A few links to delightful anti-ID pieces

When even the Catholic Church can see ID isn't science, it's time to hang it up.

link here [USA Today]

I have to agree with Chris Mooney, especially this statement:

"too many scientists themselves confuse "evolutionism" with evolution--promoting atheism and evolution at the same time. This lends credence to the incorrect notion that the two are necessarily linked--they're not--and lends ammunition to the creationists at the same time."

Although I'm not sure how many scientists do this...

However, I respectfully disagree with PZ's statement:

"I think promoting secularism, of which atheism is a part, is a necessary component of any long term resolution of the creationism problem"

Promoting atheism along with evolution feeds the very fears that inspire Christians to cling to creationism. Many Christians really believe that atheist scientists are working to disprove God's existence. But the work of disproving God's existence is just as far outside the realm of science as the creationist's work of proving God's existence.

A far better strategy would be to co-opt those scientists who actually are Christians and who actually do believe in evolution and an old earth and the whole nine yards (and yes, they really are out there). If atheism is promoted along with evolutionism, Christians will never try to understand real science, never back down, and this battle will never end.

We've already done that. Over and over again, for years and years.

It hasn't worked.

Those scientists who are actually Christians (and yes, I know they are out there in significant numbers, and I think they are members in good standing of the team to advance science) get called atheists because they accept evolution, and the cycle just starts up again. We're past due on trying a different tactic...like acknowledging that many scientists are freethinkers, and that is a good thing and nothing to be afraid of.

"I think promoting secularism, of which atheism is a part, is a necessary component of any long term resolution of the creationism problem"

I don't think it means putting together atheism and evolution on a pamphlet. PZ is right here to respond what he really meant, but my uunderstanding is that promoting secularism leads to a more secular society in which it is easier to promotoe good science including evolution. In other words, they go hand in hand on a larger scale, both spatially - the larger society, and temporally, over historical timescales. As smaller and smaller proportion of teh society is fundamentalist, more and more peopl are capable of understanding evolution and quite willing to be rational and to enjoy learning about science.

Speed-typing with no coffee = many typos!

Exactly. You don't need to be an atheist to love science, and science isn't going to automatically turn you into a godless heathen (but we should be honest...it can lead you down that path), and we shouldn't put Ingersoll into our biology textbooks, but -- secularism as a larger framework for a civil, rational society is a good goal for scientists to advance as an additional aspect of their worldview.

"I think promoting secularism, of which atheism is a part, is a necessary component of any long term resolution of the creationism problem"

I am not sure that it's necessary, but it would certainly help.

And contrary to Squeaky I think it is obvious that science has a firmer handle on supernaturals and faith than faith and supernaturals have on science. At least there are good reasons to find supernaturals nonexisting, while there are no reasons to find them existing. So at least the situation isn't symmetrical, and I would argue that one could substitute "good" with "overwhelming".

So what should we call PZ's strategy? The Wedge strategy ended up firmly stuck in DI's butt. So I propose the Edge strategy: fact based actions has the edge on faith based actions.

PZ said, "The DI Fellows might want to think about revamping their CVs."

Hmm. Perhaps they should revamp their RV's and head for the hills. ;-)

The english expression I wanted was apparently 'edge over'. (Not that "edge on" wasn't appropriate as well. :-)

"...science isn't going to automatically turn you into a godless heathen (but we should be honest...it can lead you down that path)"

Was just listening to Skepticality's latest podcast, and a good-sounding point was made: Fundamentalists aren't railing against science because it makes people into atheists. They're railing against it because it makes atheism possible.

Atheism is the logical conclusion. Perhaps it would be better to stop beating around the bush -- a little honest talk is in order. You don't need to be an atheist to love science, but you have to love science to be an atheist. Too many scientists do confuse 'evolutionism' with evolution--promoting atheism and evolution at the same time.

Bacon--Atheism is the logical conclusion for you personally, and clearly for many others who blog here. However, there are actually Christians out there who have become Christians BECAUSE of science. And there are Christians out there whose faiths are DEEPENED by science (actual science, not creation science).

Atheism is the logical conclusion of science. It always has been, and the developmenet of human culture over time reflects that. This does not deny that there are actually Christians out there who have become Christians because of science, or that there are Christians out there whose faiths are deepened by science. I suspect there are quite a few more of the later, but given the power science has shown, this isn't surprising.

My take is that atheism is the rational conclusion of science. Logic can take you so many different places depending on what starting criteria you choose...

"We've already done that. Over and over again, for years and years."

Damn straight, and we end up in the same cycle every time. The creationists get a big defeat. They don't go home. They make trivial changes and start right back at the same bullshit. That's how we went from Young Earth to Old Earth to ID.

And every time we go about coopting the Christian scientists we're reinforcing the notion that their religious opinions are relevant and have some kind of place in the discussion. They're not, and they don't. By pretending they do, we're only encouraging the cycle to continue.

Kurt,

I think "rational conclusion" is a more appropriate way of putting it. Thanks.

This event event was held at KU, which has an oustanding, world class research museum and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Why then is anyone surprised that the audence was well informed? Not everyone in Kansas is a dunderhead - especially in Lawrence!

slightly off topic-
Part two of the root of all evil is online. Hope its not a repost: http://greylodge.org/gpc/?p=339

Root Of All Evil

Dawkins' arguments against religion are sound if sometimes sharper than many find comfortable. He sometimes misses the opportunity to win friends, but the strength of his reasoning, at least with respect to evolution, is profound. I don't agree with all of his public pronouncments, but he has provided a broad and deep theoretical framework for the fundamentals of evolution.

"This event event was held at KU, which has an oustanding, world class research museum and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Why then is anyone surprised that the audence was well informed? Not everyone in Kansas is a dunderhead - especially in Lawrence!"

Because these events are typically audience-stacked to high heaven. Consider the group that organized it, the Campus Crusades for Christ. Did you think the motivation was to have some kind of open dialog or critical examination of Dembski?

These people try to avoid that kind of thing. It involves thinking, which is not a skill they value.

Michael Bacon--again, atheism is the conclusion science has led you personally to. Not me, and not many other Christians, as well. We are looking at the same evidence, and I come to a radically different conclusion than you do, and I'm not alone.

Again, the question of the existence of God is emphatically not a question for science--it is true, scientific evidence can lead a person to belief or disbelief in God, but it cannot ultimately prove or disprove the existence of God. Ultimately, that is a question of faith.

Samnell:
"And every time we go about coopting the Christian scientists we're reinforcing the notion that their religious opinions are relevant and have some kind of place in the discussion. They're not, and they don't. By pretending they do, we're only encouraging the cycle to continue."

I agree to the statement that religious opinions are not relevant to the discussion of scientific inquiry (my point above). But at the same time, atheistic opinions are also not relevant to the discussion (again, my point above). Any by insisting that they are, you encourage the cycle to continue. As I said in a post above, it reinforces Christians' incorrect belief that the purpose of science is to disprove God's existence, and it is exactly the fear that drives Christians to embrace creation science and reject legitimate science. As long as there are scientists who do this, the cycle will never end.

And who better to explain science to Christians than Christians who are legitimate scientists themselves. I know many of these Christians are labelled atheists in the attempt, but I also know from personal experience that many in the audience actually let their defenses down. I taught evolution last fall here in the middle of the most Christian conservative part of the country I have ever lived in (man, do I miss living in a Blue state), and by encouraging my students to take the time to learn what it is they would otherwise reject, and by challenging them that they have no right to reject it until they have taken the time to understand it, not ONE student challenged me on it. In fact, several who say they are Christians even accepted it. I reached several students in this fashion, but even if I had only reached one, I would say the effort was worth it.

Maybe attempts at bridge building have failed in the past, but that doesn't mean you abandon the effort. I would prefer to build bridges rather than burn them. Unfortunately, many of the sentiments I have read hear reflect a preference for the latter, and that I find disheartening and disappointing.

squeaky,

"the question of the existence of God is emphatically not a question for science"

You may repeat that faith how many times you wish. That doesn't make it true.

Usually when people say that they seem to mean that we cannot observe supernaturals, so that we can't build a theory about them which we can falsify.

There is however nothing that prevents us to say that natural causes explain everything we observe and nothing more exist. It's in fact the most natural and parsimonous theory. Even though it's a general statement about our knowledge, I don't find anything vague and weak about it.

Since we have plenty :-) of evidence for it and none against it, it's obviously a true theory that have passed the test of falsification many times. (But which of course still may be falsified anytime.) If it's correct is another matter, let us see if someone can shoot it down. It could sure do with some real numbers instead of handwaving. :-) :-(

However I feel confident enough to say that not only isn't your hypothesis about the confines of science supported by evidence, it's false.

Any theory against it (agnosticism, deism, theism) must at be based on faith. This is of course something you may do, your faith should be no concern for the rest of us. Individuals may have a large capability of not using rational thinking outside their box. It's not science, however.

"As long as there are scientists who do this, the cycle will never end."

My impression is that this is a new thing that some scientists do, while the tendency for religions to reject evidence for beliefs is as old as religions themselves. Is that false?

However, if it's true, it's correct to say that the old methods didn't work since ID has reared it's ugly butt. It's time for some freethinking, I think.

"Maybe attempts at bridge building have failed in the past, but that doesn't mean you abandon the effort."

No, you doesn't seem to observe that rational thinking works everywhere we can make observations.

"I find disheartening and disappointing."

That is sad. Your example of education is nice, however it lacks a baseline so it really doesn't say that it's wrong to acclaim science for freethinking. I on the other hand find the application of new ideas and methods on old problems encouraging.

""Maybe attempts at bridge building have failed in the past, but that doesn't mean you abandon the effort."

No, you doesn't seem to observe that rational thinking works everywhere we can make observations."

Darn, I need to eat! I meant to say that your statement is contrarational. Of course we abandon failed methods as soon we suspect them to be so.

"Usually when people say that they seem to mean that we cannot observe supernaturals, so that we can't build a theory about them which we can falsify."

Maybe so, but I'm not referring to supernatural beings when I say that.

"There is however nothing that prevents us to say that natural causes explain everything we observe and nothing more exist. It's in fact the most natural and parsimonous theory. Even though it's a general statement about our knowledge, I don't find anything vague and weak about it."

One of the fears I have observed among Christians is that if we can explain everything naturally, we have no need to believe in God. Certainly, the evidence can be interpreted in that way. However, this still does not disprove God. So what if you can show how something occurred naturally? My faith isn't threatened by that--in fact, it is strengthened. To me, and to many other Christians who are also scientists or Christians who truly respect science, if you explain something naturally, you are only explaining the "how" of creation. Here's my take: In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. That's a foundational statement of faith for me. But that's not the end of it. Science to me and to the group I mentioned above, is a spotlight into the creative mind of God, and I am blown away by that, not threatened by it. Evolution doesn't threaten my belief in God because I see it as a fabulously brilliant means to equip organisms with a mechanism which allows them to adapt to changes in their environment. An old earth and an old universe don't threaten my belief in God because I now see a much bigger God than I ever did before and have a glimpse into the breadth of eternity. Am I going to teach this in a science class? No. I would, however, teach it in a Sunday School class.

"Since we have plenty :-) of evidence for it and none against it, it's obviously a true theory that have passed the test of falsification many times. (But which of course still may be falsified anytime.) If it's correct is another matter, let us see if someone can shoot it down. It could sure do with some real numbers instead of handwaving. :-) :-"

Yes, but it really comes down to how you interpret the ultimate meaning of the evidence. Through Christian eyes, the complexity of the natural world supports a creator. Through an unbeliever's eyes, the complexity of the natural world proves there was no creator. If a Christian tries to prove God exists using science, s/he will succeed, because they see the evidence from that perspective and will interpret it in that way (this is, afterall, what creationists are doing. They are using the natural world to try to prove God's existence). The same is true of an atheist, only they will come to the opposite conclusion.

"My impression is that this is a new thing that some scientists do, while the tendency for religions to reject evidence for beliefs is as old as religions themselves. Is that false??"

Well, I don't think the science vs. religion debate has been around forever--it just seems that way. It really only got going when Ussher came out with his dating of the earth by counting back the generations. Gerard Schroeder would argue Kabalist scholars interpreted scripture as supporting an old earth centuries before Ussher was born. I haven't checked his facts, but Hugh Ross gives a good assessment of the history of the conflict. His assessment is that creationist objections to sciences are founded on the shaky foundation of poor Biblical scholarship. The whole disagreement centers around the first few chapters of Genesis, and specifically the choice of translating the Hebrew word for "day" as "24 hour period" as opposed to "age", which is an equally legitimate translation. If it weren't for that, there would be no conflict. At all. This whole mess over one little Hebrew word...

"That is sad. Your example of education is nice, however it lacks a baseline so it really doesn't say that it's wrong to acclaim science for freethinking. I on the other hand find the application of new ideas and methods on old problems encouraging."

Well, it depends on what those methods are. Proclaiming that science disproves God is a step in the wrong direction for the same reason the Creationists' claim that science proves God exists is wrong. The pot shots each side takes at each other is also anything but healthy discourse. I do think we need to recognize the battle is being waged primarily by the extremists on both sides. These people will never listen to each other, and you are right, attempts at getting them to see eye to eye should be abandoned. It's a waste of time.

However, an earlier thread spoke of the communication gap between Christians and scientists. This is a vital acknowledgement. For this issue to go away, scientists need to try to understand why Christians believe what they believe and what their fears are. Likewise, Christians need to understand how science works and why creationism is anti-science and insulting to scientists, and, I would add, why science doesn't need to threaten their belief in God or the Bible. Just like in any disagreement, if there is no attempt to understand the other side, the gap will only grow wider. And I don't think it needs to.

Anyway, I've enjoyed this discussion...

I see that we are doing dancing in place here instead of bridging any gaps. However, I will try again. (Thus doing something that I argued against. ;-)

"Maybe so, but I'm not referring to supernatural beings when I say that."

You were specifically referring to a specific god. A god is (observationally) outside nature. (It is a fantasy of a supernatural cause or being.) What else could we be discussing?

"So what if you can show how something occurred naturally?"

The point is that we are overwhelmingly showing that everything occurs naturally. A scientific theory isn't something you show by induction; one can never exhaust every possibility. What you do is trying to verify and especially falsify, and in time one throws up ones hand and says "this is the correct theory".

My second point is, if you do that elsewhere one should do it here.

My second point is, that it's only a statement to say that science can't say anything about supernaturals and miracles. There are no facts or theories that says it is so.

My third point is that I believe science can do exactly that, if one allows it, due to the mechanism described.

"if you explain something naturally, you are only explaining the "how" of creation. Here's my take: In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."

I see that you aren't impressed by the fact that we have constructed selfcontained cosmologies where 'why' doesn't really exist; there are no first cause. Again, not all 'why' questions are impervious to science, that's just sloppy thinking. The asymmetry, you know.

"If a Christian tries to prove God exists using science, s/he will succeed, because they see the evidence from that perspective and will interpret it in that way"

You don't prove things in science, you observe facts and test theories.

And it is wrong. If we agree that the concepts of supernaturals and miracles are badly defined, there is no way to build a _scientific_ theory on this subject. Even if it was definable are agnostics and deists faith versions unfalsifiable, so again not science. Nor are there any observations that may support it. So again, the situation is in no way symmetrical.

I think what you are saying is that a religious person may interpret a 'theory' to such effect. But then he is ignorant of science.

"It really only got going when Ussher came out with his dating of the earth by counting back the generations."

Now you are confusing the issue. I believe we were discussing "atheistic opinions" among scientists, not when science facts started to contradict religious dogma.

