Gove shows the door to creationism as science

[Simon]

Well I'm certainly no scientist but I do possess. I think, at least the semblance of a pea-brain and your suggestion that something that emerges all by itself out of a total vacuum does not really come 'out-of-the-blue' a bit confusing to say the least. Still, there we go ...

On another tack and to echo teamsaint ... where's lateral? ... there a few others long missing as well ... where's Freddie Campbell gone, for instance? .... . and our old friend Simon? ... the more the merrier!.

I'm here scotty. Been away a lot, but back for a while, I hope. It's been quiet on here I gather? That's a shame.

As regards the other point above, it's not really the start of it all that evidences design - nobody knows enough about the nature of time or infinity to form a rational judgement about that. What, among other things, makes so many of the brightest brains on the planet accept a reasoning intelligence is the evidence - which we do know about and can measure - of so many "coincidences" that have occurred to bring about human life as it is.

The only vaguely pseudo-rational answer to this from the "happened by chance" brigade has been the suggestion that in fact there are an infinite number of universes all slightly different, so the fact that this one is as we find it is of course logical. Indeed it is. But as a contrived example of far-fetchedness and the failure to use Occam's razor this is hard to beat.

[amateur51]

I'm here scotty. Been away a lot, but back for a while, I hope. It's been quiet on here I gather? That's a shame.

As regards the other point above, it's not really the start of it all that evidences design - nobody knows enough about the nature of time or infinity to form a rational judgement about that. What, among other things, makes so many of the brightest brains on the planet accept a reasoning intelligence is the evidence - which we do know about and can measure - of so many "coincidences" that have occurred to bring about human life as it is.

The only vaguely pseudo-rational answer to this from the "happened by chance" brigade has been the suggestion that in fact there are an infinite number of universes all slightly different, so the fact that this one is as we find it is of course logical. Indeed it is. But as a contrived example of far-fetchedness and the failure to use Occam's razor this is hard to beat.

Oh how I've missed the Byzantine gyrations of this magnificent intellect - I mean that "coincidences" comment was clincher, eh?

[french frank]

It's been quiet on here I gather? That's a shame.

Not a shame as far as the moderator is concerned. I like intelligent exchanges. Nobody describing other members' comments as 'mindless' ... Civilisation, you might say ..

[Serial_Apologist]

Not a shame as far as the moderator is concerned. I like intelligent exchanges. Nobody describing other members' comments as 'mindless' ... Civilisation, you might say ..

Yes, I have observed a definite softening in Mr Pee's posts of late...

[Flosshilde]

But as a contrived example of far-fetchedness and the failure to use Occam's razor this is hard to beat.

Well, for contrived examples of far-fetchedness god gtakes the biscuit. It might have been sufficient at a time when knowledge of the universe was practically nil, but I think that there are rather better explanations.

& Simon has fallen into a trap with his reference to Occam's razor - which "is the idea that one should not believe something for which one has no evidence; or, alternatively, that of two ideas which explain the same evidence, the simpler idea is to be preferred." (http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A21648783). He (and Scotty) would seem to believe that the idea of god as the creator of the universe is simpler than any other theory. Why? As I've suggested earlier, god as creator raises as many questions as it solves - not so simple afterall. It can only be simple if you are taught to believe in it implicitly, without asking any questions. Blind faith, in other words. And what about not believeing something for which one has no evidence? There is no evidence that god exists, or created the universe; on the other hand, research is gradually producing the evidence which supports the various hypotheses about the origins of the universe.

[Pabmusic]

...research is gradually producing the evidence which supports the various hypotheses about the origins of the universe.

An excellent post, Flosshilde. The discussion seems to have focussed over the last few posts on rationalism-vs-belief, with the main thrust against rationalism being the infamous argument from absurdity ("that cannot be so because I cannot conceive how it could be"). One of the problems with that is that the same has been used so many times against scientific breakthroughs in the last 500 years ("I cannot imagine how the earth might orbit around the sun, so I'll call in the Inquisition to deal with you") and yet, in each case, reason triumphed in the end as people began to understand. As things stand today, we do know that sometimes particles can appear from nothing. This is a viewable, repeatable effect. Quite why it happens is not understood (I think), but who's to say that won't be answered one day? And if we can cause something to appear from nothing today, why is it so very unlikely that something appeared from nothing a very long time ago?

The "very long time ago" is, of course, part of the answer to Simon's "so many 'coincidences' that have occurred to bring about human life as it is". I don't know how many 'coincidences' there have been, but there's been a long time for them to have happened. Just a single 'coincidence' every million years would have allowed for almost 20,000 of them since the universe began.

But even that is not quite to the point, because to talk of "'coincidences' necessary to bring about human life" is to assume that anything - anything at all - has actually been directed toward that end. It is better to think of human life (itself only one strand out of all life) as the inevitable conclusion of all that has gone before in its particular strand of existence. There are no 'coincidences' now; if things had happened differently, human life would simply never have happened anyway.

One additional comment about chance (I'm referring here to the evolution of life by natural selection, not the beginning of the universe). It is a mistake to think of evolution as happening by 'chance'. Some genes are defective when passed on - quite which and how many is indeed random - and almost always their effects amount to little and disappear over the generations (webbed toes, for instance - I have two pairs). Sometimes they give rise to life-threatening conditions (sickle-cell anaemia). And sometimes - very occasionally - they give an advantage in reproduction. It's when the latter happens that it's favoured by natural selection, and there's nothing at all random about it. The 'advantageous' gene will be passed on, and the numbers carrying it will increase as a proportion of the population since the gene gives a reproductive advantage to those who carry it. Give it long enough and it will become a 'normal' gene, because almost everyone will carry it. The only element of chance has been the defective gene in the first place. Everything else follows like night after day. A beautiful, rational and predictable consequence.

[scottycelt]

An excellent post, Flosshilde. The discussion seems to have focussed over the last few posts on rationalism-vs-belief, with the main thrust against rationalism being the infamous argument from absurdity ("that cannot be so because I cannot conceive how it could be"). One of the problems with that is that the same has been said about almost every scientific breakthrough in the last 500 years ("I cannot imagine how the earth might orbit around the sun, so I'll call in the Inquisition to deal with you") and yet, in each case, reason triumphed in the end as people began to understand. As things stand today, we do know that sometimes particles can appear from nothing. This is a viewable, repeatable effect. Quite why it happens is not understood (I think), but who's to say that won't be answered one day? And if we can cause something to appear from nothing today, why is it so very unlikely that something appeared from nothing a very long time ago?

The "very long time ago" is, of course, part of the answer to Simon's "so many 'coincidences' that have occurred to bring about human life as it is". I don't know how many 'coincidences' there have been, but there's been a long time for them to have happened. Just one 'coincidence' every million years would have allowed for almost 20,000 of them since the universe began.

But even that is not quite to the point, because to talk of "'coincidences' necessary to bring about human life" is to assume that anything - anything at all - was actually directed toward that end. It is better to think of human life (itself only one strand out of all life) as the inevitable conclusion of all that has gone before in its particular strand. There are no 'coincidences' now; if things had happened differently, human life would simply never have happened.

One additional comment about chance (I'm referring here to the evolution of life by natural selection, not the beginning of the universe). It is a mistake to think of evolution as happening by chance. Some genes are defective when passed on - quite which and how many is indeed random - and almost always their effects amount to little and disappear over the generations (webbed toes, for instance - I have two pairs). Sometimes they give rise to life-threatening conditions (sickle-cell anaemia). And sometimes - very occasionally - they give an advantage in reproduction. It's when the latter happens that natural selection begins, and there's nothing at all random about it. The 'advantageous' gene will be passed on, and the numbers carrying it will increase as a proportion of the population since the gene gives a reproductive advantage to those who carry it. Give it long enough and it will become a 'normal' gene, because almost everyone will carry it. The only element of chance has been the defective gene in the first place. Everything else follows like night after day. A beautiful, rational and predictable consequence.

On the contrary, I find Flosshilde's post (and also your own) quite baffling.

Surely the faith of the believer is no more 'blind' than that of the atheist who believes in an incalculable number of astounding inter-connected miracles starting from a total void.

