Jamilyn | June 9, 2007 06:08 PM

If we get to $1,000, will you have your picture taken riding the triceratops?

hope | June 9, 2007 06:09 PM

Will you take Athena? Because if I could take my kids to see the museum, I would. Really. And because I totally want to see the video "Athena Scalzi visits the Creation."

CaseyL | June 9, 2007 06:11 PM

If we get to $1,000, will you have your picture taken riding the triceratops?

I think he'd insist on at least $2K for that. I know I would.

I'm in; the money's been sent. This is going to be fun.

Nathan | June 9, 2007 06:14 PM

AHHH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm in.

If it gets to 2K, I wanna see video of you having a debate with the museum curator.

CaseyL | June 9, 2007 06:20 PM

I don't know the curator, or his history, but considering the pictures I've seen of the exhibits ("cheesy" would dignify them; they look like refugees from an old TV studio yard sale) I wonder if the curator isn't running a really nifty little grift here.

Adam Rakunas | June 9, 2007 06:50 PM

Oh, I think we should ask for video of the debate anyway, then put it up on Revver and donate the proceeds to PfAW. Think of it as a Web 2.0 endowment.

Saundra | June 9, 2007 07:11 PM

I donated. I wonder if we got to 5000 dollars, if Krissy would ride the triceratops?

Lisa H. | June 9, 2007 07:11 PM

Dare accepted, money sent!

PZ Myers | June 9, 2007 07:12 PM

Wouldn't taking Athena to this thing constitute child abuse?

Ron Hogan | June 9, 2007 07:13 PM

"I'll announce the official results on Saturday, June 16."

As it happens, that is my birthday. If the general public has any questions about what I would like for my birthday, it is for John Scalzi to go to the Creation Museum.

elise | June 9, 2007 07:23 PM

Money sent. You've hit $250 already, haven't you? If not, I am good for another chunk of change.

George E. Martin | June 9, 2007 07:31 PM

PZ said:

"Wouldn't taking Athena to this thing constitute child abuse?" By the time John reads this comment, he may already know that PZ has linked him over at pharyngula.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/give_ham_the_scalzi_treatment.php

Is there a way to cintribute without using Paypal?

George

Kate | June 9, 2007 07:41 PM

Money Sent!

I guess this is better than getting those calls from the 'United County Sheriffs fighting fires for Veterans of Foreign Wars' Charity.

*insert roll of blue eyes here*

Although, I'll miss the rather snazzy decal that I throw away.

Lanna Lee Maheux-Quinn | June 9, 2007 07:44 PM

I'm in! (Funds from Maheux Creative are funds from me.)

Kendall | June 9, 2007 07:50 PM

Good grief. I'd pay you NOT to go; someone already took the bullet and went...and took lots of pictures, besides...over at Ars Technica. Don't throw MORE money at the creationists, please! ;-P

hugh57 | June 9, 2007 07:51 PM

I'm in. :)

Natalie | June 9, 2007 07:54 PM

I'm in.

wil | June 9, 2007 08:01 PM

Done and done. Please tape bacon to the T-Rex.

Steve Buchheit | June 9, 2007 08:10 PM

Ah, come on, John. They have a planetarium. Don't you want to go see how they talk about all these holes in the firmament and how the glory of heaven shines through them after they were made for the flood? I mean, pure comic gold.

Plus, I bet they still have Pluto listed as a planet.

Audrey Estock | June 9, 2007 08:27 PM

I'm in, too. I hope you'll get to laugh a lot at your visit, John!

PixelFish | June 9, 2007 08:47 PM

I was kinda wondering about you taking Athena too, but I know she probably has the snark genes fully intact, and besides, I'm sure you and Krissy would fully discuss the nature of the pseudosciences.

PixelFish | June 9, 2007 08:50 PM

BTW, is that detritus? or detrius? in the email...?

Christian | June 9, 2007 08:58 PM

I've submitted this as Fark link. If it goes green, we'll be in fat city! I'd like to see us exceed the $1K, since it's for a good cause.

John Scalzi | June 9, 2007 09:10 PM

Pixelfish:

"Detrius." I misspelled "detritus" when I made it and never bothered to correct it.

TransDutch | June 9, 2007 09:39 PM

Donation sent.

(I'm wondering if I can deduct this next April...)

Chang, for rizzle. | June 9, 2007 10:02 PM

I am IN. Hells YEAH!!!

Adam Ziegler | June 9, 2007 10:02 PM

AWESOME! My part is done.

I wonder. If the word on this gets around enough, will they see you coming? I doubt they could or would do anything, even so. It's not like you're going there to fling poop on the exhibits. (Well, save it for when you're on the way out.)
.

Tim Walker | June 9, 2007 10:04 PM

Ron Hogan wrote:

"I'll announce the official results on Saturday, June 16."

As it happens, that is my birthday. If the general public has any questions about what I would like for my birthday, it is for John Scalzi to go to the Creation Museum.

~

As it happens, June 16 is *also* my birthday, and I would *also* like the Whatever community to give me the birthday gift of sending John to the Creation Museum.

Daniel B. | June 9, 2007 10:10 PM

Putting my $6.66 in now...

Smith | June 9, 2007 10:16 PM

Detrius... Wasn't he the patron god of the Roman Chamber Pot Menders' Guild?

I, too, am in!

Edward Trimnell | June 9, 2007 10:20 PM

I live in Cincinnati and the exit for the Creation Museum is clearly marked on 275. It is about 10 minutes past the airport. It should be no more than a two-hour drive once you hit the Miamisburg-Centerville area. So you have no excuse for not visiting. (Make sure your tires are in good condition, though. The pavement on that stretch of 275 is filled with potholes.)

Oddly enough, I passed this the other day and I immediately thought: "I should let that Scalzi guy up in Dayton know about this. This will drive him absolutely batty."

If you do *not* visit and write a droll report on your adventure, I am going to personally mail you a copy of the book under the "Dissect the Lies in Biology Class" section at the following link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/ (hyperlinked to the museum's website.)

After you are done with these folks, I suggest that you turn your attention to the Citizens for Community Values (www.ccv.org), another Cincinnati-based group that likes to meddle in everyone's business.

Jim Wright | June 9, 2007 10:52 PM

Man, I took the day off to go into Anchorage with friends and this happens!

I'm in, Scalzi. But please take Athena - and afterwards do one of those interviews with her. I think I'd like her take on this stupidity even more than yours. - oh, and for fun, you guys should wear one of those I went to the Creation Museum and all I got is stupider! T-shirts during your visit. I'm sure they'd find it amusing, Young Earth Creationists are known for their sense of humor....(still kidding here, Dan).

Jon H | June 9, 2007 11:02 PM

I certainly hope we'll get to see a video of Athena asking "Why don't you like Darwin?" much like she did for the Pluto Haytaz.

I like this kind of charity donation - this way, John gets all the spam and junkmail.

rick gregory | June 9, 2007 11:03 PM

Oh... this will be so funny. Money sent!

Jon H | June 9, 2007 11:06 PM

I'm in for $16.66

Blaine | June 9, 2007 11:30 PM

Done! Money sent! I'm in.... now get crackin'...

or I shall taunt you a second time!

Patrick | June 9, 2007 11:31 PM

Jon H - What is that? EVIL + $10? C'mon! Go $66.60. That's 10 times EVIL. Jeesh...

PixelFish | June 9, 2007 11:35 PM

Jon H: Oooooo...I like the idea of an Athena Scalzi "Why don't you like Darwin?" video. (My boyfriend still refers to Scott Westerfeld as "that guy who hates Pluto". And I own all the Uglies books. You'd think the reputation would have transferred by now.)

Annalee Flower Horne | June 9, 2007 11:39 PM

As soon as I get my next paycheck in, you are very much on.

Mostly because rabid creationism pisses me off in an unhealthy 'drinking rat poison and expecting the rat to die' sort of way, so I think someone being able to go through a place like that and say snarky/amusing things about it afterwards will be good for my digestion.

If we reach $1,500, will you ask the curator why there's no exhibit on the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his dear friend the Invisible Pink Unicorn? inquiring pastafarians want to know.

leslie | June 9, 2007 11:43 PM

No money sent. I wouldn't send my worst enemy to the Creation Museum, or to a Kirk Cameron Crockoducks for Jesus convention for that matter.

Jim Wright | June 9, 2007 11:51 PM

I wouldn't send my worst enemy to the Creation Museum...

We don't we to send your worst enemy, we want to send John. Duh. We don't even know who your worst enemy is for crying out loud.

(still kidding, Dan)

Jim Wright (who has not learned to proof read yet) | June 9, 2007 11:56 PM

Arrgh! (bangs head on desk) Snark is just so much funnier if you don't make stupid typos. The T-rex crunching on the coconut tree outside my window distracted me. Sorry.

Natalie | June 10, 2007 12:03 AM

I sent $18 (Hebrew word for life is chai, same as their number 18). It seemed to make sense when I did it. I am not sure that I want to encourage a place like this, but the lure of John writing a report and money going to Americans United for Separation of Church and State is just too much for me. Should I say "have fun"?

Jon H | June 10, 2007 12:09 AM

Be strong, John.

Their wiles are powerful. Don't let they get you.

Jon H | June 10, 2007 12:11 AM

Arrgh. Them. Don't let them get you.

And I mean the creation museum people. Because it's clear that you're going.

At the rate the money's flowing in, you might well have to camp there.

Jon H | June 10, 2007 12:13 AM

One more thing.

John, if you go and they take questions, please ask if they are aware the museum was built on an Indian burial ground. And see what the response is.

Mark | June 10, 2007 12:36 AM

A while ago I finally broke down and started trying to recoup some of the costs from my online addictions. Which is to say, I started accepting ads on my blog. This is only relevant because this month is the first month I got paid for those ads. I've been wondering what to spend this vast fortune of $3.06 on when I read this post. Money sent! :D

DavidK | June 10, 2007 01:06 AM

Money sent also - as a molecular geneticist working on mutation and genome stability, I take the existence of this museum as a personal affront.

Yutaka | June 10, 2007 01:28 AM

My money's sent, though I misspelled the word "donations" in the comment field and I feel like a big dork about it. Looking forward to the museum review!

Yoder | June 10, 2007 01:28 AM

I understand your distaste of the Creation Museum. But, I wonder what would your character Hiram Yoder think of it?

I have old order relatives that truly take the Bible literally.

I disagree with them, but I would never mock them for their beliefs.

I don’t understand their religion, but I respect it. (Paraphrasing from a book I read recently.)

If you really want to visit Kentucky to see fake dinosaurs, go to Cave City, stay in Wigwam and visit Dinosaur World.

Smith | June 10, 2007 02:05 AM

It's not necessarily about mocking people's beliefs. It's mocking people's desire to see those beliefs inserted into inappropriate venues (i.e. science textbooks).

Kurt | June 10, 2007 02:16 AM

To Smith: Oh and who defines when it is "inappropriate" - oh yes that would be you because you know everything.

Also, To John on his choice of "charity": Separating church from government worked real well in the Soviet Union. Real well, except for those 50 million dead people. Oh well, at least they did not have God messing up their educational system.

Anonymous | June 10, 2007 02:29 AM

Or come to Louisville and have a nice meal in a 4 Star restaurant. Why didn't they put that thing in Norwood or somewhere. Kentucky has it hard enough image-wise without a damned creation museum.

As far as I'm concerned the museum is close enough to Ohio to be from there. Everyone knows Northern Kentucky is really Southern Ohio anyway. They're all Republicans up there--a bunch of Godless creationist Republicans who sound just like Ohiolonians!

kurt | June 10, 2007 02:30 AM

Count me in,

Can hardly wait for your review on this place....should make good reading for me and my Daughters......15 and 17, we talk about this kind of stuff all the time.

kurt | June 10, 2007 02:34 AM

Wow,

what are the odds of someone with the same name posting a comment at the same time??????

Dont confuse kurt, not the lower case k with the previouse Kurt...

Tania | June 10, 2007 02:34 AM

Bwahaha - I'm donating a dollar for every year I've been on the planet.

Smith | June 10, 2007 04:51 AM

Kurt (with the Kapital K), thank you, but I will have to decline your nomination of me as Omnicient Definer. It sounds like an awful lot of work.

(And personally, I think the Stalinist regime is a lovely example of wacko dogmatism in action! Bravo!)

Anonymous | June 10, 2007 06:17 AM

If Mr. Scalzi can find any joy in himself witnessing man and dinosaurs living next to each other...
...may i politly suggest he might express his joy by yelling out "Yabba-Dabba-Doo!".
("Wilma I´m home!" for extra credit)

Mike G. | June 10, 2007 06:33 AM

I'm in... What a perfect combination of target for deflation + charity. I likes it!

PS: Before anyone gets offended, I _completely_ respect your freedom to choose and practice a religion if you wish to, _except_ if you think that religion requires you to stomp over MY right to choose NOT to practice (or even learn about, if I don't want to) your religion.

Hmm, that was a fairly tortured sentence, but it's a twisted topic.

Rhiannon_S | June 10, 2007 07:25 AM

£20.00 sent as promised. I remember when Randy from Something Positive made a similar challege. It was the mst successful business decidion in years.

Bill Schafer | June 10, 2007 07:54 AM

Just donated $100. John, care to write me a story if I donate the entire thousand?

This'll be more fun than watching you jump at the GNR concert every time pyro went off.

Bill
www.subterraneanpress.com

Adam Ziegler | June 10, 2007 08:20 AM

I also forgot to put 'MUSEUM DONATION' in the comments. But my name is there. Sorry that I apparently can't follow instructions.

hugh57 | June 10, 2007 09:07 AM

Everyone knows Northern Kentucky is really Southern Ohio anyway.

Really? A large portion of the Ohio General Assembly behaves as though they believe that Cincinnati is part of Kentucky. ;-)

Jim Winter | June 10, 2007 09:08 AM

I have a whole list of things people could give me to get me to go, most of them highly unlikely. One of them was simply if Scalzi pays my way. Another was to ask my readers to send me $500, because I think John is settling. Also, I get about 1% of John's readership a day, so it's less likely I'd even get $125. And just to be difficult, I also said I'd accept the resignation of my Congresswoman, Jean Schmidt, or a troop withdrawal by Labor Day.

I only ask for the impossible or the improbably.

Oh, and John? $10 is on its merry way to you. Take pictures. Lots of pictures. If you get a grand, why don't you make Bacon Cat a T-Shirt and send that out to the biggest donors?

Jim Winter | June 10, 2007 09:12 AM

Everyone knows Northern Kentucky is really Southern Ohio anyway.

Other way around. Everyone knows Cincinnati is a suburb of Newport. The only reason this turkey isn't on the Ohio side of the river is because... Well, look at The Banks project. Started in 1997. We're still waiting. Two stadiums and a museum all at least six blocks or across the river from anyplace to eat or drink afterwards.

Anonymous | June 10, 2007 09:18 AM

Kapital K Kurt

Someone seems to have a misunderstanding.

The idea of sending the amazing Scalzi to their museum is not to ridicule their religious beliefs, but to ridicule their idea that their religious beliefs should be taught to ALL students in ALL levels of school in place of science. If they want to teach their children that "the science you learn in school is wrong because the bible says ... " that is their absolute right. But when they file lawsuits claiming that their creationist pseudoscience is a perfectly rational alternative to real science that MUST be taught in schools to everyone, that is crap.

Eddy | June 10, 2007 09:21 AM

From outside the US: I'm in as well.

I like these kind of actions

(man, I wish I had read the $66.60 remark before I made the donation)

KJ Forrest | June 10, 2007 09:21 AM

I donated - not much but hopefully you're well over $250 by now!

Branko Collin | June 10, 2007 09:47 AM

"If they want to teach their children that "the science you learn in school is wrong because the bible says ... " that is their absolute right."

It is? Without steeping so low as to call religious education a form of child abuse, I do think that there are some things parents should not be allowed to do to their children, and it is at least debatable that purposely putting your children in a disadvantageous starting position for adult life by teaching them nonsense is one of them.

hugh57 | June 10, 2007 10:00 AM

"...it is at least debatable that purposely putting your children in a disadvantageous starting position for adult life by teaching them nonsense is one of them."

While I am also against teaching creationism in schools, it seems to me that the above proposition would start us down a very slippery slope when it comes to defining "nonsense." And just who would get to define "nonsense?" Just my $0.02 worth.

meatbrain | June 10, 2007 10:04 AM

The answer to parents teaching their children nonsense is not to legislate what parents may and may not teach their children. The answer is to teach children the critical thinking skills to recognize nonsense for what it is, regardless of its source.

Al Bogdan | June 10, 2007 10:11 AM

Enjoy the "Land of the Lost" exhibit! Hope the Sleestak don't block the doors when they hear you're on your way in.

Kate | June 10, 2007 10:24 AM

He's gotta be over 250.00 by now.

I was thinking on a lazy Sunday that I should really try this donation thing to send me to college on my website.

But then I thought I'd only get like $.50 because John's way more popular than I am. Looks like it's back to working hard for the money. ;)

Fooey.

Have fun on the trip and keep donating boys and girls, I want to see those short stories.

LizT | June 10, 2007 10:47 AM

John, have a great time with the dinos!

Nathan | June 10, 2007 10:49 AM

Kapital K Kurt misunderstands EVERYTHING.
(That should be a T-Shirt, too)

Yo Kurt,

While the Soviet Union professed to have no state religion, the Communist Party was officially Atheist. The de facto position of the party was to work for the abolition of all religions.

That's a far cry from separation of church and state, one of the things the founding fathers got 100% right.

Mike Stanley | June 10, 2007 12:19 PM

I can't follow directions either. I put "Enjoy your trip :)" as the subject instead of Museum Donations. Ah well, John's a smart guy - he'll figure it out.

Mark Fletcher | June 10, 2007 12:49 PM

I'm in. It's a good cause. And we get entertained!

John T | June 10, 2007 01:08 PM

Great idea, I just donated. I work for an interpretive exhibit design company, where we make museums like these -- except we don't make shit up. I'm personally offended by the Creation Museum since it tarnishes the reputation of my field, and museums in general. And Americans United for Separation of Church and State sounds like a good organization to support, now more than ever.

John H | June 10, 2007 02:26 PM

Just made my donation...

I vote for a picture of Scalzi riding the Jesus Horse like a bucking bronco...

Dan | June 10, 2007 02:33 PM

Can I go on the record and say that I know Jim Wright is kidding?

Aside from that, I want to know how John's going to explain this whole thing to his wife.

"Where are you going, dear husband?"
"Umm..."
"What did your readers make you do now?"

Dave | June 10, 2007 02:41 PM

Thanks to Wil Wheaton for pointing me here. Sadly, I don't know John from... *snurk* Adam, but I'm I'll toss a day's lunch money in for a couple of good causes.

Jon Marcus | June 10, 2007 03:10 PM

I's inz.

Jesus Christ | June 10, 2007 03:47 PM

Hello, my children. I thought I'd chime in on this one.

First of all, my middle initial really is H. It stands for "Harold." Bet you never knew that.

Though John does not believe in Me - Well, actually, it's Dad he has doubts about - he has always spoken well of Us, and I think it would be a worthy trip for John to take.

Now, about this Creationism thing. Frankly, We're insulted, and not just up here. Don't know how many of you know this, but Satan used to work on this before he formed his own start up in the Underworld. As you can see, Sweet Lu, as we called him around the office, has done quite alright for himself since leaving the company. Anyway, I don't know if any of you knew this, but Lu came up with the idea for the Big Bang. See, singularities are great for storing all the raw material to build a universe, but unpacking them is tough. Almost as tough getting that tape off CD's. We needed a way to unpack, but one that would give us time to organize everything the way we wanted it. I mean gravity. Come on. You take it for granted, but we actually had to write the rules for it. With no matter to experiment with, that was a Divine bitch to work out.

Well, anyway, one morning, Lu and I were out back behind the commissary hitting golf balls across the Great Chasm. Satan, of course, being the Dark Lord in the making, always hit the ball too hard. This time, one of them shattered. Now keep in mind we were operating in a void, and the pieces just sort of floated out into nothingness.

Lu takes one look and says, "If we just blew up the singularity, about how long do think it would take to put everything together?"

I thought about this and said, "About ten, maybe fifteen billion years."

"Yanno, Gabriel's pretty mean with a three wood. What say we have him whack it a good one."

"Not a bad idea. With all that plasma and energy spreading out, we wouldn't have to guess anymore. Let's run it by Dad and see what He says."

So we did. A few days later, Lu and I caddied for Gabriel. He called out "Fore!" Dad said, "Let there be light," and you know the rest.

When I get more time, let me tell what a mess that first billion years was. I think we still have stuff lying around we haven't unpacked yet.

FireAnt | June 10, 2007 03:52 PM

I'm in as well! Great idea to rally around this way to deal with this affront to science and the 21st Century......

Deb Geisler | June 10, 2007 05:09 PM

Tuition money sent. Just let us know if you need more, son.

refugee | June 10, 2007 05:59 PM

I debated not sending you, because I don't like being cruel to people I like, but I figure you're going to make up for it by being cruel to the Creationists, so it all balances out. In for $10.

Have fun!

Bob Smietana | June 10, 2007 07:03 PM

Great idea. Anyway you'd consider donating to a charity other than Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. While the good folks at Americans United and the Creation Museum duke it out in the culture war, lots of people are dying in real wars, or real crises, like starvation.

How about donations to groups like:

SaveDarfur.org
Unicef
Bread for the World
CARE

You might save someone's life in the process.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

John Scalzi | June 10, 2007 07:12 PM

Bob Smietana:

Naturally people are free to make their charitable giving as they will. In this particular case I have already declared to which charity this money will go and I don't think it's wise either to dilute the effort or to let people have the impression I was going to donate to one organization and then turn around and donate to others.

Jonquil | June 10, 2007 07:32 PM

Done.

Also, as long as you're time-travelling, I suggest you go to the Lebanese delicatessen that used to be in Dayton in 1970 and have one of their roast beef sandwiches for me. Mmmmmmmm.

speedwell | June 10, 2007 08:24 PM

Fun stuff! OK, you got my pittance. :)

Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers) | June 10, 2007 08:41 PM

I want it in my permanent record that when news of the dare reached Making Light earlier today, I posted the following comment:

Given how little he wants to go*, I'm not tempted to push him into it. He'll probably have a lousy time and the snark factor won't make up for that.

* at least that's what he wrote on his blog recently.

bob smietana | June 10, 2007 09:37 PM

John,

That's fair--it's probably wise to stick to your original declaration. Doesn't hurt to ask.

Kristy | June 10, 2007 10:59 PM

Heee! Added my bit to the pot. If I'm going to hell, it might as well be for something *fun*!

Brooke | June 10, 2007 11:45 PM

I'm a lurker, but came out of the woodwork to donate to the cause of separation of church and state...

BBP | June 10, 2007 11:45 PM

I'm a lurker, but came out of the woodwork to donate to the cause of separation of church and state...

'As You know' Bob | June 11, 2007 02:06 AM

It seems very wrong to give those frauds at the Creation Mmuseum any money at all.

So I hope you're going to at least ask them if they'll comp you in on "Press" credentials; after all, you will be writing up a story on them.

Kirsty | June 11, 2007 05:45 AM

Great idea John, I hope you raise loads of money. I just donated.

Thought you might like to know that I've linked to you on dark_christian - a livejournal community that helps to raise awareness about the dangers of Dominionist Christianity (that would be the extreme ones who want to take over the world).

John Scalzi | June 11, 2007 07:43 AM

"As You Know" Bob:

"So I hope you're going to at least ask them if they'll comp you in on 'Press' credentials; after all, you will be writing up a story on them."

No, I don't want them to see me coming. Also, if I hit my donation targets, the amount of money going to UASCS will be disproportionately larger that any lingering sense of guilt will be dealt with.

Pablo Defendini | June 11, 2007 10:09 AM

I get into the office today, and I see this. Oh, man. Haven't smiled this wide before noon in a loooong time. And it's one of those evil, creepy, 'bwa-ha-ha'-type smiles, too. AND on a Monday. You outdo yourself, Mr. Scalzi.

Donated, of course. Give 'em hell, John!

Jim | June 11, 2007 11:16 AM

I'm in, but only for some mild evil at $6.66.

michael | June 11, 2007 12:38 PM

Mr Scalzi, sir; sorry, but this crazy scheme has me in its thrall - I sent $6.66. I can only imagine how tacky this park will, that and exploitive of its visitors. Please, snark as hard as you can at the purveyors of this shite, but have a care for the misguided visitors (yourself included). Is there a patron saint for the credulous?

-michael

Nathan | June 11, 2007 12:47 PM

Michael,

The saint you're looking for doesn't appear to have been minted.

Here's a handy guide for any further saintly questions you might have.

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patron00.htm

Shad | June 11, 2007 12:54 PM

Contribution sent.

Alpha | June 11, 2007 02:01 PM

I'm more than willing to send some money, but as my employer matches donations to 501c3 organizations, would you accept a direct donation to Americans United for Separation of Church and State?

Mary Kay | June 11, 2007 02:19 PM

OMFG. I go out of town for a few days and look what you kids get up to.

I'm in -- and I love the suggestion upthread of making t-shirts from the Bacon Cat pictures.

MKK

Mike | June 11, 2007 03:00 PM

I'm in, too -- this from a Christian who gets really sick and tired of being lumped in with these idiots...

Anne C. | June 11, 2007 03:17 PM

I'm also mildly evil - in for 6.66.
Never let it be said I can't jump on bandwagons with the best of 'em.

Rick | June 11, 2007 03:30 PM

I'm in, but I hope you take it easy on them, John. I do hate to see a battle of wits fought against an unarmed foe; the end result is usually tragic.

Jor | June 11, 2007 04:56 PM

Crawling out of the woodwork to chime in with my donation. Not much, but its what I can afford right now and besides, it doesn't look like you need much at all at this point!

John W | June 11, 2007 05:03 PM

Here's a donation from a church-going Christian who also proudly has a Darwin fish on his car.

David H | June 11, 2007 07:26 PM

Just send my mildly evil contribution as well ... $6.66. Have fun

KSM | June 11, 2007 09:49 PM

If I am ever in the area I hope to stop in and see the museum.

Be sure to ask them about micro evolution versus macro evolution.

Micro evolution is a scientific fact - it is reproducible in a laboratory. Macro evolution is a theory of origins - and a rather far fetched one at that.

It takes more faith to believe in chance-guided macro-evolution than to believe in divine creation, either via guided evolution or via other means.

Alan | June 11, 2007 10:03 PM

Money is on it's way. Enjoy your trip!

Mary Fitzpatrick | June 11, 2007 10:17 PM

We aren't all howling idiots in Greater Cincinnati. We did protest the opening of the wretched place.

http://maryfitz.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/rally_for_reaso_1.html

I haven't set foot in the place because I don't want to give them any of my hard earned money, but I did picket on opening day.

I hear it's a complete hoot inside.

Rational Objectivist | June 11, 2007 10:26 PM

Doesn't having to go to this "Creation Museum" violate the Constitution's provision against cruel and unusual punishment?

Tennwriter | June 11, 2007 10:32 PM

Y'know, James P. Hogan, hard SF writer who won an award or two, and wrote a couple books supporting evolution decided to amuse himself by picking up a Creationist book. He started to realize that some of their arguements made sense, and they weren't the raving nuts he'd always been told they were.

He didn't become a Creationist because as he put it "Just because the chauffeur didn't do it, doesn't mean the butler did it." but he decided on the basis of the scientific evidence that Evolution didn't make sense.

But one of my favorite posters growing up was a dragon saying "My mind is made up, don't confuse with the facts." We all resemble that dragon at times, some of us live in his cave full-time. There are few people like Hogan who are genuinely open-minded.

Best of fortune with your trip, and if three books from now you're writing a 'Darwin is a dunce' SF novel, don't say I didn't warn you.

Pixy Misa | June 11, 2007 11:48 PM

Hogan appears to believe in a number of things that are utter nonsense, including Velikovsky's, uh, ideas. Hogan is at best indifferent to scientific evidence.

Pixy Misa | June 11, 2007 11:52 PM

By the way, here's Hogan discussing Velikovsky, which provides an adequate example of Hogan's attitude to scientific evidence.

John Scalzi | June 12, 2007 01:44 AM

Tennwriter:

That's very nice for James P. Hogan; however, if award-winning author James P. Hogan jumped off a cliff, I wouldn't be obliged to follow him there, either.

KSM:

"It takes more faith to believe in chance-guided macro-evolution than to believe in divine creation, either via guided evolution or via other means."

Uh-huh. Yeah, not so much.

Don't make me sic PZ Myers on you, now.

Chuck | June 12, 2007 01:56 AM

What Mike said. Another donation from a self-described Christian who recognizes that science != religion.

mimbles | June 12, 2007 07:50 AM

Delurking to add my best wishes for your trip, I've done my bit to send you on your way ;-)

KSM | June 12, 2007 08:13 AM

The links on this board would be more helpful if they focused more on the scientific evidencs and less on ridicule and ad hominem attacks.

Concerning my statement: "It takes more faith to believe in chance-guided macro-evolution than to believe in divine creation, either via guided evolution or via other means."

and your reply : "Uh-huh. Yeah, not so much." -

I scanned the article - for this disoovery to be the answer to the lack of transitional fossil this genetic mutation would have to not only occur, but would have to occur twice in a local area to produce an available mate for the new creature, then it would have to occur again and again to produce a long series of evolving creatures leading to humans.

The odds against this are absolutely mind boggling. But if you rally want to believe that this all happenned by absolute chance, with no divine guidance whatsoever, then in all likelihood neither I nor statistical evidence will be able to dissuade you.

texaspatrick | June 12, 2007 09:02 AM

Well, if the link on instapundit doesn't send you there . . . nothing will . . .

John Scalzi | June 12, 2007 09:11 AM

KSM:

"But if you rally want to believe that this all happenned by absolute chance, with no divine guidance whatsoever, then in all likelihood neither I nor statistical evidence will be able to dissuade you."

What I understand is that you haven't got much of a grip on how evolution works, KSM, and that I don't have the inclination to educate you on the subject. If you want to pass such a foolish statement on to an actual evolutionary biologist, by all means please do, and then please take detailed notes as he or she details all the ways your ignorance of evolution leads you to make fatuous statements..

texaspatrick | June 12, 2007 09:16 AM

Well, if the link on instapundit doesn't send you there . . . nothing will . . .

KSM | June 12, 2007 10:07 AM

My training and education is as a scientist. While I am not a biologist, I think we all would agree that scientific fields other than just biology often have much to say about the theory of evolution.

I feel that I already have a reasonalbe high level grasp of the mechanics upon which the theory of evolution rests. Genetic mutations, survival of the fittest, etc.

I'll read the article you linked too (assuming it is not unbearably lengthy) and let you know my opinion. Thanks for your input.

JorgXMcKie | June 12, 2007 10:26 AM

The problem with using statistical arguments when discussing evolution is that most people who do don't know enough statistics.

When Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" came out, he attempted to buttress his examples (now mostly, if not totally discredited) of how the necessary mutations couldn't possibly happen with a bogus statistical example.

Fundamentally, he claimed that getting two (or more) complementary mutations to occur at the same time (or sequentially enough to be useful) was equivalent to winning the Irish Sweepstakes (or some other million-to-one shot) twice in succession. That is a terrible metaphor (or simile?). Getting the necessary mutations in bacteria or very small living beings (as he was discussing) is like having 2 copies of every one of the million different numbers in the Irish Sweepstakes that are good indefinitely (i.e. you don't have to buy new tickets each year.) It is *inevitable* in some sense.

Given something like 2 billion years and some bazillions of entities, the chances of useful mutations approach, if they don't exceed, 1. THe question is not "is useful mutation going to happen?" it's "when will useful mutation happen and what will it look like?"

Anyway, I'm in.

Mfitz | June 12, 2007 10:35 AM

KSM, Scalzi may not want to take time to educate you on evolution but I will.

There are no such things as missing links or transitional animals, or rather every living creature is a missing link and transitional animal. Every living creature is an equally important link in the evolutionary chain of it's species. Also, there are no "living fossils" every living thing alive to day has been evolving for the same amount of time, so it is false to say that crocodiles are a "fossil species" since they have changed little since before the time of the dinosaurs or that humans evolved from chimps. Nothing alive today evolved from any other species alive today, although some species, like chimps and humans, had common ancestors.

Evolution works not on individuals but on populations over time. New species don't happen in a single generation. All population contain variation. The reasons for new variation seem random but are probably not. Almost all variations are small since most big genetic changes are lethal. The whole 'lucky mutant" explanation of evolution is pretty much an invention of the popular press not evolutionary biologists, at least not biologists working after the discovery of the mechanics of inheritance (genes). The distribution of any variation in a population changes for environmental reasons. Populations change not by random chance, but through the predictable gradual accumulation of traits made adventitious due to environmental change.

As far as the gaps in the fossil record go, the conditions for something dieing in a way that it can become a fossil, in a locations that humans can later find it and study are rare. As someone who is both a student of Natural History and a church going Catholic it seems to me the fact it happens at all is pretty much a miracle, and one of the strongest proofs that God exists.

John Scalzi | June 12, 2007 10:46 AM

KSM:

"My training and education is as a scientist. While I am not a biologist, I think we all would agree that scientific fields other than just biology often have much to say about the theory of evolution."

Not really. That's like saying a botanist has a lot of useful things to say about cosmology, or that a podiatrist is competent to be an anesthesiologist. If you're not a biologist (much less an evolutionary biologist), it's entirely conceivable you haven't the first clue as to how evolutionary biology works.

Enjoy the linked article; however, don't feel the need to respond to it at length here, as I'm not inclined to have this thread devolve (heh) into another tiresome gumming of the issue.

KSM | June 12, 2007 11:05 AM

Mfitz -

I'd love to respnd in depth, but I have to attend to my day job.

Thanks for the details in your reply. I was pretty much aware of what you laid out.

One concern I have about your statements is that many biological features are actually disadvantageous to survival unless they are relatively complete. For instance (and I am sure there are many better examples) the eye of a mammal. It must be nearly complete to give any survival advantage to the host creature, otherwise it is actually a disadvantage. So if it evolved slowly, then while yet incomplete it actually reduced the survivability of those who had it. This is kind of like a self-braking system that discourages successful features that are also complex - but we see these all around us.

The crux of the argument I see is that many who belittle intelligent design often insist that there could NOT possibly be any divine hand in creation at all. They INSIST that God absolutely had nothing to do with any of it. They bundle the two topics together. Yet their theory would be a lot more believable if they would simply admit that this aspect of their argument is due to their religious beliefs and opinions, and that acceptance or rejection of a divine role in creation, whatever the method, cannot be ruled out by mere science.

zipper | June 12, 2007 11:11 AM

if you really thought you had the facts and the evidence on your side would you be upset over a thousand creation museums?

For those willing to put their brain in gear i recommend Wolfgang Smith's small book Cosmos and Transcendence.

Anonymous | June 12, 2007 11:15 AM

Scalzi -

You use extremes to illustrate your point, and in my opinion you over reach.

It is true that a botanist might not have much to say about cosmology, but that doesn't mean that a cosmologist, even though he is not a biologist, doesn't have something significant to contribute to the discussion of evolution. After all, he studies the things that impact our knowledge about the age of the earth and what conditions were like on earth eons ago.

Also, math, physics and chemistry are fully relevant and necessary to the discussion of evolution. And so is statistics, properly understood and applied. None of these sciences exist in a vacuum. They all relate to one another.

If a theory seems feasible according to biology, yet it were proven mathematically to be impossible, then that theory would be disproven, or at least sent back to the drawing board for re-thinking. Right?

Mfitz | June 12, 2007 11:36 AM

KSM,

Your statement about the evolution of the eye is just not correct.

The evolution of the camera eye, they type of eye mammals have, is well understood and documented. I don't know how to post pictures here or I would post a chart with the different stages of the process.

This type of eye evolved more than once in several not too closely related species. Octopi and jumping spiders all have camera eyes that work mechanically the same way mammal eyes do, although the biology is a little different in each case. This seems to prove that a camera eye is not all that hard a trait to developed.

Also, don't put words in my mouth. I do believe there is a God and I do believe God is responsible for creation. (Which is a verb not a noun) I don't think it matters to God how we look, or see, or what we breath, or eat. I don't think God is micromanaging the ongoing process of Creation though ID. I think God's a better artist than that.

homeboy | June 12, 2007 11:39 AM

I'd like to add a little fuel to the fire, if I may?

My background is electrical engineering and chemical science with a bit of self study in microbiology.

"The anthropic observation: Our universe is much more complex than most universes with the same laws but different values of the parameters of those laws. In particular, it has a complex astrophysics, including galaxies and long lived stars, and a complex chemistry, including carbon chemistry. These necessary conditions for life are present in our universe as a consequence of the complexity which is made possible by the special values of the parameters.

There is good evidence that the anthropic observation is true. Why it is true is a puzzle that science must solve."

The point of that comment, cribbed from KurzweilAI.net, http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0647.html?m%3D1, is the observation that carbon chemistry is possible because of those finely tuned physical properties.

Carbon chemistry just about demands the self assembly of replicating materials which many people see as a basis to mean that life is probable. It is, but only with the underlying physical properties.

So do we see evidence of a creator in such a finely tuned universe and chemistry? Do we see design? Is existence not just an accident, but a finely tuned one at that? Or is it the result of some sort of first principle that we don't understand? Maybe even God?

I have some sympathy for creationists, but I don't think you have to be stupid about it. Was Jesus Christ the manifestation of whatever forces created our university, or just the inevitable result of that creation? Seems more likely the later to me.

What would Occam's Razor imply? Both approaches seem to require too many assumptions to be plausible. It sure leaves room for creationists to doubt, and even to argue plausably that God did it.

I don't know, but it sure isn't as simple as most Darwinists make it out to be.

MWT | June 12, 2007 11:45 AM

KSM: I think we all would agree that scientific fields other than just biology often have much to say about the theory of evolution.

Sure, in the same sense that chemistry has much to say about plate tectonics, or warfare has much to say about chess, or wheat agriculture has much to say about Italian pasta...

I'll read the article you linked too (assuming it is not unbearably lengthy)...

For some reason you seem to think that getting a good grasp of evolutionary biology would not require you to read anything lengthy? You do know that evolution is a whole huge subfield of biology, right? What science are you in?

Incidentally I always recommend http://www.talkorigins.org as a good starting point for creationists who actually want to learn about what they're trying to argue about, including which common failed arguments have occurred in the past (e.g. "missing link") and what the responses to them were.

zipper: if you really thought you had the facts and the evidence on your side would you be upset over a thousand creation museums?

It's not so much the fact that the museum exists. It's the fact that the people who put it there want to insist that everyone in the U.S. must learn about it and (presumably) believe it, in the form of putting it into every public grade school science class. If they wanted to teach it in their churches, or a religious studies class, or comparative mythology, or human history, that would be quite a bit different than putting it into science, because it isn't science.

MWT | June 12, 2007 11:52 AM

Incidentally also, about the evolution of the eye: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

John Scalzi | June 12, 2007 12:07 PM

Anonymous:

"You use extremes to illustrate your point, and in my opinion you over reach."

Nonsense. There's nothing any more extreme in my example than in suggesting that any random person with "education and training" in science might be able to speak knowledgeably about a subject as complex as evolutionary biology. To suggest this is an extreme is to misapprehend the word "extremes." Indeed, it's far less extreme, as I am comparing scientist to scientist, as opposed to comparing "scientist" to "some anonymous person on the internet claiming to have a science degree, possibly attempting to arrogate to themselves expertise they don't have."

And quite obviously it's your opinion that I overreach, because the comparison is inconvenient to you and your argument, and the only way you have to discredit it is to attempt to shift the ground of the argument. Which is, of course, a common strategy for folks trying to get around evolution.

