The Foolishness of Intelligent Design Theories

[Jenab]

I write this post in regard to the essay in support of Intelligent Design having the title, "Was There Ever Nothing?" and found at

 

http://everystudent.com/journeys/nothing.html

 

The essay is nonsense. In particular,

 

That brings up the third problem: size. Like time' date=' size is an abstract. It's relative. Let's say you have three baseballs, all ranging in size. One is ten feet wide, one is five feet wide, one is normal size. Which one is more likely to materialize in the room?

 

The normal-size baseball? No! It would be the same likelihood for all three. The size wouldn't matter. It's not the issue. The issue is whether or not any baseball of any size could just "show up" in our sealed, empty room.

 

If you don't think the smallest baseball could just show up in the room, no matter how much time passed, then you must conclude the same thing even for an atom. Size is not an issue. The likelihood of a small particle materializing without cause is no different than a refrigerator materializing without cause![/quote']

 

Whoever wrote that is as ignorant of quantum mechanics as a physicist could possibly be. There are well-known physical phenomena that demonstrate that subatomic particles, virtual particles, can and do come into existence uncaused, linger very briefly, and then disappear again. Relevant phenomena include the Casimir Effect, the Lamb Shift, and Hawking Radiation.

 

The essay writer's appeal to strictness in the conservation of energy, without emendation by the uncertainty principle, is sheer ignorance. The quantum tunnelling effect by itself should have demonstrated the foolishness of the essay's premise, but somehow its significance escaped that writer.

 

Intelligent design seems to be a sneaky, back-door way to restore plausibility to the divine intervention theory of origins. If the writer isn't woefully ignorant of physics, then some serious questions can be raised about his ethics.

 

Jerry Abbott

[alt_f13]

He only really mentioned an atom, which would not materialize. I know he said something about small particles, but I don't think he meant the smallest of particles.

 

But I think his point was that there must be a cause for particles to appear.

 

Read on... he talks of an eternal being.. there's not much science in there.

[admiral_ju00]

what's the point in reading something that's been fabricated by a bible thumper, i wonder???

 

especially when you know before hand that whatever it is you're about to read will be severly skewed and biased towards god and religion as opposed to anything else?!?

 

i've read a few books written by creationists, but i read it just like any other scifi book and did not have a care in the world about it's meaning or message, let alone trying to analyze that craptastic essay/book is a waste of time.