If 'particles emerge from nothing' it cannot possibly be 'nothing'. Particles are 'something' even if we didn't previously realise the particles ever existed. If one swallows the line that things magically happened 'jus' like that!' as the incomparable Tommy Cooper used to say, well, as Chesterton perceptively observed, it is not so much that atheists believe in 'nothing' that is the problem, it is that they can end up believing in anything.

The atheists' self-description of him/herself as 'rational' has always intrigued me which is why I confess to sometimes mischievously using the word myself in response. It maybe appears a little smug to others when one claims to be more 'rational' than one's fellow man or woman, especially when it comes to the big, unanswered questions of our very existence? If atheists don't understand themselves how the universe came to be why discount any possibility? On the one hand they, when pressed, reluctantly admit to being as ignorant as the believer, and then claim that God definitely does not exist because that existence is 'unproven'. There is a huge difference between something being considered 'unproven' and 'disproved'!

The great discoveries of Science have not disproved the existence of God, in fact to many (including scientists) it has very much confirmed them in their belief!

Wonder what Michael Gove thinks ... ?

[John Skelton]

Surely atheists don't believe in miracles? That's your word for some extremely complicated science which I certainly don't claim to understand fully (and which most atheists don't understand fully either, of course). Even so, they can find what they understand sufficient without looking for anything else.

"The great discoveries of Science have not disproved the existence of God ...." I'm not an atheist, but you cannot disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist. Science can't disprove the theory that aliens visited this planet x billion yeas ago and genetically modified a puddle so that eventually Scottycelt and Michael Gove would exist. But I suspect you'd be happy enough with science not being able to do so because you would regard the notion as obvious nonsense .

[John Skelton]

One of the many things which makes me want to put slogans on the side of London buses reading 'You don't have to listen to Richard Dawkins. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life' is that he sees it as the business of science (or Science) to disprove the existence of God. All science can do is say 'there is no need to posit a God or gods for this theory to hold together' and it (or It) should really only be doing that if challenged to explain why God or gods aren't there.

[Pabmusic]

All science can do is say 'there is no need to posit a God or gods for this theory to hold together' and it (or It) should really only be doing that if challenged to explain why God or gods aren't there.

On the contrary, I find Flosshilde's post (and also your own) quite baffling. The atheists' self-description of him/herself as 'rational' has always intrigued me which is why I confess to sometimes mischievously using the word myself in response. It maybe appears a little smug to others when one claims to be more 'rational' than one's fellow man or woman, especially when it comes to the big, unanswered questions of our very existence? If atheists don't understand themselves how the universe came to be why discount any possibility? On the one hand they, when pressed, reluctantly admit to being as ignorant as the believer, and then claim that God definitely does not exist because that existence is 'unproven'. There is a huge difference between something being considered 'unproven' and 'disproved'!

I did not realise that I was trying to disprove the existence of God; I thought I was talking about what science knows of the origins of the universe and of life. I agree wholeheartedly that 'there is a huge difference between something being considered 'unproven' and 'disproved', and I suspect that it would be as impossible to disprove God's existence as it would be to disprove anything else (except a mathematical proposition, that is). That everything was created by God is a clear position that is shared by many millions, and I doubt that that will change in our lifetimes. But many believers are able to come to terms with the Big Bang and evolution by natural selection. How they achieve that no doubt varies from person to person. It is only if you believe that what I outlined in 111 disproves God's existence that it matters to you - but that is hardly my fault, is it? Unless, of course, I am making all this up just to be mischievous - but you will know the answer to that.

[amateur51]

On the contrary, I find Flosshilde's post (and also your own) quite baffling.

Surely the faith of the believer is no more 'blind' than that of the atheist who believes in an incalculable number of astounding inter-connected miracles starting from a total void.

If 'particles emerge from nothing' it cannot possibly be 'nothing'. Particles are 'something' even if we didn't previously realise the particles ever existed. If one swallows the line that things magically happened 'jus' like that!' as the incomparable Tommy Cooper used to say, well, as Chesterton perceptively observed, it is not so much that atheists believe in 'nothing' that is the problem, it is that they can end up believing in anything.