Zipper:

"if you really thought you had the facts and the evidence on your side would you be upset over a thousand creation museums?"

Are you under the impression I'm upset about the Creation Museum? On the contrary. I think it's funny when millions get spent to underscore just how willfully ignorant some people can be.

KSM:

Oh, tell me you didn't just haul out the eye thing. You so entirely lose at evolutionary biology and any sort of claims of knowledge thereof, that I now feel entirely justified in ignoring anything else you have to say on the subject. Stop before you embarrass yourself further.

Indeed, as noted before, I would be pleased not to have this turn into the same damn back and forth about evolution that we have to have every single time someone who either hasn't been to talk.origins or refuses to comprehend what is there decides to lump out the same damn arguments. Consider this a strong hint not to have this conversation further.

Mfitz | June 12, 2007 12:34 PM

If you look into it a little you will find that a number of people who are upset about the Creation Museum are as much up set about Ken Hamm, AIG and the other people behind it as they are about the museum.

It's not just about Creationism being taught as Science instead of Religion. These people did not play nice with local community and used some nasty political moves and out and out dirty tricks along the way to getting the place built. They very much seemed to feel that they were doing God's work so the rule of law and even common curtasy didn't apply to them. If you look up the KY Post archives you can read about this going back to the first zoning board meeting when the idea of the museum was still mostly blue sky talk. (The Enquirer didn't cover anyting that made them look bad, of course.)

The farmer who let the protesters use his land on Memorial Day had some of his crops poisoned the night before. That's the sort of thing that has upset the locals.

The local Baptist Church was one of the sponcers of the opening day protests so that tells you something right there.

Lee | June 12, 2007 01:03 PM

Wowsers. I scroll down hoping to put in a "me too" giggle for the $25 I sent and I run into this 20 car pileup at the end. Kind of took all the fun out of it.

Then again, the Right's been taking the fun out of stuff for just about forever.

Anonymous | June 12, 2007 02:00 PM

Mfitz -

My statement about those who absolutely rule out any involvment by God in how we got here was not directed at you. I apologize if I gave you the impression that it was.

Your statement (I paraphrase) that "the fact that the camera eye appears in several different organisms seems to prove that a camera eye is not all that hard a trait to develope (via evolution)" is interesting. It's not exactly circular reasoning, but it comes close. If the design and realization of a biological eye is, as you say, not that hard to have evolve by accident, then I am amazed that our best scientists have not yet been able to replicate it.
Isn't your statement a bit like saying "Since there are numerous nuclear power plants on earth, they must not be hard to build"?

MWT -
Yes, I am aware that evolution is a "a whole huge subfield of biology". Just how detailed must one's knowledge be before he/she is entitled to form an educated opinion on the subject?
My field is mathematics and Computer Science. And before you ask "What does a Computer Scientist know about biology?" you might want to give some thought to recent developments in nanotechnology and prosthetics.

Scalzi -
This is your blog and so I'll respect your request to not offer thoughts or opinions that contradict your view. I hope you enjoy talking with each other.

Peace.

John Scalzi | June 12, 2007 02:15 PM

Anonymous:

"This is your blog and so I'll respect your request to not offer thoughts or opinions that contradict your view."

Oh, please.

People disagree with me all the time. That's not the issue. The issue is that having the same damn conversation about evolution with willfully ignorant people who don't know what they're talking about but expect me to give their willful ignorance some respect bores the fuck out of me. It's always the same stupid and disproven arguments, the same dance of denial, the same blah blah blah blah.

Disagree with me all you want. Just don't bore me with the same stupid shit. Because, honest, I've heard all this stupid shit before. It's a waste of my time.

Don | June 12, 2007 02:43 PM

I'm in for my $6.67 (I'm only a neighbor to evil).

Gary Thompson | June 12, 2007 03:06 PM

Fundamentally, he claimed that getting two (or more) complementary mutations to occur at the same time (or sequentially enough to be useful) was equivalent to winning the Irish Sweepstakes.

Ah, yes. The old ad lotterium argument. Anyone who use this (to justify anything, really) apparently fails to realize that someone wins the lottery ALMOST EVERY WEEK. In other words, if you have 1,000,000 tickets on a 1,000,000:1 shot, your odds are...1.

Disagree with me all you want. Just don't bore me with the same stupid shit. Because, honest, I've heard all this stupid shit before. It's a waste of my time.

Exactly. Now the guy who argued that scripture insisted on a fixed earth, and based his argument on realativistic reference frames...now that was inspired quackery.

John Scalzi | June 12, 2007 03:13 PM

Gary Thompson:

"Now the guy who argued that scripture insisted on a fixed earth, and based his argument on realativistic reference frames...now that was inspired quackery."

Indeed. And everyone knows I give credit for originality.

Barry Kearns | June 12, 2007 03:25 PM

homeboy: the observation that carbon chemistry is possible because of those finely tuned physical properties.

Why would you assume that those parameters are even adjustable to begin with? Are the parameters quantized? Are they independent? What is the range of possible values for each parameter (and how would you know)? What would the expected distribution be within that range on multiple trials?

How do you know that all of the parameters in question aren't themselves dependent upon a tiny number of fundamental parameters... which may, in fact, be constants, not variables?

I contend that those who posit the "finely tuned" argument have nothing significant at all to stand on... it's pure guesswork on their part. After all, how many other universes have they used to test their hypothesis about parameter distribution?

What possible piece of evidence could you have which would indicate to you that the universe doesn't have to have the parameters it does? If the fundamental parameters are constants, the probability of getting this set of universal laws is... 1. Without knowing the parameterization, you can't ever make a meaningful probability calculation in this case.

Dawno | June 12, 2007 04:16 PM

I contributed. How much does PayPal deduct? I padded my contribution by 10% hoping it would cover that. Also, my email address wasn't in the message - do you get that with the paypal receipt? If not, and I'm hoping for goodies, you can use the one I used for this comment.

homeboy | June 12, 2007 06:04 PM

Mr. Kearns,

I made no assumptions about parameterization. I just noted that the universe is delicately balanced to produce the results that we see. I don't know why.

Since lack of a rational explanation isn't going to stop people from trying to make sense of existence, they're going to believe all sorts of silly stuff, from believing that God explained it all in the bible, to the idea that science has reached a level of development to make sense of it. Both seem like equally unsuportable belief systems to me, but science may have the potential to eventually make sense of it.

Darwinism is a fine description of how evolution has functioned, and should be respected for that reason. However, it does not and cannot explain why the fine structure of the universe is so hospitable to the carbon chemistry which underlies life.

MWT | June 12, 2007 06:46 PM

Anonymous (or KSM, if I'm guessing right here): If the design and realization of a biological eye is, as you say, not that hard to have evolve by accident,

It didn't happen by accident. It happened because each step was advantageous to the organism in some way.

then I am amazed that our best scientists have not yet been able to replicate it.

What does that have to do with anything? Tomatoes aren't hard to grow either, but I don't see scientists designing those from scratch.

Just how detailed must one's knowledge be before he/she is entitled to form an educated opinion on the subject?

I think one ought to have an education in the subject before one can form an educated opinion. At least a couple college level classes in Evolution would be helpful, if not a biology degree. Where I went to college, Evolution was a senior level class with prerequisites of genetics and molecular biology. Some places also require ecology. Failing that, read through that talkorigins website mentioned earlier.

From a slightly different angle... I have degrees in biology and geology, and I'm also pretty good with computer hardware, software, and bits of basic coding (html, matlab, SAS). Would you expect me to form an educated opinion about anything in the field of Artificial Intelligence?

From a somewhat religious angle, since you're into computers ... I like to think of God as a computer programmer. The universe is his program. And now that he's done writing up the code for it, he can sit back and watch it run.

This is your [Scalzi's] blog and so I'll respect your request to not offer thoughts or opinions that contradict your view.

So far you've not said anything that hasn't been tried gadzillions of times over the decades. When you can come up with something to say that isn't already discussed in this FAQ list of common past arguments, then come back and try again.

Barry Kearns | June 12, 2007 07:09 PM

homeboy: I made no assumptions about parameterization. I just noted that the universe is delicately balanced to produce the results that we see. I don't know why.