My first (very refreshing) meeting with this were on these very pages, less than a year ago. Apparently Dawkins has been at it a few years. I believe it's a very late action to actively and positively go public with these issues.

"The pot shots each side takes at each other is also anything but healthy discourse."

What PZ suggests are not about taking pot shots but about promoting healthy discourse. Though I confess that it somewhat feels like pot shots this time. ;-)

"This is a vital acknowledgement."

We agree here. Of course, we disagree about the analysis that follows from that. I for one see a difference in the gap between reasonable faithers like agnostics and deists and unreasonable ones like fundies.

From personal experience I know of the first gap from both sides. I honestly believe that active freethinking and scepticism would be respected, if not always embraced, and make an influence here. In fact, I believe it has always been so.

The second gap, between freethinkers and fundies are harder, because the concepts of facts and faith are thoroughly confused and conflated in the latter group. I wish they at least would consent to treat other 'beliefs' nicely and neutrally, but unfortunately they will not. (So again, freethinking will do no harm.)

I too enjoyed the discussion.

Well, I'm not so sure we're dancing in place so much as dancing around the issue, but at least we're dancing, which is a good start, eh?

Essentially (and this is so hard to tell on a blog discussion), I think in many ways we are saying the same things, but coming to different conclusions.
I think the point you are painstakingly trying to make is that the conclusion of scientific observation leads to lack of proof of the supernatural. I agree with that. (And there was a loud Hosanna!)

But I still maintain it doesn't disprove or falsify the supernatural, either (at this point, Torbjorn pulls out his hair).

The point I am trying to make is that although scientific observation can lead to the conclusion that there is no concrete evidence supporting a supernatural being (because the being is supernatural) there is no way that science can be used as a tool to prove or disprove a supernatural being's existence. I know it feels like we are going in circles on this, but science can't negate faith. Faith is belief in something that ultimately cannot be proven.

I think this is a great illustration of not just our communication gap, but the communication gap between faith and science. And ironically, as much as I am beginning to learn that scientists have a hard time grasping this, I am also realizing that IDists and creationists don't understand it either. They are trying to use science to prove that God exists. But the definition of faith is belief in something that lacks clear evidence. Therefore, using natural phenomena to prove or falsify the existence of a supernatural being is just as much outside the realm of FAITH as it is outside the realm of science.

Natural evidence can fortify a believer's faith, for sure. But it can also fortify an unbeliever's lack of faith as well. What I am really trying to say is that existence of the supernatural is not a question that science can or should grapple with. Science is about the natural world; faith is about the supernatural world. Never the twain shall or should meet, but that's OK, because they deal with entirely different issues. Faith should not be used as a tool to interpret science any more than science should be used as a tool to interpret faith.

Although I haven't read all of Gould's "Rocks of Ages", I believe this is the point he was trying to make. He was trying to illustrate the communication gap. Few on both sides accepted his analysis, but I think he was right on target, and I admire him for making such an important effort.

"I think the point you are painstakingly trying to make is that the conclusion of scientific observation leads to lack of proof of the supernatural. I agree with that. (And there was a loud Hosanna!)"

You wish! ;-)

"But I still maintain it doesn't disprove or falsify the supernatural, either (at this point, Torbjorn pulls out his hair)."

I'm actually so proud of the nice mass of hair that I have left in my dottering old age, so I didn't do that either, believe it or not. So my head isn't yet squeaky clean. ;-)

"although scientific observation can lead to the conclusion that there is no concrete evidence supporting a supernatural being (because the being is supernatural) there is no way that science can be used as a tool to prove or disprove a supernatural being's existence."

As I said earlier at length, this is a misunderstanding of the scientific method. It is not induction that we do (although it can suggest hypotheses), but verification and falsification.

If one accept the method elsewhere, one should accept it everywhere.

The conclusion is that the best theory is that those purported supernaturals don't exist.

If one accept the best theory elsewhere, one should accept it everywhere.

Now, the remaining position is that the theory may be falsified. Fine - it hasn't been for an overwhelming amount of observations, but it may be.

If one accept that the unfalsified theory is the correct one elsewhere, one should accept it everythere.

Now, the remaining position is of faith - one says in effect that I wont do science, I will keep my faith instead. This is the last stand of agnostics and deists, since the cosmological and theleological arguments have been found wrong (no-first-cause cosmologies and prebiotic/biotic evolution). Fine - but don't expect us to find it a position that is rational or that science didn't tell us anything about it.

So what should we call PZ's strategy? The Wedge strategy ended up firmly stuck in DI's butt.

I believe that it has already been (ahem) "christened" the Wedgie Strategy, although I'm all for a parallel Noogie Strategy.

Perhaps, Torbjorn, we'll have to agree to disagree.

"As I said earlier at length, this is a misunderstanding of the scientific method. It is not induction that we do (although it can suggest hypotheses), but verification and falsification."

In order for something to be falsified, it must be falsifiable. How is the hypothesis, "God exists" falsifiable?

I'll just clarify this a little more, at the risk of jeopardizing that last tuft of hair. The hypothesis "God exists" is no more falsifiable than the hypothesis "God does not exist." How do you devise tests that can disprove either one of these hypotheses?

Hypothesis: God exists. The test for this, if I understand you correctly, is that if God exists, the universe would not be explainable by natural causes. Since it is, the hypothesis is falsified, and therefore, God must not exist.

Hypothesis: God does not exist. The test for this is that if God didn't exist, we wouldn't expect to see any order in the universe. Since order does exist, the hypothesis is falsified, and therefore, God must exist.

Same evidence used to disprove two opposite hypotheses. How can either of them be falsifiable? How can either be firmly in the realm of science?

Anonymous, Squeaky:

I agree that it must be falsifiable. But your hypothesis aren't mine. My hypothesis is that:

"There is however nothing that prevents us to say that natural causes explain everything we observe"

This is falsifiable, a single event (onetime miracle or multiple times supernatural forces) that must be explained by nonnatural causes suffice. In principle - since it's such a wellestablished nonremarkable theory any contrary "extraordinary theories demands extraordinary evidence" to convince us now.

"and nothing more exist. It's in fact the most natural and parsimonous theory."

Which is why it's the natural and indeed best (most parsimonius) theory of that class of theories (naturals + perhaps something more).

"Even though it's a general statement about our knowledge, I don't find anything vague and weak about it."

Squeaky tries to make deductive analyses, based on observed facts. Since 'gods' are not welldefined concepts, I would not call that correct and/or scientific theories.

However, the absence of 'gods' can result out of a scientific theory as I said above, and it's the best general theory about nature we can make.

But by all means, let us analyse those two proposals, perhaps we learn something more. The second proposal says that God will provide all order, by taking out the two negations of "didn't" and "wouldn't", if I'm not mistaken. That is not what we observe.

Torbjorn,
Anonymous and Squeaky are one and the same (in this case)--I forgot to enter my name before posting that one...

"There is however nothing that prevents us to say that natural causes explain everything we observe"

Well--I have no problem with that specific hypothesis. And I even agree that it is the most logical conclusion to be drawn from the facts of nature. However, it is when it is taken to the following conclusion that it crosses the bounds of science:

"There is however nothing that prevents us to say that natural causes explain everything we observe"...and therefore there is no supernatural and no God.

(and if this isn't the conclusion you have been drawing from your hypothesis afterall, I apologize--if that's the case, we have been writing past each other all this time).

The second hypothesis is not falsifiable by scientific means. The only thing that could falsify that hypothesis is something that occurs in the supernatural realm--"onetime miracle or multiple times supernatural forces", as you say. The tests you propose for this hypothesis are outside the realm of science...the tests themselves are not falsifiable or scientifically testable.

The only evidence we have for the supernatural or miracles is anectdotal---documented by people who have experienced them, doctors who can't explain why the mass on their patient's lung suddenly disappeared, historical documents like the Bible---None of which is admissable in the court of science. Your proposed test of your hypothesis is unscientific because, by their very nature, miracles and the supernatural aren't verifiable, repeatable, or falsifiable. You can't test a scientific hypothesis with an unscientific tool. This renders the hypothesis (at least the second of the two) unfalsifiable and outside the realm of science.

