tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207424005557092808.post7842487217422345986..comments2023-08-08T07:59:14.554-07:00Comments on The Shipwreck of Time: Is Evolution Scientific (Part Two)Steven J.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207424005557092808.post-13616147881985696282010-09-24T05:56:43.903-07:002010-09-24T05:56:43.903-07:00Ray starts Chapter 3; The foundation of atheism is...Ray starts Chapter 3; <i>The foundation of atheism is a belief in the theory of evolution. If evolution can prove that we got here by purely naturalistic means, then belief in a Creator would be unnecessary. So in their desire to eliminate God, many people readily choose to believe that evolution is true...</i><br /><br />Typical Comfort, redefining common terms. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). Period. There were atheists before Darwin published his theory. What evolution does eliminate is the Genesis creation myth as a factual account of human origins. Comfort ignores the fact that many thousands of scientists who profess belief in the Abrahamic deity also thoroughly accept ToE. His real foe in this chapter isn't the atheist but the theist who accepts evolution. Ray moderates the comments at Atheist Central so I don't know if any theists have challenged Ray on his assertions. I don't recall reading any comments by pro-evolution Christians in the past two years.<br /><br />Steven, thanks for starting this blog. I barely made it through high school science but thanks to your comments at AC I have begun reading more about evolution and the science in general. It will be interesting to see if Ray responds to your review.Rick Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03853103127435018152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207424005557092808.post-46914726775081666852010-09-23T13:22:37.524-07:002010-09-23T13:22:37.524-07:00This very well may destroy any and every fine tuni...<a href="http://www.economist.com/node/16941123?story_id=16941123&fsrc=rss" rel="nofollow">This</a> very well may destroy any and every fine tuning argument.<br /><br />Or it might be a measuring error. <br /><br />We'll see.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207424005557092808.post-84324524163885362892010-09-23T11:47:02.433-07:002010-09-23T11:47:02.433-07:00By the way, nice blog, Steven. You are sure workin...By the way, nice blog, Steven. You are sure working through Ray's book quickly and giving thorough reviews. Thanks!Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207424005557092808.post-20473016941225414242010-09-23T11:44:09.673-07:002010-09-23T11:44:09.673-07:00BeamStalk,
Victor Stenger is way out of the scien...BeamStalk,<br /><br />Victor Stenger is way out of the scientific mainstream when it comes to his views on fine-tuning. The only person who even comes close is Steven Weinberg, who acknowledges the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant in the same article where he disputes the fine-tuning. And the cosmological constant is:<br /><br />0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000<br />0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001<br /><br />So even if Weinberg is right about the other laws and constants, he essentially admits to the fine-tuning. <br /><br />Atheist physicist Luke Barnes says the following about Stenger's take on fine-tuning:<br /><br />"Stenger attempts to show that our universe isn’t really fine-tuned by showing that long-lived stars are not unusual. He fails for five reasons. 1.) He gets his formula wrong, and in so doing ignores an important case of fine-tuning. 2.) He fails to consider the effect of altering the strength of gravity. 3.) He “cherry-picks” a very favourable fine-tuning example to suit his purposes. 4.) His probability claims are vacuous, following trivially from his unjustified hidden assumptions. 5.) He rightly exhorts us to consider varying multiple parameters at once, but commits the opposite mistake: he fails to consider multiple life-permitting criteria. Even if he were right about long-lived stars, it doesn’t follow that life-permitting universes do not need to be fine-tuned. I conclude that Stenger’s claims are worse than mistaken; they are misleading."<br /><br />He further says:<br /><br />"I’ve previously indicted Hugh Ross for often assuming the appearance of a “true-believer”: desperately searching for and uncritically accepting any “evidence” for fine tuning. Stenger’s feeble, evasive response to the fine-tuning of the universe evokes the opposite stereotype: the condescending “true-unbeliever” who refuses to engage the evidence, who is not searching for truth at all costs, but is instead rummaging for any excuse to explain it away. And it seems that others have followed him into condescension.<br /><br />"I’m being harsh because I expected more from Stenger. He has produced some excellent, original, thoughtful work on the laws of nature in a naturalistic worldview. One can only hope for better things in his forthcoming book."Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207424005557092808.post-59353666739947174662010-09-23T09:58:08.039-07:002010-09-23T09:58:08.039-07:00Victor Stenger has, imho, destroyed the fine tunin...Victor Stenger has, imho, destroyed the fine tuning argument with things like his monkey-verse and pointing out the bias of life as we know it. His next book coming out is called "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us" and I plan to own a copy of it.BeamStalkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17772110446629492132noreply@blogger.com