Why would you assume that it is "balanced", let alone delicately so? You're apparently operating from the premise that the parameters were somehow
tweaked with this end result in mind. I think that's looking at it backwards. It seems to make more sense to me to see the end result ("life and the universe as we know it") as a logical emergent property of the parameters, rather than the parameters being chosen to give the end result.

Darwinism is a fine description of how evolution has functioned, and should be respected for that reason. However, it does not and cannot explain why the fine structure of the universe is so hospitable to the carbon chemistry which underlies life.

It's not supposed to. It's not a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Again, I think this is a case of looking at the situation backwards. It's not that the universe is unusually adapted to support carbon chemistry (and the life forms that use it), it's the other way around.

We get life the way we see it because the universe has those parameters... not that the universe has those parameters so that we'll have life.

We have no experience with universes with different parameters (if that is even possible), so we can say nothing about exactly what would be expected to arise under those alternate conditions. Suffice it to say that I would expect that in a theoretical differently-parameterized universe, you might very well see entirely different forms of energy exchange and chemistry develop, and life that arose there might then look around in wonderment at how "finely tuned" the match is between their universe and their form of chemistry.

It wouldn't be "life as we know it", but we shouldn't necessarily expect it to be. Life adapts to the environment. Not so much, the other way around.

Carol Elaine | June 12, 2007 07:18 PM

I've linked to this entry in my blog and will contribute once I get paid on Friday. I'm still deciding on if I want to be evil, a neighbor to evil, or just a supporter of evil.

homeboy | June 12, 2007 09:23 PM

Mr. Kearns,

From the wiki article:
"Victor Stenger characterizes the fine-tuned universe concept as capable of being interpreted as a "claim of evidence for divine cosmic plan": "As the argument goes, the chance that any initially random set of constants would correspond to the set of values that we find in our universe is very small and the universe is exceedingly unlikely to be the result of mindless chance. Rather, an intelligent, purposeful Creator must have arranged the constants to support life".[2] Stenger in that paper is critical of the claims of the fine-tuning advocates and provides his own explanations highlighting the flaws in those claims, concluding that "The universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe".

This seems to be the basis for your argument? I made a similar but somewhat different argument, for an entirely different purpose. Yes our life is fine-tuned to the universe. Our chemistry exists in this universe. As I'm sure you're aware, our chemistry is extremely tuned for life to exist. Carbon chain chemistry imposes near life complexity on non-living chemicals. That is why the transition to life is so much more likely than the random linkage of atoms might suggest.

When we have learned enough to be able to understand how this chemistry acctually occurs, we might have something to say about whether or not this is purposeful, or has any other cause. The fact is that we know is that we are alive in the universe that we are in, and that that universe does appear to be defined by a large number of properties, of which small changes in the ones we understand somewhat, appears to produce a universe with much less likelyhood of any kind of life, not just "Life as we know it".

Does that mean 'God' created the universe? Does it mean that it is just an accident? Does it mean that there are infinte numbers of universes and we exist because we are in this universe?

To put it very simply, nobody has a rational reason for choosing any of these options. We can rationalize the selection of any of them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You somehow wish to impose reaons on something, the existence of the universe, that there doesn't appear to be evidence for.

So now, I will attempt to discern what your reasons might be for doing such a thing, as you have attempted with me. You appear to be terrified that there might be some area of science which might allow, if not support, the existence of some sort of 'God'. Why is that so important for you? I think most people, including most scientists and also religious people, realize that they can't know everything; why do you feel that you have to 'know' that there is no room for God in human cosmology, even as a sort of placeholder while we learn a bit more about how things work?

You must know that there are a very many things about the universe that humans don't know, and aren't likely to know for quite some time? But in this area, you are Sure, in much the same way that religious people are Sure. My belief is that you are right, to not believe in God; I don't. However, I also know that I don't know enough to make a rational argument to support that belief. But you can. Cool.

Chris | June 13, 2007 04:21 AM

Donation submitted. [And yes, this former Paypal
virgin opened an account. Just. For. You.]
Hope the coffers will be overflowing ere Friday!

Looking forward to all the low-down and twice the
snark.

jasonmitchell | June 13, 2007 10:17 AM

just contributed my $.02 (x 333.5)

here is something for hoemboy, and some other of the apparently anti-evolution/pro creation folks to consider:

why is it that for some, their faith is so weak that a concept like evolution threatens it?

Evolution (and science in general) does not DENY the existance of God- Evolution (and science in general) IGNORES God. and regarding the anthropic pricipal (the "fine tuning" of the universe for humanity) - the whole argument is logicly flawed- similar to arguing that a pothole was intelligently designed / fine tuned to be the perfect size and shape to hold the puddle of water that it contains - rediculous

Jon Marcus | June 13, 2007 11:33 AM

Gonna give equal time to Darwin (at the Field Museum) next time you're in Chicago?

Steve Buchheit | June 13, 2007 12:46 PM

homeboy, "To put it very simply, nobody has a rational reason for choosing any of these options."

Yes, Darwin was just speaking out of his posterior, not from years of observation and more years of rational thought on his observations.

See, I took College Chemistry, and while that whole "electron transfer" thing sounds good for the merging of elements into molecules, frankly, because it hasn't been directly observed, I'm going with the thought that it was tiny pixies doing all the heavy lifting at the sub-atomic level.

And while we're at it, giant trolls are responsible for plate techtonics.

And NASA put up enough satellites and junk in space, which reflect the light of the sun, and that creates the effect that we now see on earth as stars.

My, this is a wonderful crack in the sidewalk this puddle finds himself in. It fits me so, why, it must have been made for me (that's a literary reference, just soes you knows).

-et- | June 13, 2007 04:23 PM

Donation sent!

$13.32 - because I am twice as evil . . .

With best wishes,
- Tom -

tceisele | June 13, 2007 04:52 PM

I wasn't going to force you to go to the creation science "museum", but now that everyone else has put you over the line, I can at least make sure that Americans United for Separation of Church and State get a good bonus out of this. I'm in for $10.

Barry Kearns | June 13, 2007 06:11 PM

homeboy quotes in italics:

As I'm sure you're aware, our chemistry is extremely tuned for life to exist. Carbon chain chemistry imposes near life complexity on non-living chemicals. That is why the transition to life is so much more likely than the random linkage of atoms might suggest.

I know no such thing. I know that you (and others) posit this, but the entire phrasing literally begs the question. I don't see how you support the contention that "our chemistry is extremely tuned for life to exist". The use of the word "for" there implies a purpose, as does "tuning". I know of no evidence that indicates that any sort of "tuning" is even possible for particular fundamental constants, let alone that it is purposeful.

When we have learned enough to be able to understand how this chemistry acctually occurs, we might have something to say about whether or not this is purposeful, or has any other cause.

And in the meantime, I posit that there is therefore no concrete basis to treat these physical laws as if they were "fine-tuned". Don't treat it as an axiom, defend it as an assertion (if you can).

The fact is that we know is that we are alive in the universe that we are in, and that that universe does appear to be defined by a large number of properties

Actually, I'd recommend that you review a history of the number of "fundamental constants", and see which direction that number is taking over time. I think you'll see that, as we learn more, we discover that there are fewer and fewer parameters that are truly fundamental. The "large" number of those properties is a likely commentary on our state of knowledge, not on the state of reality itself. It may be that there is actually only one (or a tiny number of) truly base constants... and they may actually be constant. We don't know, so we have no basis to assume that "constants" are actually variables.

The paper "Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants" has a good related discussion of these concepts.

of which small changes in the ones we understand somewhat, appears to produce a universe with much less likelyhood of any kind of life, not just "Life as we know it".

As I initially pointed out, why would you operate from the perspective that you understand what a "small" change is in those parameters, let alone whether it is even possible to change them? Shouldn't we first require an understanding of the meta-nature of the spectrum of universe creation, before we can speak intelligently about what a "small" change is to a fundamental parameter? Why in the world would we assume that a fundamental constant is a variable, and that it can be selected from a random distribution?!? We can't even tell if it's a variable in universe creation, let alone whether it is quantized.

