flat earth creationists, young earth creationists, old earth creationists, creationists from other religions, etc. There are dozens of types of creationists.
>”I do NOT support the idea that life started spontaneously as there is no proof for this.”
I’m not sure what that makes you. Anyway, I think you’re mistaken. First, there is a lot of evidence which VERY strongly suggests that it is perfectly plausible for life to have arisen from natural processes. There is no way I could give even a passingly adequate summary about the evidence, so I’ll just have to tell you to go look it up. The point is that your argument is not a valid one. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything other than natural processes resulted in the origin of life, while there is abundant evidence indicating that it did happen naturally.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Re: the minority vote, that was Craig Lang:
February 8th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Two things I learned in college:
My Physics textbook never offered me any advice on how to be a better person,
and nowhere in the Bible (or any other book of scripture I could find) could I find the answer to that one exam question I blew that dropped my grade from an A to an A-.
Jesus said it best: “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and render unto God that which is God’s.”
February 8th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Not QUITE 100% the right decision - it was 85.7% the right decision. Someone on that board thought he deserved tenure - and that’s worrying!
Doug
February 8th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“In a 7-1 decision they told Gonzalez that his hike can still be taken. As I said before, that is 100% the correct decision.”
I would argue that was only the 87.5% correct decision.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Doh. I was beaten to the punch by two minutes by Doug.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
He wasn’t blinded by faith, he was blinded by fanaticism. There’s a difference. I’m a Christian, but I know better than to ignore what my eyes (and various other senses, including reason) tell me.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Did God create the Universe and life? I believe he did - if only it were to tweak the initial values during the Planck era.
But to come out with the nonsense of a literal 6000 years old earth (although it should now be 6011 if Usher was right), is clearly “bearing false witness”.
And, to come back to the original statement, this was not a 100% correct decision - only 82.5%. Questions need to be asked about the suitability of the dissenting voice on the panel.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“Laurie, that’s a viralfor the NBC TV show ‘Heroes’.”
You’re joking! I’ve never seen that show. Hmm, note to self, watch more tv….
February 8th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I am kind of sorry about Gonzales. I thought his “galactic habitable zone” theory was decent scientific work, even though I disagreed with it. I hope he can find a position elsewhere and continue to do astronomy. Having crackpot beliefs outside your own field shouldn’t necessarily be prima facie reason to deny someone tenure. How vigorously (i.e., publicly) did he support ID, and did he try to associate the university with it?
February 8th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I guess my only concern with this is reflected in Philip’s comments. Will Universities now start discriminating based on religious beliefs if the candidate can keep those beliefs separate from his work as a researcher? While I do not believe ID is a credible science, and is merely religion wearing a mask, I do believe that there are many qualified and intelligent scientists that may be followers of the faith of their choosing without it impeding their work. Philip claimed that he is a Christian, Barton is a Christian, and while I may disagree with him on certain things I don’t think his belief in evolution is compromised. Then again, I could be wrong…. Happened once before.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Others have defined creationism already, but I thought I’d take a stab at it, too, since I don’t quite agree with some of them (namely, the part that says creationism is a denial of evolution).
Mus, I think, did the best job of defining the term. There is a broad spectrum of creationists. They range from the literal, young-earth type, who state that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that all living things were created exactly as we see them today. These are the type that generally deny evolution.
Then there are those who agree that the world is a bit older than 6000 years, but who still think that everything was created more or less as it is today, but still created by a supernatural being.
At the furthest extreme from the young-earthers are those who believe that the Big-Bang happened, that the Earth was formed from various stuff in space (technical, ain’t I?), and that the first living thing was created by a supernatural being, but then evolution took over.
Believing that a being created life does not necessarily preclude evolution, nor does evolution preclude a belief that a supernatural being created life. The two are mutually exclusive. However, recent evidence does point to the fact that the creation of life can happen through natural processes. As more research is done into this area, I think a stronger case can be made that there is no deity.
But, exactly how everything started will never be known with certainty until we develop time travel.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
One more note: most of the time that “creationist” is used, it’s referring to the young-earth or literal types.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Geeze I really need to change my name, I always freak out when I see “Michelle is a troll” :X
I’m a bit irked at the idea of an university denying tenure, but I think I’m starting to understand it better now. It’s true that he would have used it as a weapon, and he would’ve dragged the university in the mud…
Good riddance.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
“Now begone, or else I shall taunt you a *second* time!”
