ABOUT CLICKED

The modern news consumer ignores Weblogs and online citizen journalism at his own peril. But not everyone has the time to keep track of what's going on the Web. With this blog we hope to track the highlights of what's being discussed online so when news breaks from the Web, we're ready.

Will Femia is a Weblog enthusiast who, through good fortune and dumb luck, was introduced to the form as his position as chat producer for MSNBC.com careered into obsolescence. On any given day, Will can be found having already spent an unhealthy amount of time squinting at a computer screen.

Send a message to Will at spotter@msnbc.com



Seeing God in electrons?

Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2007 4:58 PM by Will Femia

"The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life." When you read through the poll it's a little more nuanced - or maybe I'm just in denial. I'm choosing to believe that some of the people who are responding that they don't believe in evolution are simply open to the possibility that God had a hand in creation and aren't buying into the whole Creationist Museum story.  I've been avoiding links to the mockery of the new Creationist Museum because it has a "fish in a barrel" feeling of cruelty. Of course, some argue that the real cruelty is what's being done to children forced to learn this perspective.

Now, I don't mean to draw parallels where there aren't any but something else that's been (back) in circulation online lately is this Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment video in which we're told that a particle (electron) duplicates itself and acts like a wave unless it thinks we're watching it, in which case it acts like particle. If I was a creationist this would not be a winning argument for faith in science.

Speaking of arguing with science, Kilimanjaro as "poster child" - Apparently the disappearing glaciers on Kilimanjaro have an explanation other than global warming according to a report that agrees that global warming exists but has some issues with blaming it for the snow on Kilimanjaro.  The blog entry makes a good point about symbols versus the causes and/or science they represent.

Speaking of the big thaw, Photos show skeleton sticking out of iceberg - "Marine scientists in Canada and abroad are puzzled by bizarre photographs that appear to show the skeleton of a large mammal jutting out of an iceberg that recently drifted past Newfoundland's east coast." I love articles that blur the line between "don't know because to know you need to do tests" and "don't know because they've never seen anything like this before so clearly it's a monster or alien, perhaps part of a colony thawing from the polar caps as we speak to eventually enslave us all."

Still, in a way, speaking of science and subjectivity, Wikigroaning is when you compare the Wikipedia coverage of a useful popular entry with the depth of coverage of a nerdy obscure entry. See the examples, you'll get it.  Good with tabbed browsing for quick comparisons.

Speaking of information for and by the people, remember Mahalo.com?  It's a new search engine where the results are written by humans.  Through a new feature called Greenhouse you can contribute results you've written yourself. "At the Greenhouse, people like you can build search results, and if the results are really good we'll buy them from you for $10 to $15 each!"

Does this make Hillary look good or bad? I think bad. She couldn't do this without a script?

Does it tell us anything that the photographer who took one of the weeping Paris photos is also the guy who took one of the most iconic images from Vietnam?

Awesomest steampunk computer ever. See also steampunk LCD.

Speaking of technology design, is it sexist to frame "smaller and easier to use" design as being for women? I admit it never really occurred to me but this guy makes a good argument.

Download MySpace songs as mp3s.

The point of Trulia Hindsight is to see how communities grow or just change over time.  Some are a little more obvious than others. In some cases I find that zooming out is more interesting.

Here's a pretty powerful message that fits well with the missing watch video or that one from a while back with the card trick.

Here's one to use as a slide in your blogs versus mainstream media journalism slide show presentation: Confederate Yankee gathers enough information to refute a newspaper report of Iran involving itself in fighting in Iraq.

Flight of the Conchords premieres on June 17 on HBO but you can watch the first episode on their site for free now.

"It is no secret that the U.S. military has used the ocean as trashcan for munitions in the past."

You have one day left to bid on Bob Barker's microphone.

Attention, Web Surfers: The Following Film Trailer May Be Racy or Graphic - We look at a lot of movie trailers on this blog so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.  The article includes examples.  To watch the Red-tag trailer of SuperBad it rejected my use of the name Your Mama but accepted Joe Smith even though the other info was the same (and also false).

The I am Legend trailer (green)

The Wall Street Journal has a series of interesting graphs of presidential popularity (There's a "public" in the URL so I think you don't need a password for this.)

The top 100 hotties according to lesbians instead of "lads" and their mags. Obviously The L Word is very influential. The biggest difference is either the inclusion of more older women or the fact that I recognize more of the women on this list than I do on something like Maxim's list.  There's a new pin-up industry of hottie girls who aren't famous for anything other than their beauty or are famous for stuff like reality shows. Lad mag readers know those girls but I don't and apparently neither do lesbians.

A lie detection test I never heard of before: "Can the suspect tell his story backwards? If not, he's lying."

"What's the bigger threat: illegal aliens, or invasive species?"

I've been to the Crestock stock photography site before to see the Today's Best/Worst Image blog but a few times recently I've seen links to their annual photo contest.  The first round was "the meaning of life" the second round was sexiness and the third one, still being judged is speed.

For whatever else you might think of this photo of Bush it does appear to be further proof that his watch wasn't stolen.

You may recall the Patriot Guard Riders rallying at military funerals to block out the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church hate cult.  Now I see another group called the American Freedom Riders rallying on behalf of anti-illegal-immigration activists.  I know bikers have always done charity rides and stuff like that, but this is starting to feel more political.  Since I've got two examples, I officially declare a trend.

Speaking of two equaling a trend, check out the similarity of Everyscape to the Photosynth demo we looked at last week. I'm not sure this gets its own trend name though.  I'm inclined to think it's part of "geoweb."

A guy sets up his car to run on vegetable oil but ends up getting dinged by the government for nonpayment of "motor fuel taxes." It sounds mostly like a case of the law not keeping up with the times but it does make me think about how much money the government makes from gas taxes.

Award winning home design requires no heating, cooling equipment - No mention of whether he'll get stuck having to pay a "housing fuel tax."

Rome reborn - Computer generated images of Rome as it was based on Rome as it is.

The Power of Yes: A Simple Way to Get More Out of Life - This is a pretty long blog entry on self improvement but I was impressed with myself for guessing what the headline was about so I'm adding it to today's links.  I participated in some improv comedy in college and the main lesson I still remember to this day is "yes, and."  When another actor presents you with a line, if you say, "No," you take all the energy and momentum away.  But if you say, "Yes, and..." you carry the energy and you get to move it along. The interpretation in this blog entry is more like positive vs. negative thinking but if you're interesting in self-help this blogger's found a novel approach for inspiration.

When I tended bar long ago we had a mountain of a man as the weekend bouncer.  We also had the tiniest pipsqueak of a girl as the hostess. Their difference was exacerbated by the fact that he wasn't very pretty and she was.  I used to joke that a visitor from another planet wouldn't guess they were of the same species. Anyway, I was reminded of that when I saw the pictures of the Spice Girl with her trainer.

Massive list of tips on things to do with bored kids. Also interesting to see the auto-link feature.  I've never seen that before.

The ten best things about Total Recall (the movie) - I absolutely love this movie and didn't realize anyone else did.  I don't disagree with these necessarily, but the part where the guy unscrews his hand and unfolds that crazy mutant hand should be on there. Number 6 needs to mention the line that is the reason I never say "two weeks" clearly (or once). Number 10 needs to mention the "Get you ahss to Mahrs" line.

The Online Education Database is a collection of links to educational materials, lectures, classes and seminars. Because it's a collection of links there's no telling when you may hit a dead link and there's no consistency in what media players are used but still, this is a real treasure trove.  Talk about alternatives to summer TV!

"Michael [Moore] wants YouTube members to share your Healthcare Horror Stories and tell us about an experience you had with your healthcare insurance company."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Of course this topic has been discussed to death and we see statistics that seem to support the very thing stated here - nearly 50% of the US population polled disputes or disbelieves the fact of evolution and prefers the mythology of creationism.  Yes, there are many creation myths to chose from and Genesis is simply a more recent iteration of a more ancient myth.  Now folks can believe what they want regarding the origins of the cosmos, and in the mean time they don't seem to refrain from enjoying the benefits of modern science regardless of beliefs(a few notable extremist exceptions here).  But we're finally getting down to it - so it's REPUBLICANS that don't believe in evolution.  At last we've identified the missing link that puts a name to the dispossessed and disenchanted folks that just can't seem to get their collective heads around higher education no matter what.  Of course we've recently seen that notable republican presidenial wannabees don't accept evolution either - much like their constituents (can you believe it?!).  But really, among the educated folks of the world this does nothing to enhance the good name of America as a leading educational and scientific bastion of the free world....in fact and ironically, it places these disbelievers at exactly the same level of mythological preference as those infernal Muslim fundamentalists that afterall snatched their own religion some 1500 years ago from the likes of much earlier Judaism and early Christianity.  Irony or paradox, you tell me.  Evolution is a cornerstone of science and scientific thinking throughout the scientific community and the western world in general.  How did such a large group of people get stuck in the arrested mindset of a 5th grade bible class?  Mythology was never intended to be taken as literal truth, but did contain many subtle spiritual truths for those that could interpret the mysteries contained therein.  Spiritual pursuit is among the most worthy of man's goals and I would guess we're really quite a young humanoid population cosmologically speaking.  Imagine far-distant planets with higher life forms perhaps millions of years ahead of us.  Do they have bigger brains and higher consciousness and maybe a more highly evolved take an the eternal truth?   Fundamentalists of all stripes seem to think we're really the center of the universe and it just doesn't get any better than this - they really lack perspective, if anything.  If we don't get beyond our primitive thinking and doing, we're not likely to be one of those great civilizations down the road that managed to survive long enough to really get closer to the great truth that everyone is striving for (has always strived for) throughout the history of religious belief, behavior and finally and essentially, experience and knowledge.  If you don't experience the ultimate truth, you will not know it.....in the meantime, we are fortunately changing from instant to instant thus allowing us to make that very long journey to truth.  
Funny, Total Recall is also one of my guilty pleasures - I just dont tell anyone...
Meryl Streep ranked above Neve Campbell?!?! Given the movie Wild Things, I find that HIGHLY improbable...
I didn't think anyone else did the "Two weeks" thing except my husband and I.
Will, I have been reading Clicked for a while now, and look forward to every new entry.  Just wanted to say thanks for the list of stuff to do with bored kids.  Awesome links and info.  As a teacher who stays at home with a 6 year old and a 3 year old, those links might just save my life this summer.  Thanks a ton!!
Science does not remove the terror of the Gods.
Well guess what? I am a liberal and I don't believe in evolution either. The difference between me and them is that I don't dismiss all science as some sort of commie plot.
I realize that this blog is not the place to debate creationism versus evolution, but I do resent the implication that believing that God created the earth means that I have given up my right to think logically. Personally, I find the belief system that says that our universe spontaneously erupted out of nothing to be far more ludicrous and difficult to believe than believing that the universe was created by a supernatural being. The fact of the matter is that all theories that scientists have about the creation of the universe are mere speculation; highly educated guesses about what happened. But if recent history is an example, scientists will have come up with entirely new theories on the origins of the universe by the time the next century rolls around. Why should I believe in something that is constantly changing and constantly requiring new theories to prove itself?

Honestly though - can you actually study the human body; our cell structure, our vascular system, and the mysteries of the human brain, and honestly tell me that you think that it all happened by accident? I think it takes a greater leap of blind faith to say that it happened randomly than to say that God created us.
" But we're finally getting down to it - so it's REPUBLICANS that don't believe in evolution.  At last we've identified the missing link that puts a name to the dispossessed and disenchanted folks that just can't seem to get their collective heads around higher education no matter what. "
Yet the survey linked to states that 40% of Democrats don't believe in Evolution either. By your yardstick 40% of Democrats are fools and 30% of Republicans and 61% of Independents are smarter than 40% of the Democrats.

Theistic Evolution is a commonplace belief which the survey doesn't seem to address.
Like a lot of people I see the workings of Intelligence in the order of the Universe. I'm in good company with Einstein and Thomas Jefferson as examples though not role models since I developed my own views long before I read of theirs.

All experiments into creating the simplest building blocks of life have so far only shown that Intelligent Intervention can produce those chemicals.
Some people believe in blind chance while others look for a deeper meaning.

Evolution as the source of life on Earth is a theory not provable beyond a shadow of doubt by any method of today. You can choose to believe it or not.
BTW
"Evolution is a cornerstone of science and scientific thinking throughout the scientific community and the western world in general."
WTF?
Biological Evolution has no effect on any field of scientific enquiry beyond biology.
Hey, great site...love the way you tie all our blabbering together in an enjoyable way.  Kudos, three cheers and other things of a positive nature.

I'd be lying if I said I read the whole thing though, but you've made it nice and easy to scan and pick.  Regarding "creationism;" your nuance-meter is likely well tuned.  Personally I cannot fathom the millions of years involved in evolution, however...uh, yeah, who am I to KNOW there is/was not higher being involved then, now and forever (long time).

Glancing at Alex's comment about Streep/Campbell, I didn't read about in the post, didn't see "Wild Things," but if the ranking involved has nothing to do with looks/sexiness/gorgeousnessity, I'll go with Streep as far as acting skills are concerned.

Lastly, Michael "motor mouth" Moore is a boob!!!!

Appreciate the link as well, but would have been nice had it been one I actually put some thought into and actually wrote, rather than a pass the news on post.  You didn't/don't write the content you link though so I'll have to give it some thought as to who else to blame...it couldn't be me?.?....
"It sounds mostly like a case of the law not keeping up with the times but it does make me think about how much money the government makes from gas taxes."

Listen up, bub ... because as an opinion-maker, your words have more power than mere citizens.

The government doesn't "make" money off off anything.

The government "takes" money.

And not for nothing, but the government has a law that says that gas station owners must HIDE that fact from gas purchasers.

Gas station owners who attempt to advertise the price of their gasoline BEFORE taxes are fined by the government.

Gas station owners are specifically prohibited from telling consumers how much money the government is "taking."

Free speech?

Not so much.
OK, in response to Terry's blah, blah, blah about creationism, there are two points about the creationism argument (OK really one about politics and one about nothing to do with creationism at all).  Smearing all Republicans with creationism belief is as rediculous as smearing all Democrats with socialist/communist ideas (which are also popular with "educated" elites).  When asked, only 3 of the Republican nominees in a recent debate said they believed in creationism and only one of those is even close to being a front runner.  Second, this constant bashing of creationists, while justifiable, is well out of proportion to the actual impact that creationists have.  The whole "creationism debate" is dying away and a few fake intellectual leftists keep trying to revive it because it's like shooting fish in a barrel (or kicking a dead horse...couldn't make up my mind which cliche fits better).
Hey Will,
One problem with what you said about the double slit experiment. The word "think".  
"..we're told that a particle (electron) duplicates itself and acts like a wave unless it thinks we're watching it".
It's not that the electron has a brain, sees that we're watching it, and decides to do something different. It's the act of observing the electron that changes its behavior. (Look up the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal)

How do we see? We shine a light at something, wait until the light bouncing off of it, and then our brains interpret that light and tell us what we are seeing. In the macroscopic world, this light does not affect the object that we are looking at. In other words, no matter how much light you shine at, say, a person, that person is not going to be moved by the light.

A single particle (electron) however, is tiny, and is affected by the light that is shone on it. The light actually gives the electron more energy, which causes it to act differently than if there was no light present. So, when the scientists put the sensing device up to the slit, they were, in fact, giving the electrons they shot through the slits a different amount of energy, which changed how those electrons acted.

One of the major problems with how physicists explain physics is that they tend to make metaphors and do personification on their experiments. This confuses people who don't have a foundation in physics; they think that Dr. Quantum is actually saying that the electrons have a little brain and choose to act differently because they can tell that you are watching (which, of course, leads Creationists to believe that this 'electron brain' must be 'God')

Now, I'm not a physics major, and someone who is would probably look at my explanation and laugh at all the inaccuracies, but this is the basic idea: By measuring the state of something on a quantum scale (I.E. down to the electron) you actually change the state at the same time. (Again, take a look at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal; just go to Wikipedia and take a look. Just don't get bogged down in the math. In fact, one of the best parts to read would probably be the 'Popular Culture' part, which is down near the bottom of the page.)

I also have to say that I hate the last line in your paragraph: "If I was a creationist this would not be a winning argument for faith in science." The fact that people don't (can't, won't, whatever) understand physics is not a good reason to say "Oh, God must have done it".  

Electrons don't have brains; Evolution is not 'Evil'; There was no Garden of Eden, and if there was, T-Rex was not running around and playing in the tulips with Adam and Eve.
Hi Will.  Long-time reader, first-time commenter.  I love the blog.

As a student aspiring to become a physicist, I tend to agree that the Creation Museum is in the "child abuse" category.  Right-wingers like to go on and on about their persecution - the "War on Christmas" and all that jazz.  It may be my personal prejudice, but I just never seem to see any evidence that anyone is trying to destroy Christmas.  On the other hand, things like the Creation Museum are blatantly an attack on science, liberals, and rational thought.  If they marketed their exhibit as a Bible theme park or something, that's fine.  But calling it a “museum” and trying to present it as science is really what gets to me.

The obvious difference between quantum physics and religion is that if you take the time to study physics, things like the double slit experiment actually do make sense.  It intrigues me that when most people don't understand something, they seem to put it into one of two categories: it's either hogwash, or God did it.  There are a lot of things in science that we still can’t explain.  Why can’t we, both as individuals and as a culture, be ok with the fact that we don’t know everything?  Why can’t we use that fundamental acceptance to drive us toward further understanding?  I guess I’ll sum this up with a Douglas Adams quote – “Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
Blandly, that may be the greatest number of back-handed compliments ever assembled in a single comment. Thanks, I think.

John, I think you're making a bigger point, but just to clarify, I meant that the government probably uses gas tax revenue for a lot of things and those things aren't going to pay for themselves if we suddenly all start driving solar cars.

Michael, thanks for those thoughts and the explanation.  I was speaking specifically about the Dr. Quantum video which not only anthropomorphicizes the electron but shows us the view from its self-conscious perspective.  That's a bit misleading, as you've said.

I've always had a colloqiual understanding of the uncertainty principle - that the act of observation changes the observed. Until I took your suggestion to look it up I didn't realize how specific (and over my head) the definition actually is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle
Maybe the glaciers on Kilemanjaro are receding because we are watching them
"I also have to say that I hate the last line in your paragraph: "If I was a creationist this would not be a winning argument for faith in science." The fact that people don't (can't, won't, whatever) understand physics is not a good reason to say "Oh, God must have done it".  
"
A noted Biologist once said that everytime he made a discovery the first thought he had was "So Thats How God Did It!!"
KW & Wayne Henderson - I was simply following the text of the article in paragraph one - if you'll go back there and click on the link 'do not believe in evolution' you can see the poll/results for yourselves.  As far a evolutionary thinking being limited to biology, you're quite wrong.  I think if you dig a little deeper you'll find molecular/organic chemistry and physics play a role in evolutionary thinking these days. Anyway,I doubt you'd find many truly reputable scientists that dispute the truth of evolution, although the final word is never 'in' with science as it is, afterall, an evolutionary pursuit in the cognitive sense. Brushing up on archeology and anthropology can't hurt either, for those that dislike the idea of humans being 'apes in a pair of trousers' to paraphrase a biblically oriented politician.  What's wrong with apes anyway?? Einstein never was a theist, a deist or particularly religious in any conventional sense but he did have a problem with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - thus the expression 'God does not play dice with the universe'.  He just didn't like quantum physics and the idea of non-local relationships among electrons (his own experiments proved it out however).  It does appear to be the observer (including inanimate measuring devices) that determines whether an electron has the properties of a particle or a wave(or could it be a string?).   My other point was that religion as a subject of serious study is not so simple either.  Why believe anything that you haven't personally researched  - it may take a lifetime of study in many fields to even begin to reach tentative conclusions as to the nature of reality, the origin of the species, the ultimate beginning and end of things.  Well, no more blah, blah, blah  for now.  I'm quite fond of what one Zen master said, 'believe in nothing at all in order to arrive at the truth'.  Who can grasp it???
Two things about the WSJ polls:  President Clinton is the only one to have ended higher than he began and current President Bush is the only one to have definite frown on his face.
Wayne, I love your comment. It's very much an issue of perspective. The evolutionists approaches science with the assumption that there is no God. The creationists approach science with the assumption that there is a God. *Both* have made an *assumption.* That assumption is made in faith. Sure, you can't prove there is a God, but you can't prove there isn't one either. Whichever you choose to believe taints your scientific research in that direction.

I believe there is a God. You don't. We will both look at the same evidence and come to a radically different conclusion.
Wayne,

Two things:  Einstein did not believe there was an intelligence behind the Universe as you are suggesting and there are NO experiments that show only Intelliegnce could have created the earliest building blocks of life.  As a matter of fact it has shown the exact opposite.  Perhaps what you mean is abiogenesis.  If so, you are falling into the 'Goddidit' trap.  Just because science can not explain something now doesn't mean God did it.  The ID folks are really fooling themselves if they thing they are doing anything remotely similar to science.

All observations to date have shown only naturalistic explanations to known pheneomena.  Why throw the added infinite complexity of an supernatural creator into the mix when we can simply extrapolate the current trend of naturalisitic causes?  Seems to be the simpilist and most rational belief.  Unless you can answer the question: Who created the Creator?, you've got no explaination of anything.
"For whatever else you might think of this photo of Bush it does appear to be further proof that his watch wasn't stolen."

That was one of the best laughs that I have had in a time! Great tag for a hilarious photo. Why does he even own those clothes?

Will,

Compliments intended...just my odd way of editing my thoughts...

I'm always concerned when using the word "assume," thanks to its spelling; I often define it as: as* out of you and you alone (bad spelling all around).

Bottom line: it is often safe to assume that a compliment is in there somewhere when from me...unless...I tend to be more of a smart*ss to the author when in agreement.  I have no idea why...

BU
Yes, it is ridiculously sexist to think that smaller, easier-to-use gadgetry is necessary to appeal to women.  Not all women are small (ya think the women of the WNBA are best served by tiny gadgets with itty-bitty buttons?)or confused by technology, and not all men are larger or technically competent.
To you believers out there:

I think that Wayne is absolutely right on with his post: "A noted Biologist once said that everytime he made a discovery the first thought he had was "So Thats How God Did It!!"

I don't understand why there has to be this divide between creation and evolution. I am a Christian, but I am also certainly able to believe that life on earth has come to be by evolution. For those of us that like to say that God created us, why can't we accept that He created us through evolution?

Whether it happened throughout the past 10 billion years or whether it happened in 7 days. I don't care. Maybe God actually made it happen in 7 days. Maybe He made the process appear to take over billions of years.... just to mess with our brains a little. What if billions of years is just 7 days to God? I'm sure that He can instantly 'create' something that has an age to it. I think we've read that He instantly turned water into wine.

Isn't the concept of time something that man created?

I really liked Sam's post:
"Honestly though - can you actually study the human body; our cell structure, our vascular system, and the mysteries of the human brain, and honestly tell me that you think that it all happened by accident? I think it takes a greater leap of blind faith to say that it happened randomly than to say that God created us"

I just can't believe that this mind-boggling universe and all of it's glory - not to mention the majesty of planet Earth and it's life - happened by some accident. What do I care if we evolved over 10 billion years or if we were created in 7 days. I just believe that it was God's doing.

I don't believe that evolution is evil. I like to believe that God blessed our brains with the capacity to understand His creation.... we just like to call it science.

Jason, Indianapolis
Will,

Could you explain what in the world the double slit experiment has to do with any sort of belief in God.

The claim that people of faith distrust or disagree with science is simply a straw man.  There are thousands of examples of historic and current scientist who have all degrees of faith from atheists to 6 day creationist doing excellent science.  
Terry
"As far a evolutionary thinking being limited to biology, you're quite wrong.  I think if you dig a little deeper you'll find molecular/organic chemistry and physics play a role in evolutionary thinking these days. Anyway,I doubt you'd find many truly reputable scientists that dispute the truth of evolution, although the final word is never 'in' with science as it is, afterall, an evolutionary pursuit in the cognitive sense. Brushing up on archeology and anthropology can't hurt either,"
The only part of Anthropology which adresses Evolution is Biological Anthropology which is a sub discipline of Anthropology.
The discipline of Organic chemistry falls under the Subject of "BioChemistry".
If a field of scientific inquiry has any use for the theory of evolution you find that Bio meaning Biology is a prefix.
The Theory of evolution has no bearing on Physics, Engineering , Fluid Dynamics, astronomy, geology or any other field which is not related to biology.



Patrick
"Wayne,

Two things:  Einstein did not believe there was an intelligence behind the Universe as you are suggesting "

Einstein
"By way of the understanding he [the scientist] achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind towards the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.19
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."



"You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own . . . .His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
"

And Patrick
"and there are NO experiments that show only Intelliegnce could have created the earliest building blocks of life"
There are in fact experiments in creating basic amino acids, these show only that intelligence in the person of the scientists involved could create these building blocks. No natural process has as yet been identified which could have produced these results.
If you are thinking of the Muchison meteorite latest examinations lead to the conclusion that the samples were contaminated.
PS
Patrick
"Unless you can answer the question: Who created the Creator?, you've got no explaination of anything. "

Aren't you forgetting that the Universe is Finite, with a point of beginning, horizon, and projected end?
You also seem to forget that the Creator being First Cause is by definition Uncreated, the source of all in this finite universe, not bound by our space time.
Dennis, not God per se but faith surely. At least on its face it seems pretty absurd to tell a person of religious faith that they're flat wrong, crazy even, and instead they should have faith in quantum theory, including apparently inexplicable experiment results that conclude that electrons perform a sort of magic but only when no one is looking.
Precisely, Will.  The annoying thing to me about the "science over faith" crowd is how much their smugness resembles that of those on the other side of the fence.  It's the same desire to look only far enough to reinforce what they believe but no farther.
Whether one believes in the Bible or not, the scriptures below do show that creative days were NOT limited to 24 hour periods of time.  Reasoning on these scriptures allows one to see the Bible does not conflict with the tremendous amount of time to create the Universe, Earth and its Creatures.

To my knowledge, Creationists (or what most people believe this theory states) is that the Creative Days took 6 literal days.  Creationists are incorrect and have muddied the waters for Creation.

Creation of these 6 Biblical "Days" were no doubt millions/billions of years.  

Just like we today will use the term "Days" to describe a length of time, "In his day..", "Those were the days..." each signifying a length of time greater than lunar day(s) so does the Bible.

Exapmles:  Isaiah 2:2 "And it must occurr in the final part of the days..."     Daniel 2:44  "And in the days of those kings..."     2 Peter 3:8  "...one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."  (God's days are NOT limited to a thousand years but again, it would be a form of speech used by Peter.)

I always found it interesting that LUNAR Days (which are 24 hour periods of time) were not even created until the FOURTH "DAY".    Genesis 1:14-19.

Animals were created according to its KIND.  Fish and birds were created on the same "day", the FIFTH "day".  Geneseis 1:20-23  Cross reference Genesis 7:14 to show not long after animals were created along with man they (men and animals) boarded the ark.

On the SIXTH "day", according to their kind, animals and MAN were created in GOD'S IMAGE meaning man had choices and thought processes such as love, justice, wisdom, and power as he had Dominance over all the living creatures in the sea and in the "heavens" (sky) and on the earth.  Creatures have instinct.

It is MAN that has been on Earth just over 6,000 years which Bible chronology and lineage as well as history corresponding to Bible events show.

To look up scriptures use any online Bible or go to www.watchtower.org, scroll down to READ THE BIBLE.
My favorite line from Total Recall is after his work friend Harry tries to kill Quaid and he doesn't know why.  Quaid goes home to his wife Sharon Stone and tries to explain the situation.  

Quaid, "You know Harry from work?  He wants to... GET DOWN!"  

Don't we all want to get down, don't we all.    
Top 100 hotties according to lesbians? OK. Let's get this out in the open. All "gays" and "lesbians" should be classified, and referred to,  as "homosexuals".
Re: the wikigroining game. The fact that knowledge that is readily available is under represented in wilipedia is a consequence of it's structure. The wealth of detail of obscure subjects, up to the minute references, and exploration of popular culture is what makes it such a useful site. When I read or hear a reference that goes over my head I am much more likely to have it explained in Wikipedia than in the Britannica that I own.
Total Recall is one of the best sci-fi flicks ever.  One reason:  It was based upon the Philip Dick short story, "We Can Remember it For You Wholesale".  His "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" was the basis for Bladerunner, and he also wrote Minority Report.  A true science fiction genius,
Hey Sam, you ask why you should believe something that is always changing, like the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution?  Remember that the only thing that ever stays the same is that things are constantly changing!

Tbe Bible does give an enticing story that has survived a millenia without changing.  This is because it is not open to scrutiny.  You see science, by definition, is always open for change and reexamnining!  This is what I like about it.  I love to read Discover magazine, watch the Science channel and keep abreast of the latest scientific breakthroughs.  Most people, however, don't really understand science, though.  But let me assure you, science is really fun whether your a geek or not!
Evolutionists do not 'assume no god', they only assume what they can sense and previous experiments have shown.

Since nobody has experienced your 'god', and certainly no repeatable test shows a 'god' exists, the idea of 'god did it' suddenly becomes much less plausable than other possibilities.

Religionists have had thousands of years to show us their fairy-tale creatures known as 'gods'.

Keep prayin' guys...tee hee!
Schrodinger must be rolling over in his grave these days. I think it was his cat metaphor that first gave people the impression that it was the consciousness of an observer that caused the collapse of the wave function when in fact it is the instrumentation. Amazingly, I've even heard some physicists express this idea. It has nothing to do with the human mind. The slit experiment is amazing and certainly mind-boggling from a classical perspective, but it isn't what all those spiritualists and quantum philosophers make it out to be.
Will -
In re: 'Republicans and God' - what everyone has to remember is this: these guys are RUNNING FOR OFFICE!!I don't think they're being honest in their answers, instead they are saying what they think the voters want to hear.
So - Republicans currently up for office (or re-election) THINK that by being 'pro-God' or 'anti-evolution' will give them a better shot at getting (re)elected.
What does that say about our society?
Personally, I am agnostic and DO think the 'theory of evolution' is our best guess as to how we happen to be here .. but then, I'm neither a Republican nor am I running for office ....
Just my two cents (adjusted for inflation) ...
Love your blog!
Gary in Florida
Sam - it's not the belief in God that prevents you from thinking logically, it's the following of a religious belief that does that.

God gave man free will and religion took that away.

Religion is a system built for the consolidation of power and control – primarily for men. (You know, as God intended. *wink*)

Here's a flow chart to assist with understanding the difference between the scientific method and .. well what religion does - any religion.
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html

Will, I don't get the "two weeks" reference for Total Recall. I suppose I could rent the movie and watch it again but so we don’t unintentionally skew the Blu-Ray DVD rental numbers could you clarify briefly for the rest of us who would otherwise have to rent it?
Thanks.
Will, the problem we have in understanding quantum phenomena is because we insist on trying to force the concepts we do understand onto those we don't. An electron is not a particle that changes into a wave sometimes. Neils Bohr said "Is an electron a particle? No. Is it a wave? No. Is it both? No. Is it neither? No." That makes no sense to our experience, but it fits what's been tested. Leon Lederman (Fermilab) said it in a more approachable way while lecturing on his "Physics for Poets" book: "Imagine an object that has some properties we call mass, charge and spin. It is the amount of these properties equal to an electron. Now shrink the objct down, down, down, until it fades out all together, leaving the mass, charge and spin behind like the smile of the Cheshire Cat". There is no "thing" there, just properties. How those properties can seem to act different ways at different times is because they act lots of ways at once. Read Feynman's books, particularly the stuff about "sum over histories". Quatum phenomena follow all possible paths, even the irrational ones. Summing over all the results gives us a rational single result (or dual result as the case may be).
Hi Will - love the blog.

To everyone, I wonder why our mode of understanding the nature of our being creates such animosity. Sure, the Ignorant can be frustrating, but I suppose so can the All-Knowing. I tend to accept that there will always be some mystery to this great space of ours, and I'll quietly step out of the way of the Creationists, simply because I appreciate the mystery, symbolism, and necessary interpretation the Bible provides in the interest of a deeper faith than that which a literal interpretation provides. Also, my memory of being five years old and being scared witless by my fundamentalist grandmother trying to cram creationist ideology down my throat will forever be a sore point. I sense a sort of general fear (of the 'demise' of society, of liberal reason, I could go on...) in the fundamentalists, something I just cannot reconcile with a professed faith in a forgiving God.
Sterling, In the scene in which Arnold is dressed in the woman costume (pictured on the linked site) the customs agent asks him/her how long he'll be staying on Mars and he answers "Two weeks."  But that's exactly when the mask malfunctions so it keeps saying "two weeks" over and over while he tries to get the thing off his head.
Wayne - admirable attempt.  Einstein's statement is rather similar to the Deism you've seen discussed on other blogs ref. our Founding Fathers, etc. don't you think?   But still and all, he didn't declare any affiliation with a particular religious faith.

You can hardly blame him or anyone from being confounded and awed by the mystery of it all....despite advancements in cosmology in the years since his time (a personal favorite of mine is Inflation Theory ref. The Big Band).  However, I haven't eliminated the possibility of intelligent design from the mix at a personal level, because of my particular interest in Buddhism and the triad of emptiness, mere appearance and pure awareness which in this philosophy are the ultimate essence of all existence.  So I'm quite unable to adopt a purely materialistic view of the universe but on the other hand I'm quite willing to accept evolution as the bedrock process of a rather long journey toward ..... as the Buddha said, the Higher Evolution.  I recommend two books of interest:

The Quantum and the Lotus/by Ricard $ Thuan and
Quantum Questions/mystical writings of the world's great physicists/by Ken Wilber.

In my domain mysticism is the essence of religion and religious experience (see Varieties of Religious Experience/by William James and The Perennial Philosophy/ by Aldous Huxley).....mysics have always defined religion through experiences that are admittedly hard to duplicate, but that's really where the proof is, if you must have the proof of inner experience.  

And anyway, how can all those biologists that are so interested in evolution take a gander at DNA (all of us sentient beings have the same DNA on this particular planet) if not for electron microscopes?  See, I knew physics came in there somewhere......

Maybe I'll get posted this time!!
I am a "fundamentalist" Christian and I think too many of us are being grouped together to be smeared.  I keep my kids in public schools and I WANT them to learn the theory of evolution.  What I don't want is the Bible in the schools.  Last thing I want is the government indoctrinating my child in a religion.  I will take care of that.  Part of what sets some of us off is the way evolution is taught - some of it seems like a religion to us - especially when it is taught be a teacher who doesn't really understand it and/or refuses to have discussions beyond verbal regurgitation.  My children will have a much harder time succeeding in school unless they understand this theory.  So they learn it.  And who do you think would be able to strenthen the evolution theory?  The individual who accepts it as fact or the individual looking for errors.  Everytime a theory is broken, it comes back stronger and better.  
I have made a decision to accept the Bible as literal truth and hope my children will do the same.  
As for the idea of taking my children to a museum is child abuse is very offensive.  How about you worry about the REAL cases of child abuse?  All because I dispute the THEORY of evolution?  That's right.  Theory.  Facts don't change - Theories do.  
I wish people would quit using the word "believe" when referring to evolution. It is not a belief system. It is a well-supported scientific theory (which is, note, different from the theory that your dryer is eating your socks), supported by a great deal of evidence. To say that one does or does not "believe" in evolution puts it on the same scale as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.
"I wish people would quit using the word "believe" when referring to evolution. It is not a belief system. It is a well-supported scientific theory (which is, note, different from the theory that your dryer is eating your socks), supported by a great deal of evidence. To say that one does or does not "believe" in evolution puts it on the same scale as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. "
And Geocentricism was an almost universally "Believed" theory based on Observation experiment, and explained carefully and in great detail by the foremost Mathematicians of the ancient world.
"Belief" that Africans were subhuman was a widely accepted Scientific theory based on examination of differences in skull features, and observations and experimantes by scientific minds such as Thomas Jefferson.

Not sure if I mentioned it earlier but Theistic Evolution accepts that Evolution takes place, what is not accepted and no longer even claimed by resonsible proponents of the Theory of Evolution is that there is any compelling evidence that blind chance could produce life from non living matter by any process yet described. Mathematicians are much less likely to support the Theory for the reason that it would be so statistically unlikely as to meet the common useage of the term "Miracle".

We can observe animal species being altered by selection in just a few generations. In domestic animals this is a product of Intelligent intervention.
In the wild its a product of changes in the local environment. The Lions of T'savo are a classic example.
Every Ancient culture recognized these factors, it was not a point of contention and had no effect on their belief in a higher power at work in the Universe.

Where proponents of the Theory of Evolution make their most serious error is in statements which are disingenous and counterintuitive.
A Bonobo is not 98.5% the same as a Human Being despite the claim of 98.5% of their DNA being a close match.
A High School is not 98.5% the same as a Walmart Superstore just because the materials they are constructed of are practically the same and building techniques are the same.

They try to explain away to the differences in the number of Chomosomes as the fusing of two pairs as if this were no biggie.
Producing a self aware being that can reach for the stars from the same basic materials as creature that would more likely eat a hat if you gave him one than put it on his head is no mean feat. Doing so by the  simple rearanging of a few lines of code and fusing two pairs of chomosomes while preserving its ability to reproduce is something else.

PS
Someone mention that life on Earth has the same DNA structure (if thats the proper term).
Some see this as a sign that all life was the work of a single designer who created a lifeform capable of near infinite permutations.

Will, I recall when you first posted the link to the Doctor Quantum animation of the double slit experiment. I was intrigued enough to try and find the source, which is the movie "What The Bleep Do We Know." That movie is really a propaganda piece dedicated to furthering the "New Age" gobbledygook put forth by JZ Knight. You know, that woman from the state of Washington who claims to "channel" the spirit of a 35,000-year-old being named, Ramtha. A couple of the science authorities who appear in that movie say that their scientific explanations for various things quantum were taken out of context and distorted. While the double slit experiment animation is correct, the notion that a particle "thinks it's being watched" is ludicrous. Now, I don't remember all of the science I learned in school, but I think the Observer Effect is what is going on here. You can either know a particle's location (position in space) or it's direction (where it's going), but not both. The act of measuring (observing) is what causes the particle to behave differently. The way it was likened to me was as if you're hurling basketballs (photons) at ping-pong balls (electrons) to determine either of the two variables (the location or the direction of the electron). At the precise moment the basketball strikes a ping-pong ball, its direction and location are immediately changed and because of that, the information that can be gleaned from that event cannot determine both variables -- only one or the other; never both. I believe (but could be wrong) that this is related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Or, I'm confusing both of them somehow. Either way, using a detector device which can detect the presence of an electron will effect that electron's physical location and direction in space. So, of course the elctron doesn't have any "intelligence" but is merely obeying a physical law when it's "observed."

Sorry for the long-winded nature of this comment, but if you've seen the movie "What The Bleep Do We Know," you will recognize that quantum theory is being twisted and tortured in order to support its theme that you can make things happen simply by thinking about it -- sort of a jazzed up "Power of Positive Thinking" philosophy which can effect our reality in a pseudo-scientific way. We are all "gods" don't you know! Ramtha says so, therefore it must be true.
"Total Recall is one of the best sci-fi flicks ever.  One reason:  It was based upon the Philip Dick short story, "We Can Remember it For You Wholesale".  His "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" was the basis for Bladerunner, and he also wrote Minority Report.  A true science fiction genius,
Steve, Fordyce, AR
"

Ever hear of Phillip K Dick's Religious epithany?
He had reccurring visions of a past life as an ancient Jewish scholar.
It all started when an abcessed tooth nearly killed him. Perhaps the infection triggered some dormant mental process allowing him to channel a past life.

I love his fiction.
While I doubt that Artificial Intelligence alone can produce true self awareness, it may be possible for otherwise non living objects to be effected by some force similar to the soul of a living being.
If not we've all cussed out our lawnmowers and Fords  in vain.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=226399