Under such conditions, speaking of a "small" change is intellectually vacuous at best. I contend that we are quite likely utterly ignorant of how and if fundamental constants could be different, and therefore "tuning" is a nonsensical notion until such time as we know the underlying fundamentals... let alone that we know how it would have come out with our made-up parameters, which may be entirely impossible in reality.

You somehow wish to impose reaons on something, the existence of the universe, that there doesn't appear to be evidence for.

Err... no. Precisely the opposite. I'm railing precisely AGAINST that. I have contended all along that we are massively ignorant with respect to this matter, and therefore to assert that something is "fine-tuned" is not a meaningful assertion to make. "Unknown" is not the same as "assumes any imaginable value with a random distribution".

So now, I will attempt to discern what your reasons might be for doing such a thing, as you have attempted with me. You appear to be terrified that there might be some area of science which might allow, if not support, the existence of some sort of 'God'. Why is that so important for you? I think most people, including most scientists and also religious people, realize that they can't know everything; why do you feel that you have to 'know' that there is no room for God in human cosmology, even as a sort of placeholder while we learn a bit more about how things work?

Oh please, spare me. You're horribly off-base here. I'm completely willing and able to accept the existence of a God, but I see no logically supported evidence. If I subscribe to anything, it's Laplace's reply to Napoleon: "I have no need for such a hypothesis".

The God hypothesis doesn't really explain anything to me, it has no real utility for me. I can make no predictions from it, nor engineer anything based upon its principles.

If I saw evidence based on something other than ignorance, I'd be happy to accept the conclusions it lead to. In the novel "Contact", Carl Sagan included an absolutely brilliant example of simple, undeniable proof that could be discovered, and seeing something like that would convince me utterly that the universe had to have been engineered. My standards aren't quite that high, but something like that would likely "seal the deal" for many scientists everywhere... and I'd be right there in the vanguard.

You must know that there are a very many things about the universe that humans don't know, and aren't likely to know for quite some time? But in this area, you are Sure, in much the same way that religious people are Sure. My belief is that you are right, to not believe in God; I don't. However, I also know that I don't know enough to make a rational argument to support that belief. But you can. Cool.

You have utterly misread me. Nowhere in any of this did I intend to state that I was "sure" of anything. I think I did a quite-good job of qualifying my statements enough that I felt safe in not having to explicitly qualify absolutely everything. However, I don't have to be certain of the actual nature of the universe to recognize a logical error. I'm contending that the argument is logically meaningless, because we don't have a proper basis from which to evaluate it. I am quite unsure of the actual nature of the universe, and I'm comfortable being unsure, too.

Swing and a miss, pal.

As for "I also know that I don't know enough to make a rational argument to support that belief", I find it mildly amusing that you're apparently unable (or unwilling) to recognize how applicable it is to your "fine-tuned" assertions with respect to life, the universe and chemistry. ;)

I contend that anyone who is "sure" has probably stopped doing proper science outright, and is now in the realm of religion. Pretty-much everything is up for revision as far as I'm concerned. I have no sacred cows. But I need some sort of mechanism for sorting the wheat from the chaff, and reason, logic and the scientific method have served well in that respect IMO.

In the meantime, I'll continue to reject logically flawed assertions when I see them... not because I'm "terrified" that there might be a God, or "sure" that there isn't one... but instead because that's where logic and reason take me.

To prevent this from growing exponentially, I'll either not respond further, or only to individual, specific assertions. Apologies to all for the length. Hard to resiste the urge to fisk!

Barry Kearns | June 13, 2007 07:47 PM

Follow-up: I was referring earlier to the trend for the number of fundamental constants, and I think my point applies to the dimensionful fundamental constants... but it is true that the number of "dimensionless" fundamental constants being bandied about is now about 26, which is a relatively recent spike upward.

However, if looked at carefully, I believe that 22 or so of those 26 are tied in intimately with the Higgs boson. I think it's reasonable to assume that we could be looking at something where a solid understanding of that one entity might yield a "Higgs constant" or two, which might rapidly plummet that number to about 5 or so.

One of the goal of most TOE/GUT theories is to get that number to (ideally) zero... in which case the fine-tuning argument fully evaporates.

Rick | June 14, 2007 09:46 AM

What is this, Usenet?

Diane | June 14, 2007 10:18 AM

Even though you're over, I just sent in $25. AU is a worthy organization, but I'm already a member anyway, so please feel free to use my donation to buy anti-emetics as necessary. And please make sure to tell us all about their horrifying souvenirs!

Kelsey | June 14, 2007 12:26 PM

Just donated to the cause. I want me some extras.

Maybe we should send John to Bible Park USA next.

He's practically our puppet. It's fun.

Dave Weingart | June 14, 2007 12:31 PM

I am SO looking forward to the snark that comes from this.

Edd Vick | June 14, 2007 03:41 PM

I'm in.

Alpha | June 14, 2007 09:31 PM

Well, I went ahead and donated $32 to them directly, since my employer matches my contribution. So even though it's not going through you, that's $64 to the Americans United for Separation of Church and State due to your fundraising drive.

I guess I don't really have a way of proving this to you, but you can chalk this donation up to your effort!

John Scalzi | June 14, 2007 10:04 PM

Well, Alpha, that's good too. Thanks.

Hans Mast | June 15, 2007 04:27 AM

I don't know the curator, or his history, but considering the pictures I've seen of the exhibits ("cheesy" would dignify them; they look like refugees from an old TV studio yard sale) I wonder if the curator isn't running a really nifty little grift here.

Wikipedia:

The museum's many displays and exhibits are designed to be state of the art, and include 52 professionally made videos.[22] In addition to large movie screens showing a young-earth history of the world, the museum also features a 78-seat planetarium depicting creationist cosmologies and a 200-seat special effects theater with seats that vibrate and jets that can spray the audience with mist.[23][5] Perhaps most notably, the museum features life-size dinosaur models, over 80 of them animatronic (animated and motion-sensitive). Model dinosaurs are depicted in the Garden of Eden, many of them side-by-side with human figures.[24] In one exhibit, a model Triceratops is shown wearing a saddle and another, along with a Stegosaurus, is shown aboard a scale model of Noah's Ark.[25][2] Many of the displays were designed by Patrick Marsh, who had formerly worked for Universal Studios designing attractions such as Jaws and King Kong before becoming a born-again Christian and young Earth creationist.[26][22]

Other rooms on the tour depict Old Testament prophets, Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses, and the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. Some of the last rooms on the tour show modern times and imply that families and society are hurt by the acceptance of evolution.[5] In one video, a male teenager is shown sitting at a computer looking at internet pornography and a female teenager speaks with Planned Parenthood about having an abortion; both acts are blamed on their belief that the Earth is "millions of years" old.[22][27][28][29] The climax of the walk through will be the life of Jesus Christ with a three-dimensional depiction of the crucifixion.[12] The exhibits have been called "painstakingly detailed" and even critics have agreed that "Answers in Genesis has gone to great lengths to make their new museum a place that has quality displays".[5][30]

Hans Mast | June 15, 2007 05:24 AM

Plus, I bet they still have Pluto listed as a planet.

If that's a slam, you just slammed the whole scientific establishment.

Clay | June 15, 2007 12:52 PM

In for $10. Only adding this comment to help in the guess the amount war.

Clay | June 15, 2007 01:16 PM

^&@#*(!!

Unable to follow simple instructions and say Museum Donations. Oh well, it's a good cause, and I shouldn't expect goodies when I have the reading comprehension of Spam.

KW | June 15, 2007 07:34 PM

I'm in for $10.

Ray | June 15, 2007 08:43 PM

In for $10, too! I'll go ahead and make my guess .. somewhere in the neighborhood of $1423.. and three photos of galapagos turtles.

absolute | June 16, 2007 04:17 PM

[Deleted because it's a huge post largely comprised of all caps, which regardless of content tends to indicate the person posting has the brains of a lemur. Two subsequent postings deleted because they appear to be largely incoherent nonsense.

Absolute, if you think you can post a single post that is not all caps and that is comprised of coherent sentences, then do so; otherwise take your blabbering elsewhere -- JS]