Glad they gave that nut the boot. Religion and Education are like water and oil. They don’t mix. Creationism’s only hope it to try to float on top and obscure the truth underneath.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I find it interesting that creationist/ID/religious folks often say that they believe something in their hearts. To me, the phrase “I know in my heart that …” sends up a big red flag that the rest of the sentence has no basis in fact. Skeptical types never do that. Look for it, you’ll see what I’m talking about!
BA, I’d like to take a moment to thank you for addressing all these issues in this blog. I like how we get at least one astronomy post a day, plus the religion and politics posts. I tend to agree with your point of view, and there are so few places where I can feel comfortable expressing myself. Certainly not at work, where everyone forwards every silly woo-woo email, or on the digital scrapbooking (it’s my hobby) blogs I visit, where everyone believes in angels and homeschools their kids. Keep up the good work!
February 8th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Folks, I’d like to suggest another definition for - well, a common trait of the - “creationist”:
Those who don’t recognize the paradox inherent in claiming that their deity created everything, without having an origin itself.
A slightly different situation obtains when you ask them, “What can be ’super’-natural in a Universe created by your god?”
Some people cannot stand definitions. A person claiming a special exception, such as “God was here forever”, will just beat on the table when challenged. I’ve seen it happen.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I notice some other people already informed Laurie that the “Activating Evolution” site was an example of viral marketing for “Heroes.”
Damn…. Now I’m starting to think that maybe the Oceanic Airlines site isn’t real either.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Perhaps G-d is so omnipotent (are there levels of omnipotence?), He was able to create Himself?
In any case, my definition (by no means definitive) of “creationist” and/or “creationism” is the denial of evolution. Creationism (aka “Intelligent Design”) has at its core a deity creating a universe in the state it currently exists, with all creatures already “evolved” into their current states. Complex beings did not evolve from less-complex beings, they were created as-is.
Evolution does not attempt to explain how life started, nor does the Big Bang theory attempt to explain what happened at t<=0, despite creationists claiming that these are major “flaws” in those “theories”.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
IMHO, the term creationist and the term believer in God are synonyms. If you believe in a God then you must believe he created something - either the earth 6,000 years ago or the universe 15 billion years ago. If you have a God and he didn’t create the universe/earth/life/mankind/etc. etc. then what is there for him to do?
Now I wonder, what percentage of the science faculty in universities around the world believe in some kind of God? I’m sure it must be well over half. But they never have any trouble getting tenure because of their beliefs. They keep their science in their left pocket and their religion in their right pocket.
Gonzalez’s sin was not his belief in God, but rather his attempt to mix the contents of his left pocket with his right pocket. The two must NEVER EVER be mixed - it’s sort of like mixing matter and antimatter.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Belief that a God wrote down all the laws of physics, divided Planck’s constant by 2pi and ‘nucleated’ the cosmos billions of years ago is not even in the same league as creationism.
That doesn’t mean it’s right, but if you want to believe that then there’s nothing any scientist can say (yet) to deter you.
I personally believe in a Platonic realm of mathematics that is in a sense even more real than the physical realm of the universe. That idea may be just as wrong as the idea that God flipped the switch, but I don’t think it impedes my rational outlook on the world. I’m also willing to alter my belief in the (very improbable) event of new evidence, but I doubt that my belief is even falsifiable and so lies outside of the scientific arena altogether.
I think it gets a lot more troublesome if you believe that the hypothetical God who lit the fuse for the Big Bang has anything to do with the God of the Bible, or Koran, or Torah. That really is a ridiculous idea.
There’s something very beautiful about the physics and math of the universe and it seems that no-one has any idea where that beauty comes from. I’m sure that mathematics wasn’t ‘intelligently-designed’, but it doesn’t bother me that much if people want to anthropomorphize the laws of physics and mathematics or fantasize that there’s a God sitting at a boundary condition.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Although atheism and agnosticism are rather more prevalent within the scientific community then elsewhere, it is perfectly possible to be a scientist and also to have religious beliefs, provided that the latter does not intrude on the former. Examples include Charles Townes, Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, and Francis Collins.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
“Belief that a God wrote down all the laws of physics, divided Planck’s constant by 2pi and ‘nucleated’ the cosmos billions of years ago is not even in the same league as creationism”
Why not? Creating Planck’s constant 13 billion years ago, creating the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or in 4004 B.C.), creating Homo sapiens 150,000 years ago (or in 4004 B.C.) are all acts of creation. They only differ in scale and when they happened.
“I personally believe in a Platonic realm of mathematics that is in a sense even more real than the physical realm of the universe. That idea may be just as wrong as the idea that God flipped the switch, but I don’t think it impedes my rational outlook on the world.”
Dang, a Neoplatonist. Who would have thunk it? So what you’re really saying is that Platonic forms are really realer than reality? And it doesn’t impede your rational outlook on the world? LOL. But please do tell us, what evidence do you have for the existence of this Platonic realm?
February 8th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Tom Marking, you have the type of black-and-white world view that gives all us atheists a bad name. In other words, you are the strawman.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Tom: Do not insult us neoplatonists lest you wish to feel the true wrath of our fury (we do +4 hit points with acute angles).
The simple rationale for a platonic realm is that mathematics is to a large (if not full) extent independent of the planet, galaxy and universe in which we live. It’s even independent of the laws of physics.
An intelligent alien race living in a 17 dimensional universe would evaluate PI (in whatever base they use) with exactly the same expansion as us. Thus, PI is independent of our (and any) physical reality. It exists as a mathematical truth that will be discovered by any civilization anywhere.
The same is true of complex numbers, the Pythagorean theorem, the Mandelbrot set and the list goes on.
I find it impossible to believe that any other civilization could develop a mathematics that isn’t fundamentally equivalent to ours. I can’t prove that though.
Another thing I believe without proof is that ultimately the universe IS mathematics. Just as chemists and biologists discovered that the brain is made of fantastically complex patterns of atoms I suspect that we’ll eventually come to realize that quarks, electrons and everything else is fundamentally ‘made of’ mathematics. The laws of physics don’t model reality- they are the reality.
Finally- anyone who’s come across Euler’s identity (and reasonably understands it) cannot help but have some sympathy with the idea that there’s an unexplained beauty (symmetry) in mathematics.
We know that creationism is wrong. We can easily explain how the complexity and wonders of life has come into being through evolution. But I feel a bit like a creationist when it comes to mathematics. I know that Euler’s identity can be proven to be true, but I don’t know why it should be so beautiful.
Like I said- I don’t subscribe to the view that a God created mathematics or the universe. I think we have to accept that (e.g.) PI is an eternal truth that exists outside of time and space. If that sounds uncomfortably like the Christian explanation of God then so be it- I’ll take my lumps.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Christian, did you read Max Tegmark’s paper on this?
February 8th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Thanks Peter: Yes, I’ve read a few of Tegmark’s papers. I stole a lot of his ideas for my post above.
I think Tegmark’s on the money. I have great admiration for his work. I philosophically agree with his work, but as a scientist I have to accept that at the moment these ideas are quite speculative.
I should also point out that I’m not a sufficiently good physicist/philosopher to understand all of his arguments.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Pieter: Oh- and sorry for misspelling your name. My Erdos number is too large and so I make careless mistakes.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
@Philip
Evolution makes no claims about how life started, only about how it changes over time. That’s it. What you are talking about is Abiogenesis, which is a different field of science. It is a common creationist tactic to confuse the two. This leads to many people having a misinformed opinion as to what Evolution really is.
And people that believe the whole 6000 year old earth are sometimes referred to as young earth creationists, whereas people who believe that god created the universe 13.7 billion years ago are still creationists, just not YEC.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“Tom Marking, you have the type of black-and-white world view that gives all us atheists a bad name. In other words, you are the strawman.”
Funny, I don’t remember claiming to be an atheist so it’s not clear how I will give you all a bad name.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
SLC wrote
It’s possible to be a good scientist with strong religious beliefs in the same way that it’s possible for a smoker to run a marathon. It just makes it more unlikely.
Religion is magical thinking and only has a deleterious effect on scientists.
I’m sorry to be so blunt. Even if you disagree with me you should recognize that there’s what I consider to be a flaw in your argument. Just because it’s possible- it doesn’t make it advantageous.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
For what it’s worth, I believe lumping all theists in with “creationists” does more harm than good to science.
The truly toxic form of creationism is that which denies all the scientific evidence for evolution, and to a lesser extent the expansion of the universe. This version, based mainly in biblical (or Koranic) literalism, is but the thin edge of a wedge for a group that would deny free speech and free inquiry, and replace our republic with a theocracy. Sorry if that sounds alarmist, but the more I hear these people speak, the more I realize that these “true believers” are beyond reason.
As long as someone respects the principles of science, and the conclusions derived from evidence, I see no harm if he also says God created the universe. (I’d prefer if he said God set up the laws of nature to let the universe, and life within the universe, develop “on its own”, but I’m not a big fan of “God of the gaps” arguments.)
And yes, I’m an atheist. Some might call this “being soft on religion”. I call it picking allies against our real enemy.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
He was on the lecture circuit for Privileged Planet, and he gave several “intro to ID” talks around the state (and maybe beyond). I went to one and wrote about it here. The university affiliation is a bit more nebulous. I’m not sure how much Gonzalez did himself, but the DI folks certainly claimed that “ID research” was being carried out at Iowa State, so the university was dragged through the mud via his affiliation.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
“The simple rationale for a platonic realm is that mathematics is to a large (if not full) extent independent of the planet, galaxy and universe in which we live. It’s even independent of the laws of physics.
An intelligent alien race living in a 17 dimensional universe would evaluate PI (in whatever base they use) with exactly the same expansion as us. Thus, PI is independent of our (and any) physical reality. It exists as a mathematical truth that will be discovered by any civilization anywhere.
The same is true of complex numbers, the Pythagorean theorem, the Mandelbrot set and the list goes on.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Consider the concept of zero in mathematics. The Babylonians developed it, then it spread to India, to the Arabs, and it eventually reached Europe. The Mayans also developed the concept of zero independently. But the Greeks and Romans had no concept of zero at all. They considered it anathema to nature. So even within our species two radically different formulations of mathematics developed. Now you’re telling me that ETs all over the universe will essentially have the same mathmatics as we do.
Remember what pi is. It’s the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Your intelligent alien race living in a 17 dimensional universe will only have the concept of pi if the shape of the circle is relevant to them. What if it isn’t? What if the most important shape to them is something totally different. Then maybe some irrational number like 5.834592176… will be the number that turns them on, not pi. The universe may be the same for them as it is for us, but mathematics is a representation of said universe, not the universe itself. It may be as different as the many human languages are from each other even though they can all express the same idea.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Tom: Like I said- I can’t prove my statements to be true.
We do know that humans can calculate with ease the volumes of spheres in any number of integer dimensions. They’re not restricted by the dimensionality of the space they inhabit. Thus, it’s also likely that aliens living in 17 dimensions could calculate the area of a 2D circle.
Also- the volumes of all hyperspheres are rational fractions multiplied by PI to an integer number. Thus, even if the aliens never bothered to look at the general case, they would still express their volume as QDAXZL which is trivially algebraically related to our PI.
It may be that some numbers (e.g. Feigenbaum’s constant) might be too esoteric given the alien’s lifestyle. Maybe they don’t enjoy looking at pretty pictures and so they would never be interested in plotting out the Mandelbrot set. However, PI is of such fundamental importance to so many areas of mathematics that I can’t conceive of any intelligent alien civilization getting very far without it, and the value they calculate will have exactly the same expansion as ours.
Also, there are many instances in mathematics in which two mathematicians have come up with the same theorem independently. Thus, it’s hard to sustain the view that mathematics is like art in which you can create your own reality. It’s much more satisfactory (to me) to suppose that the mathematicians have ‘discovered’ the theorems- which suggests that the theorems were already ‘out there’ in idea space waiting to be stumbled upon. Of course, you could argue that coincidences like this are a reflection of human biology and a shared culture- and I’d find it hard to disprove that.