And this might be the bottom line of the discussion, agree or disagree (at least I think we have finally succeeded in finding the brass tacks).

Again, I enjoy the discussions, even though they feed my hunger to procrastinate...this is much more fun than writing exams, afterall...

Cheers!

Squeaky,

Yes, we will disagree at the end of the discussion. I have seen a similar argument in a comment thread on another post.

However, I don't see why miracles or other supernatural causation should not be observable, repeatable (in the case of miracles as dissimlar, events, to be sure, but still happening several times) or verifiable.

All it takes is something breaking the law of energy or probability conservation, to take two obvious examples. Often repeated rapid disappearance of large inner body parts, also while doing CT scan observations, would indeed be another excellent example.

We have a whole universe to observe such events with unnatural causes, and we have been observing for a long time. (Of course, if we observe such processes 'reaching in' from outside the universe we study, we will want to have them strongly observed. "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence".)

So my conclusion would be that these theories can easily be falsified. And the rest (choosing the best of such theories and admit it as the correct theory) is a trivial application of the scientific method. Which is my point - this application of the scientific method seems ordinary. To me.

We can probably not bridge the communication gap, but perhaps I have showed that the saying "the question of the existence of God is emphatically not a question for science" is not trivially obvious to all people. In fact, I detest it because it is emphatically the obligation of science to question as much as it can.

Finally, I don't want to hinder you from taking your exams even though we both seem to enjoy this discussion. You have made your part with good humor even though I feel, looking over my part, that my sometimes terse answer seem arrogant. I am sometimes rushed too, in fact I have recently done an exam myself on a university software course which will help in my work. Which explains _my_ procrastination here. So I hope you will do well, especially considering you wasted (or not) some time on this!!!

I mean't to say "choosing the best of remaining theories" instead of "choosing the best of such theories".

Torbjorn...
Well......see, that's the thing about miracles. I think if you survey a sampling of Christians, a large majority of them would tell you they have witnessed at least one--ranging from the type that are dismissed as coincidental, to the type that have no other natural or scientific explanation...
(It's interesting the parallels that can be made between this discussion and Jesus' ministry. The Jews who followed Him the day after He fed the 5000 asked, "what sign will you show us?" "Hello! I just fed 5000 of you with 5 loaves and 2 fishes!" The need for signs and wonders persist today, although for different reasons...but I digress...=))
Anyhow--I was actually writing exams for my poor students. I would prefer to be taking them, though, as it is far less work to study for an exam than it is to write one. A little insight my students probably wouldn't ever believe...
I think you have certainly given me insights into the communication gap. I often wonder if it is the best use of my time, trying to bridge that gap. I see many have tried, and have read their books, but they tend to be roundly criticized by both sides, which is unfortunate. I did not sense your responses as arrogant, or terse, for that matter. Smiley faces help =).
Perhaps we shall meet again on a different thread! PZ seems to find some interesting topics, at the very least!

Cheers!

Oh. Writing vs taking... obviously non-native speaker here! Yes, it takes some effort to write an exam. I have never taught a course, except helping out with laborations and checking stidents exam papers during my PhD studies (physics) - so I know firsthand how much extra work can go into reviewing if the exam is poorly constructed, which is why I appreciate your efforts.

This discussion has provoked some thoughts, so I'm going to take the opportunity to take notes for future reference:

Perhaps the prototheory such as the speculated could be tested.

One would want to sample diverse physics, chemistry, biology over time and geography, looking for repeatable phenomena that breaks robust and basic physical laws such as energy or probability conservation. Isotropy suggests that it will be enough to sample around Earth.

Anecdotal evidence are not accepted elsewhere so it wont matter. One would like to have a clear signal. We can't make any models of supernaturals, but it wont matter. If the purported signal (effects) are too weak to be seen it is common and parsimonious to group it as noise.

In physics wants 5-sigma results. ( http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/ferminews01-03-16/p1.html ) Ie we expect 99.99995 % of examined events to have fully natural components of in/out energy (mass, probability, fundamental forces). So we can examine 10^8 events and if more than 50 is clearly not natural, we must reject that everything is explainable by natural mechanisms.

How can we examine so many events in full?

One method would be to gather physical and chemical models, and verify them a couple of time on several locations. Each verified model would then be an observation.

Especially chemical models of reactions would be good, since we can construct many, of which the most common will sample natural and common physical, chemical and sometimes biological processes all over the world. We do want to have samples of other physics too, though.

With chemical compounds counted in millions it will eventually be feasible to cover the necessary amount of reaction models.

Another method, which has a full version and an immediate and armchair light version (!), is to use tv reports and natur shows.

There are extensive 'reviewers' and archives over several years. Events that break natural laws (such as levitating bodies or shadows in lighted areas) could easily be discovered, documented and analysed. Here every frame is an observation. With a frame rate of 25 Hz it would take less than 1500 h of film, or 50 days of 24 h/day real life shows. A note here is that shows especially on 'miracles' are not included; most of these are debunked or suspected to be tampering. We are looking for random sampling outside of suspected tampering.

The armchair version of this is that shows have been aired over a long time with an exceeding amount of 'reviewers' without any examples of supernaturals reported and found to exist. Let us see what statistics we coudl have:

Say that at least 6 nations have been broadcasting at least one 24 h channel with real life reports over a period of 40 years. ( http://www.tvhistory.tv/1960-2000.htm ) That gives us 189 216 000 000 observations, ie 1892 times the needed. Say that a few suspected supernaturals have been missed - they are certainly less than 5.

So, with the simplest test, I will conclude that the theory that supernaturals (such as gods) doesn't exist has not been abled to be falsified according to the observations, with a safety margin of more than 1000, or a significance level of >> 5 sigma. (I have to get back on this, I ran out of table...)

It would be fun to be able to start experiments and do papers on tests of the theory such as the full tv test (ie scan archives) and the science model test. This question has been nagging humanity for much too long...

Seems that the 5 sigma quote were two-sided distributions. Here, we have onesided ones (naturals, or not) so we need only about 25 (28) purported supernatural observations. We still have about 900 times the observations needed if we want to have >> 10 suspect events to look for (since 1-2 are not enough), or > 6.2 sigma confidence. ( http://www.adamssixsigma.com/Newsletters/standard_normal_table.htm )

Final note: We want the reaction models to be over the thermodynamics, ie over energy.

Never say never - I will probably append a few more notes until I think I have enough grip on this.

Forces:
I don't know what effects on weak and strong force would look like - they will probably need to be sort of collective to be seen, while our everyday long range forces EM and gravity could be observed as lack or excess of field.

Light sources need to be included in observations of lack or excess light (since obstructions like clouds will happen).

Observations:
Armchair model - even though we will have several 'reviewers' it is uncertain if events shorter than human frame rate (~ 15 Hz in normal light) will be noted. So say 2.5 Hz instead of 25. (For tv frame to frame observations in a real full test, verified software that can pinpoint unnatural candidates could be used.)

Instead, we have several objects or distributions of light fields or sources that will be observed simultaneously. So instead say typically 10 loose objects or entire soil areas for gravitational 'defects' and 1 light source. Which compensates for loss of observations due to longer time.

We can't make assumption on the supernaturals. Our observation on the natural side is not independent, it's a time series and sees several test objects/areas at once as noted above.

That will probably work to an advantage since we will have different cutoffs - ie say 1 m levitation is needed to see lessened or inverted gravitation. That will mean around -1 g for 0.5 s, but rather more time (and winds) for around 0 g, which will be the cutoff for earth observations. Similarly several objects may be included, but 1 would be enough, again to our advantage.

So far, I will keep saying that gods don't exist according to observations, with >> than needed 5-sigma test confidence. (> 6.2 sigma, but possibly even higher if all recorded public observations of nature are included.)