A standard Q&A for the LHC put up on the BBC which suddenly gets elevated into the realm of classic by the last paragraph or two. Read it before the Beeb pulls it for naughty language.
Yeah, but even there, he doesn't really explain why its total crap. I know it is, you know it is, but turning around to the intelligent design mob and going "its crap" somewhat plays into their hands - its not a good "scientific" answer that logically condemns their fallacy.
I still don't have a neat answer to "logically" explain why such an "illogical" supposition (as intelligent design) is wrong. Possibly the flying spaghetti monster is a good way, but its a bit long winded. How do you show an ID muppet just why they are wrong, in terms they will understand, and any (non scientific) observers will appreciate?
First identify their actual theory. If it's "irreducible complexity" then you can use Paley's Eye (the Blind Watchmaker argument) or the bacterial flagellae rotor precursors. If it's a statistical argument, I believe they have all been refuted. Most of the time it's actually none of these, but religion: Someone must have made it. In that case, you're out of the realms of science and into philosophy. Good luck with that one.
Whats the argument associated with bacterial flagellae rotor precursors? Or is that part of the demonstration of irreducable complexity reduced?
Its the religion/philosophy side that gets me. I hate to think of getting to the point where we say "I believe in science" to refute a "I believe in God" argument.
The bacterial flagellum has a molecular rotor - an actual rotary motor. It's really cool. The ID guys argued that this was a perfect example of irreducible complexity because the rotor's parts were purposeless. Until, that is, some biochemist fellows found instances of bacteria with only some of the rotor components serving more mundane roles as ion pumps.
"I believe" arguments are void. Science is demonstrable: it can prove itself repeatedly and independently. That's kinda the point. No belief is needed for science; no proof is needed for religion. The error, always, is in rolling the two together.
Going back the the BBC article, the author gave two points that were accessible and salient in reducing the "end of the world" woes: first, the energy of the collision being about the same as a mosquito hitting you in the face - I didn't know that - and second, that these collisions happen all the time in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays hit the Earth.
Comments 11
Reply
I still don't have a neat answer to "logically" explain why such an "illogical" supposition (as intelligent design) is wrong. Possibly the flying spaghetti monster is a good way, but its a bit long winded. How do you show an ID muppet just why they are wrong, in terms they will understand, and any (non scientific) observers will appreciate?
Reply
Reply
Its the religion/philosophy side that gets me. I hate to think of getting to the point where we say "I believe in science" to refute a "I believe in God" argument.
Reply
"I believe" arguments are void. Science is demonstrable: it can prove itself repeatedly and independently. That's kinda the point. No belief is needed for science; no proof is needed for religion. The error, always, is in rolling the two together.
Going back the the BBC article, the author gave two points that were accessible and salient in reducing the "end of the world" woes: first, the energy of the collision being about the same as a mosquito hitting you in the face - I didn't know that - and second, that these collisions happen all the time in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays hit the Earth.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment