iDesign at UCI: W Supports Balanced Debate

iDesign @ UCI

Welcome Message To New Students

Interested in Origins?
Join the club.

Mission Statement

MISSION STATEMENT:

iDesign Club at UCI seeks to foster scientific discussions regarding the origins of life and the universe. Theories such as Darwinian evolution, intelligent design, and creationism will be critically analyzed.

FAQ:

Q: WHAT IS THIS CLUB ABOUT?

Origins! We are interested in discussing alternative theories to the origins of biological structures. While the current mainstream theory in academia is Darwinian evolution, we would also like to discuss other viable ideas, such as intelligent design.

Q: WHO CAN BE A MEMBER OF THIS CLUB?

Anybody! Students of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Engineering, Anthropology, and Philosophy may especially find this club intriguing. However, you do not need to have a science background to be an effective member of this club.

Q: WHEN AND WHERE ARE CLUB MEETINGS?

Please check blog entries for time and place.

Q: WHAT IS THE MEMBERSHIP FEE?

Nothing! There are no membership dues.

Q: IS THIS CLUB BIASED TOWARDS ONE SPECIFIC THEORY OF ORIGINS?

Perhaps. Ponder the name of this club. This club is ideologically the mirror of another club at UCI, the Students for Science and Skepticism. However, our main goal is to give a balanced view of the controversy regarding the origins of life so that students can come to an informed conclusion themselves.

Q: WHAT DOES THE LETTER "i" STAND FOR IN iDESIGN?

Good question -- the answer is intelligent.

Q: WHERE IS THE CLUB CONSTITUTION?

We adhere to the minimum constitution that was provided by the Dean of Students. In the future, we plan to draft a comprehensive constitution and bylaws.

Q: IS iDESIGN AFFILIATED WITH ANY ORGANIZATION?

No. However, we are friends with the IDEA Center

ORGANIZATION:

PRESIDENT:
Arthur
Information and Computer Science

VICE PRESIDENT:
Brian
Biology / English

DIRECTOR:
Andrew
English / Economics

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

W Supports Balanced Debate

President George W. Bush has recently made comments endorsing the teaching of both sides of the origins debate (here's another summary). Although some pundits say that this could result in a political 'fallout' for Bush, I think that Bush's approval could rise if he continues to support the inclusion of alternative ideas like intelligent design. After all, a full 79% of liberal Californians support teaching the controversy between evolution and ID, according to one poll.

By the way, I wrote an Irvine Review article a while back about some of Bush's science policies and UCI's reaction to them: UCI Weighs in on Bush's Science (this Google cache link may break at any time). Note that this news article attempts to be balanced and does not necessarily represent any of my views.

Telic Thoughts has some thoughts on this issue. Instapundit has some negative thoughts as well. My personal view is that imbalance is detrimental to education. And if I took a poll of my classmates at UCI, most of them would agree with me.

Posted by Art at 10:23 PM

11 Comments:

Ed Darrell said...

So, then, you promise to actually provide a hypothesis of intelligent design to present? I've searched the scientific literature, and I can find no hypothesis there yet.

When do you guys open your labs? How many decades will it take you to get a set of data together to teach in high schools? Should we expect anything significant prior to 2025?

8/08/2005 8:00 PM

Ed Darrell said...

Darwin published without government support. Einstein published without government support. Generally, when an idea can't survive without the government propping it up, it deserves to die, Washington said.

We have the web. The Discovery Institute alone has about $2 million per year to spend to spread the word of intelligent design, more than four times the amount available to publicize evolution.

What's keeping you from telling the world what your hypothesis is? Judge Overton tested the bizarre claim that scientists strangle publication, and found it false. Michael Behe has more than 30 papers to his name -- obviously he knows how to get around the stranglehold.

Why don't you publish it here?

8/21/2005 11:21 PM

Art said...

Hi Ed,

The Discovery Institute alone has about $2 million per year to spend to spread the word of intelligent design, more than four times the amount available to publicize evolution.

Where did you get that statistic?

What's keeping you from telling the world what your hypothesis is?

Look at people like Guillermo Gonzalez. Gonzalez has presented a cosmological design hypothesis.

8/26/2005 11:40 PM

Nathan said...

Art! I just read a response by Gonzalez and he used that word again! Stochastic!!!! That is fantastic. It makes me happy when everyone is using similar terms.

On that note, however, I want to say I disagree with Gonzalez's basic thesis for one simple reason.

My understanding is that his hypothesis argues that it is highly unlikely that a planet high in carbon, water, an atmosphere that is dark at night, etc. etc. would all come together at once. Furthermore, it seems strange that a "random" universe would dictate that the best world for evolving races would also be the best world for discovery. Therefore, there would have to be some intent involved.

It is at this point, I suppose, that group opinions collide. I feel that his first argument, namely, the unlikeliness of the particular composition of this earth, is the weaker one, though the more accessible to lay individuals. It is certainly surprising that trees keep such accurate measurements, that the ocean is as deep as it is, that the weather behaves as consistently as it does, that another sun doesn't block our night-time sky, that water and carbon exist in such quantity. Nevertheless, it is not inconceivable for such to be the case in as vast a universe as we live in. I find it strange that Gonzalez feels it is reasonable for the universe to provide for a habitable planet, but not for a habitable AND measureable one in a stochastic manner (he he). We're talking about a big freaking universe here. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that all these factors could come together.

However, the second point that it is odd for the most habitable planet to also be the most measureable is worthy of more merit. This truly would be odd. I don't know that it would be odd enough to make the scientific argument for some kind of designer or creator, but it would be odd. The thing is, the arguments provided for this to be the case appear to have a flaw. Namely, we simply don't know if our planet is particularly measureable, and many of the arguments may still be explained by the stochastic behavior of the universe(I still don't entirely get that word, but have decided to use it in place of "random," because I find its original use silly).

We are limited to five senses and three dimensions (with a vague idea of a fourth). Arguments have been made that there are anywhere from 6 to 38 dimensions. If such is the case, our planet is certainly sub-optimal, as would any planet be with a translucent (as opposed to clear) atmosphere as mentioned by Gonzalez.

Ultimately, to me at least, it seems like none of Gonzalez's arguments, taken separately or together, make any kind of clear or strong argument to a type of intelligent design. They are interesting arguments, but they really only point to the fact that we are in a semi-unique place in the universe.

Furthermore, even if he were completely correct and habitability and measurability in planets were truly linked in this universe, it remains a drastic step to say that an intelligent mind made it that way, as random chance seems equally likely to be the reason. Of course, at this level, we return to the question of why. Why does gravity exist? Why does light exist? Why is there energy? We can link these things to God or some higher power, but in doing so, we begin to wax philosophic.

9/02/2005 6:37 PM

Nathan said...

Oh, also, I want to point out that grade and high schools never teach science concerning matters that are debated at this level. If we want to observe ID as real science, I really don't see why it should be given more time and consideration than other theories that are at equal levels of data-driven support. Last I checked, we weren't teaching string theory or quantum mechanics in schools, either. Yet both were developed in opposition to things that are taught in school.

9/02/2005 6:51 PM

Nathan said...

Furthermore, quantum mechanics is actually measurable and useful today. So, in that sense, it is actually faring better than ID, which is, as far as I can tell, neither.

9/02/2005 6:52 PM

Art said...

Hi N.J.,

I find it strange that Gonzalez feels it is reasonable for the universe to provide for a habitable planet, but not for a habitable AND measureable one in a stochastic manner (he he). We're talking about a big freaking universe here. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that all these factors could come together.

I don't think Gonzalez is arguing that a habitable planet (with complex life) can come about in a purely stochastic manner; unless I am mistaken, he is arguing the opposite. The proposed correlation between habitability and discoverability is the "icing" on the cake, but the main argument is about the improbability of having a habitable planet.

Gonzalez addresses the fact that the universe is vast by saying that the probability of habitability is much smaller. There are many factors that need to converge to a localized spot in the universe for life to exist. Please see the web clip of Privileged Planet for more details.

Since you are familiar with probability theory, we can discuss planetary habitability in terms of the binomial distribution, if we assume iid - independence and identical distribution. All we need is "n", the number of trials (in our case, probably the number of planets) and "p", the probability of success (in our case, the probability of having a habitable planet).

In the PP web clip that I linked to above, Bijan Nemati, a physicist from JPL, estimates that n = 10^11 and p = 10^-15. Thus, the expectation of having a habitable planet by chance is n*p, or 10^-4, which is much less than one. Thus, in order to attack Gonzalez's argument, you would need to argue for a different "n" or "p".

9/05/2005 10:52 PM

Nathan said...

Hey Art,

My pride hates it when I do this, but I must admit to a certain lack of knowledge. What is JPL?

As I don't know, the following points may be meaningless, redundant, etc. However, I feel obligated to question Nemati's estimates. Where do they come from? They feel pretty random.....

Wait, found it. Jet Propulsion Lab, cit. Ok. Now where in the world is your source for those numbers? Google is failing me.

Anyway, I'm curious about the science behind those numbers. They seem so arbitrary, being stated as plainly as they are. Before putting my foot in my mouth arguing them, I'd like to know about them. Also, while Nemati seems to work for what appears to be an important name in stellar and interstellar science (note I said "appears," as I know little about JPL), I'd like to know about about his background. Janitors work at NASA too. I assume you know these things or have some sort of links to them, so I shall await your reply.

9/08/2005 9:47 PM

Nathan said...

Oh yeah. Also, why are we only citing Nemati? Do other sources make other suggestions?

9/08/2005 9:49 PM

Art said...

Hi N.J.,

My pride hates it when I do this, but I must admit to a certain lack of knowledge. What is JPL?

Sorry for not giving more background. JPL is associated with CalTech, one of the most prestigious science universities in the world (its equivalent is MIT). Their website gives more info on what they do.

From what I know, Nemati is a Senior Engineer at JPL. I don't know what he does though (although I am pretty sure he has a PhD).

Now where in the world is your source for those numbers?

I was using the figures that Nemati gave in the Privileged Planet web clip (I linked to it in a previous post). Since you're interested in this, you should actually get the entire DVD. Let me know if you want one, and I'll try to get one to you.

Yes, I agree that the figures are subject to debate (Nemati was only giving figures for this solar system, I believe, and not the whole universe). But I think that there are enough factors necessary to have a habitable planet that its improbability compensates for the vast amount of "trials" in the universe.

9/27/2005 12:08 AM

Art said...

Hi N.J.,

My pride hates it when I do this, but I must admit to a certain lack of knowledge. What is JPL?

Sorry for not giving more background. JPL is associated with CalTech, one of the most prestigious science universities in the world (its equivalent is MIT). Their website gives more info on what they do.

From what I know, Nemati is a Senior Engineer at JPL. I don't know what he does though (although I am pretty sure he has a PhD).

Now where in the world is your source for those numbers?

I was using the figures that Nemati gave in the Privileged Planet web clip (I linked to it in a previous post). Since you're interested in this, you should actually get the entire DVD. Let me know if you want one, and I'll try to get one to you.

Yes, I agree that the figures are subject to debate (Nemati was only giving figures for this solar system, I believe, and not the whole universe). But I think that there are enough factors necessary to have a habitable planet that its improbability compensates for the vast amount of "trials" in the universe.

9/27/2005 12:08 AM

Post a Comment

<< Return To Main Blog

iDESIGN BLOGROLL:

The Design Paradigm
Design Watch
Creation-Evolution Headlines
Telic Thoughts
Uncommon Descent
ID the Future
ID Plus
CreationEvolutionDesign
Evolution News
Dualistic Dissension
ID in the UK
ID Update
Intelligently Sequenced

PRO-DESIGN SITES:

Access Research Network
IDEA Center
UCSD IDEA Club
ISCID

PRO-EVOLUTION SITES:

Panda's Thumb
Talk Origins
Students for Science and Skepticism at UCI
NAS: Science and Creationism

PRO-CREATION SITES:

Answers in Genesis
Institute for Creation Research
A.E. Wilder Smith
Reasons to Believe
Baraminology News
CreationWiki

OTHER INTERESTING SITES:

American Scientific Affiliation
Richard Sternberg

ANTEATER LINKS:

University of California, Irvine
New University
Irvine Review
School of Biological Sciences
School of Medicine
School of Physical Sciences
Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Science
Henry Samueli School of Engineering
UCI Athletics
UCI Alumni Association

BLOG ARCHIVES:

June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
April 2007

Copyright © iDesign at UCI 2005. The views presented in this web site are our own. By using this site, you signify that iDesign at UCI is not liable for anything. Site maintained by Arthur Asuncion. Template last modified June 15, 2005.