I actually think that most biologists have got themselves stuck in a “naturalistic” box. They’ve limited themselves, because they have not also studied PHYSICS enough to understand about multiple dimensions, and to understand that “nature” goes far beyond the four dimensions we can directly observe.
I figure that Intelligent Design theory is far more honest than theories of Evolution.
50 comments
What did you say?
Why did you say it?
As a student in the physics department at a major university, I can tell you that, if anything, studying physics tends one away from religion and creationism.
Of the eight main professors in the department, we have a grand total of zero creationists. Oh well.
I actually think that most biologists have got themselves stuck in a “naturalistic” box. They’ve limited themselves, because they have not also studied PHYSICS enough to understand about multiple dimensions, and to understand that “nature” goes far beyond the four dimensions we can directly observe.
Wut?
I figure that Intelligent Design theory is far more honest than theories of Evolution.
Like Ben Stein? Puh-leeze.
@Mortok: You can't say that with certainty. Other dimensions may have an influence on organic life. We don't know. We don't know much at all about other possible dimensions. So why it is logical, in the realm of biological science, to disregard them at the moment, it is folly to claim they will never matter to that branch of science.
"I actually think that most biologists have got themselves stuck in a “naturalistic” box."
That's because life is part of nature. And life is an emergent property of chemistry, which is in itself a special case of physics. Can't have one without the other.
Now go away.
ARGH! Another dumbwad who has seen too many movies and confuses alternate universes with dimensions!
Dimensions = Spatial measurements e.g. Time, Length, Probability etc NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN TRAVEL TO!
Ladies and gentlemen,
"When the moon
This is the dawning
someone doesn't understand that multiple dimensions are part of nature, too. and wtf does that have to do with ID? does she think the designer was some alien from a different dimension?
I daresay she watched too much sci-fi. dimensions do not work that way.
If your first statement is supposed to lead to your final statement, presumably you can describe to us how ID attempts to incorporate observations and/or mathematical deductions involving five-plus dimensions.
In any case I think you're trying to redefine the meaning of the word nature. Surely the point is that nature is the reality which is observable by us, and upon which we can then make arguable deductions. If you wish to redefine your particular choice of deity as natural rather than supernatural, you may find yourself somewhat lacking in reliable evidence.
Since no one else has said I will.
Even assuming string theory is true and their are collapsed higher order dimensions underpinning the four standard ones already know it will still be a naturalistic model.
Weird and surreal but naturalistic.
Not to mention there are rules about scientific theories supplanting older, well tested and validated models. Specifically that they must give approximately equal answers. Quantum mechanics statistically averages out to give the same answers as classical thermodynamics and General Relativity gives the same answer as Newtonian Gravity under 'everyday' conditions.
Whatever theory supplants them is going to give the same general answers at the level where chemistry, biology and physics intersect and will have minimal if any effect on evolution.
Well, I guess if Amy "figures" that, then the issue is settled. Forget about all the amazingly great thinkers of the last 150 years, trust Amy!
because they have not also studied PHYSICS enough to understand about multiple dimension
No, that's because they're biologists and only a very few people do in-depth study of more than one area of science.
"they have not also studied PHYSICS enough to understand about multiple dimensions, and to understand that “nature” goes far beyond the four dimensions we can directly observe."
Physicists haven't studied physics? Those guys that have came up with the math that says that's likely?
The Bible says what about dimensions again? Heaven is up, Hell is down, literally. Those are only two.
Sounds like you have the makings of a very interesting journal article there. Just gather your data, write it up, and submit it to a legitimate journal for peer review. Let us know how it turns out.
Of course, I guess you could bypass all of that and just hand it in to a creationist rag with no standards. Or you can create a blog to air your views. If you really want a veneer of credibility you could write a book and find a sympathetic publisher to take it. Real scientists don't do things like that though, so I'm sure you won't be doing it either.
Yeah, biologists limit themselves to the natural world. How dare they? I bet they know more about PHYSICS than you do, Amy.
ID is in no way, shape or form, honest.
@Percy Q. Shun:
> This is the dawning
I always liked the way a song in the 1960s was supposed to be an explanation of the whole hippy consciousness thing developing, when the Age of Aquarius won't actually begin until the 27th Century.
Also know what isn't honest about Intelligent Design?
It's not like the Wiccans, new age spiritualists or Paganists bought into it like you thought they would.
" Um, it's irrifutable some intelligent being created the universe."
Your problem with it was it was just Abrahamic Creationist shit and dismissed all other possibilities. YOUR GOD is not even one of few, He's one of many, Some religions have dozens alone.
I think that ID promoters have got themselves stuck in a blind-chance box, and have not studied chemistry enough to understand that chemical reactions are not random. If it were, manufacturers would fill up a production-sized reactor with miscellaneous chemicals, then pray that this time it'll be a polyurethane instead of a polystyrene.
Honest? You mean the cdesign proponentsists? Yup, changing creationism to ID as an afterthought, because the first sounds too "religious" when you want to bullshit non-fundies, that is perfectly honest! Too bad they didn't manage to change the whole word, only the middle part.
The Theory of Evolution is a real theory. ID isn't even a hypothesis. It's just a devious attempt to paint one creation story as somehow being scientific, while disregarding all the other creation stories.
I'm neither a biologist nor a physicist, but I still think that most physicists are also stuck in a "naturalistic" box.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