The fact that some cultures developed the idea of zero whereas others didn’t doesn’t convince me of anything. It’s trivially true that some cultures are technologically more advanced than others. The point is that any sufficiently advanced civilization will have developed the concept of zero, imaginary numbers, PI, etc.
I claim that it is impossible for any culture to have become space faring without first learning calculus and trigonometry and complex numbers. The ancient Greeks could have been the smartest people to have ever existed, but they would never have been able to construct a microwave oven (for instance), because for one thing- they just didn’t have the mathematical tools to do so.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Personally, I run across the idea that some concepts cause a kind of disconnect in folks. Some don’t buy anything that they don’t already know - and attempt to fit the world in with what they know rather than expanding on it. One person I knew in college didn’t have much beef with evolution except the close relation to apes. She said she’d seen a bear sans fur and figured it was close enough it could have been an ancestor as well.
We all have a kind of conceptual lexicon, and that’s why we throw around analogies. Dealing with the new, we compare it to the old.
Some concepts like the time we’ve been around compared with the age of the earth or the universe are boggling. I remember making a scale model solar system in middle school: our four-foot-across sun was put at one point, and our scale model planets walked out with a meter measure. They only tried to get out to Jupiter, which ended up nearly a kilometer away if I remember right.
I’d rather spend my time developing novel ways of explaining what we know rather than this latest “Moral Combat” people are staging. I’ll be over here with the yardstick and the marbles - you guys smack around and yell about “Fatality!”
Seriously, enough with the vitriol on all ends. Of all the stuff Sagan wrote (1967 to late 1990s), I didn’t ever come away thinking he was a dick.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:48 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism
I wouldn’t describe Selina Morse as a creationist and I doubt she would too. Just because someone believes in God, doesn’t automatically make them a creationist.
On topic, call me cynical, but what’s the possibility that Gonzales made the appeal knowing he was gonna fail, just so him and his buddies can play the mucho over-used religious persecution martyr card?
February 9th, 2008 at 11:27 am
“I wouldn’t describe Selina Morse as a creationist and I doubt she would too. Just because someone believes in God, doesn’t automatically make them a creationist.”
O.K. Well it’s a matter of semantics then. If you believe God created the universe (and the laws of physics), created the earth, etc. then you’re not a creationist.
If you believe God created humankind, created the separate species, etc. then you’re a creationist. (Side point: the amount of effort, expertise, or whatever needed to create the universe is trillions of times more than the amount needed to create a species). Exactly where do you draw the line in the definition? Is it based on time (e.g., anyone who believes in divine intervention more recent than 4.5 billion years ago is a creationist)? Is it based on something else?
The term “creationist” is being used on this board as a derogatory term. But remember, they have their own terminology for you folks - “secular humanist” and it conjures up the same dread in them that the term “creationist” conjures up in y’all.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:41 am
“Thus, it’s hard to sustain the view that mathematics is like art in which you can create your own reality.”
O.K. One more comment on the issue and then I’ll let it lie. But first!
FATALITY! FATALITY! FATALITY!
See, Pat was right. I do often scream that word at the top of my lungs. But I feel much better now that I’ve gotten it out of my system. Now to proceed:
I think that mathematicians have created their own realities. Case in point, for thousands of years everyone accepted the notion of Euclidean space. This can be summed up by the parallel line postulate: Q: Given a line in a plane and a point not on the line, how many lines pass through the point that do not interesect the line? A: Just one.
Now along comes Bernhard Riemann in 1854 and he answers the question: Zero. A new branch of geometry is born (Riemannian geometry) which incidentally is used in Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
At about the same time Russian mathematician Nikolai Lobachevsky answers the question: Infinity. And Lobachevskian (boy, that’s a hard one to pronounce) geometry was born (i.e., saddle-shaped open universe).
There could be systems of mathematics on other worlds that answer the question with 2, 3, 87, or 34,596. We don’t know. These are all constructions of the human (or extraterrestrial) mind. That’s why I don’t believe in mathematical universals.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
As has already been noted, the 7-1 vote came from the Board of Regents, which oversees all of the state universities in Iowa. The Boeard of Regents upheld ISU’s decision.
I still feel compelled to mention that Phil has been (apparently unwittingly) inconsistent on the question of whether ISU did the right thing for the right reasons. Although the present posting hails ISU for making “100% the correct decision,” a previous posting from Phil called the main rationale “100 percent wrong.” Details, for anyone interested (with references and links), are available at:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94760
February 13th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Radwaste, your argument is incorrect.
It is perfectly logical to say that the Universe needs an explanation for its origin and God does not. We have empirical evidence that the Universe had a beginning. We do not have the same for God. Thus we can plausibly say that God was always here, while we cannot plausibly say the same for the Universe.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Christian X. Burnham writes:
[[I think it gets a lot more troublesome if you believe that the hypothetical God who lit the fuse for the Big Bang has anything to do with the God of the Bible, or Koran, or Torah. That really is a ridiculous idea.]]
What, precisely, is ridiculous about it?
February 13th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Christian X. Burnham writes:
[[It’s possible to be a good scientist with strong religious beliefs in the same way that it’s possible for a smoker to run a marathon. It just makes it more unlikely.
Religion is magical thinking and only has a deleterious effect on scientists.]]
So, what you’re saying is, Nicholas of Cusa, William of Ockham, Jean Buridan, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Louis Pasteur, were all poor scientists because they were Catholic.
Alfred Russel Wallace and James Clerk Maxwell and Lord Kelvin were all poor scientists because they were Anglican.
Michael Faraday was a poor scientist because he was an evangelical.
Theodosius Dobzhansky is a poor scientist because he’s Eastern Orthodox.
Subramanyan Chandrasekhar was a poor scientist because he was Hindu.
On the other hand, Richard Dawkins is a great scientist because he’s an atheist.
Excuse me if I don’t find your theory very convincing.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Some definitions are in order. A creationist is someone who believes in the pseudoscience of divine special creation as a scientific explanation for life. I believe in creation, I do not believe in creationism. And the distinction between God creating something and natural processes creating something is a false dichotomy; they are not mutually exclusive. I believe God created all things. I also believe the Big Bang happened, planets formed by accretion, and life arose naturally and evolved from there. There’s a difference between an efficient cause and a final cause, or a proximal cause and an ultimate cause. If a soldier shoots and kills an enemy soldier on the battlefield, did the enemy soldier die because his heart stopped? Because a bullet hit him? Because the other soldier fired? Because policy makers on both sides led their countries into war? Because economic and political events moved the policy makers? Or could the answer be “all of the above?”
July 9th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Anyone still have doubts as to whether or not Discover will censor The BA’s blog?
July 10th, 2008 at 8:11 am
B. P. Levenson: You said:
“We have empirical evidence that the Universe had a beginning. We do not have the same for God.”
Unwarranted assumption in this statement. There is, in fact, no empirical evidence that Gos exists at all. Therefor, any discussion about his origins or lack thereof lack a theoretical base.
Secondly, if we accept for the sake of argument that God exists, it would be possible to assume that God existed forever, but I would not make that assumption for two reasons.
A) Nothing that we have ever studied at any time has existed forever, and we have studied lots of things. God could, of course, be the exception to the rule, but I would not assume it.
B) Long ago, it might have been concluded (by atheists or similar)that the universe had existed forever, because there was no evidence that it had ever not existed. However, this was based on incomplete data and poor equipment. Further study provided evidence of a beginning. Additional experimental testing and observation of God might provide similar evidence.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I find it amusing that faculty espousing conservative or Judeo-Christian views are increasingly denied tenure on those grounds.
Belief in Evolution as FACT and in Marxism as decent are the new litmus test for tenure in academia.
The elitist left (that claims to be all inclusive) is once again proven to be the exclusive pigs running the farm again!
The biggest hole in the evolutionist thinking is how a pile of dirt and/or mud (with or without amino acids) became a single celled form of life.
I do not advocate the Biblical view of creation — but I am still trying to see how science can disprove the fact that there is a deity who conceived the laws of science and DNA and set them in motion.
It seems to me that as fervent the belief in God the creationist have, it is matched by the fervent belief of most of you in evolution.
Therefore — is evolution your God? I digress……..
Discrimination is NEVER ok …………..except against those who you deem a threat………..ah — what an inclusive society!
300 years from now, we will see atheists fight atheist over who’s science is more ‘blessed’. See episode ‘GO GOD GO’ from http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103800/