The atheists' self-description of him/herself as 'rational' has always intrigued me which is why I confess to sometimes mischievously using the word myself in response. It maybe appears a little smug to others when one claims to be more 'rational' than one's fellow man or woman, especially when it comes to the big, unanswered questions of our very existence? If atheists don't understand themselves how the universe came to be why discount any possibility? On the one hand they, when pressed, reluctantly admit to being as ignorant as the believer, and then claim that God definitely does not exist because that existence is 'unproven'. There is a huge difference between something being considered 'unproven' and 'disproved'!

The great discoveries of Science have not disproved the existence of God, in fact to many (including scientists) it has very much confirmed them in their belief!

Wonder what Michael Gove thinks ... ?

Be fair, scotty! You can't give me one shred of evidence to support your views, can you?

But then, as a supporter of Scotland's football team ....

[scottycelt]

Surely atheists don't believe in miracles? That's your word for some extremely complicated science which I certainly don't claim to understand fully (and which most atheists don't understand fully either, of course). Even so, they can find what they understand sufficient without looking for anything else.

... I'm not an atheist, but you cannot disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist.

Sorry, I'm even more baffled now ... that last sentence makes no rational sense to me whatsoever.

If you mean there is no obligation on the atheist to prove his/her insistence that God does not exist, I totally disagree. The believer maintains there is evidence for that existence and if the non-believer rejects that evidence that's fine.

However, to categorically state that God definitely does not exist and say in effect .. 'sorry, pal, you'll just have to take my word for it as I don't have any evidence myself and, in any case, I don't have to prove a thing to you ..' ... well, that is not particularly convincing, is it now?

[amateur51]

All science can do is say 'there is no need to posit a God or gods for this theory to hold together' and it (or It) should really only be doing that if challenged to explain why God or gods aren't there.

I find this quite a satisfactory state of affairs as long as it then keeps God-botherers' views & rules off my body & those of young people

[Flosshilde]

If you mean there is no obligation on the atheist to prove his/her insistence that God does not exist, I totally disagree. The believer maintains there is evidence for that existence

(my emphasis)

As you say, the believer maintains there is evidence, but so far neither you (nor Simon, nor indeed any other believer) has been able to provide that evidence, beyond saying that the human brain, or the eye, for example, couldn't possibly exist without being created by god. Where is this evidence?

[John Skelton]

Sorry, I'm even more baffled now ... that last sentence makes no rational sense to me whatsoever.

If you mean there is no obligation on the atheist to prove his/her insistence that God does not exist, I totally disagree. The believer maintains there is evidence for that existence and if the non-believer rejects that evidence that's fine.

However, to categorically state that God definitely does not exist and say in effect .. 'sorry, pal, you'll just have to take my word for it as I don't have any evidence myself and, in any case, I don't have to prove a thing to you ..' ... well, that is not particularly convincing, is it now?

I sort of agree about the atheist (I hadn't had my breakfast & was staring at a hillock of paperwork which will be this morning when I've typed this ). What I meant was: the scientist who proposes a theory of 'creation' which is godless is under no obligation to disprove the existence of a god or God for that theory to hold up. What it needs to be is scientifically coherent and 'verifiable' inasmuch as that's possible at such extremely complex theoretical levels (obviously that's what's being attempted at the moment).

The atheist who says there is no god is having her cake and eating it if she claims to be able to prove that scientifically, precisely because you can't prove the non-existence of something which isn't verifiably existent or non-existent definitively. Reverse ways, it's no good saying (a) there is scientific evidence for a god's existence because it seems incredible to the believer that a 'chain of events' is possible without an initiating 'consciousness' (b) because there isn't a scientific answer to everything the gaps in science are proof of God. We won't ever know everything, but that doesn't mean that everything isn't theoretically knowable.

If that makes any sense that's why I'm not an atheist: people say that science proves there isn't a god (or isn't God) but it doesn't. What it does do is show that many of the things which used to be explained by reference to a divine origin have coherent scientific explanations which render the explanatory necessity of that divine origin redundant. That's been going on for centuries and is a good reason why fewer people believe in God.

The 'proofs' of God's existence are subjective proofs - and I see nothing wrong in that.