A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God.

Which is where the discussion ends for many scientists and such
institutions as the Catholic Church. Scientific principles can
neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Fundies can't
deal with this concept. The Vatican (aided by the Jesuits you
seem to respect) stated this in the mid-nineteenth century after
a review of the "Galileo Affair".

That's not necessarily true. Science probably can either prove or disprove
the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to
the point that we can identify the concept. Of course, one of the root
difficulties is defining "God" and what that means. Does it mean a white guy
in a robe with a long beard, or does it mean some intelligence so superior
to our own that it appears to be omnipotent and/or omnicient? Or does it
mean something else.


There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of
intelligent design of the Universe.

It does not provide evidence of intelligent design.

Are you sure?

It certainly does not
prove the existence of God.

Nor does it disprove it. Evidence, however, is a rather more abstract
concept than proof.


A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest that
since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely
wrong.

That would be tautology. Only if one pre-accepts the premise that the
occurrence of a highly improbable event is a matter of random chance would
this logic apply. On the other hand, if one posits the hypothesis that
because an event that has occurred is highly improbable, it is reasonable to
suspect some factor other than random chance is involved. Recognizing that
improbability is a significant issue when examining events is sound
scientific thinking. Bowing to the diety of "Random Chance" combined with
the companion hypothesis of "Infinite Variation" is no more scientific than
a simple belief in God.

Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything.

True, but not really relevant, since it was the scientific asses the numbers
were pulled from. The "fundies" are merely suggesting, Occam's Razor-wise,
that when an event is highly statistically improbable, it's perhaps more
reasonable to conclude that there is some meddling with random chance going
on that skews the system towards the occurrence of the statistically highly
improbable event. You might call it a risk of "observer bias."
Schroedinger's cat might be more than a cloud of probabilities if God's
unseen thumb is on the scale.


There is a large body of scientists and enthusiasts that support the
concept of a hydrogen economy, but a larger body that can show it
is mostly smoke and mirrors.

Not really. The only real impediments to a hydrogen economy are
infrastructure and investment...and consumer acceptance of the
inconveniences associated with using a less energy dense fuel than oil. But
the concept is hardy smoke and mirrors, and indeed technology is moving on
apace to make it a realistic, economic reality...which is a good thing.


Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable? What ever
happened to academic freedom of inqiry?

There is also a significant proportion of the US population that thinks
Elvis is still alive.

Really? Do you have any evidence of this, or are you making assumptions
again?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser