Wednesday, August 23rd | 1 Elul 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
May 4, 2012 12:09 pm

Darwin Akbar! “Darwin is God, and I – Dr. Jerry Coyne – Am His Prophet!” (Part 2)

avatar by Moshe Averick

Email a copy of "Darwin Akbar! “Darwin is God, and I – Dr. Jerry Coyne – Am His Prophet!” (Part 2)" to a friend

Dr. Jerry Coyne, of the University of Chicago

Dr. Jerry Coyne, evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, is a deeply religious man. His religion is called Scientific Naturalism. The central dogma of this particular religion is that every phenomenon in human experience can be explained in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. As we shall see, Dr. Coyne and his co-religionists are slavishly devoted to this dogma whether or not there is evidence to support its truth. In other words, they have taken a great leap of faith that science has an answer for everything. Coyne is so committed to this idea that I honestly do not believe he is aware of how his role as a scientist has become hopelessly intertwined and confused with his ideological stances.

In his recent article, “Science, Religion, and Society: The Problem of Evolution in America, Coyne tells us that, “there are several ways that I see religion and science as incompatible. The first involves methodology…beyond this incompatibility in methodology and outcomes is a philosophical incompatibility: the scientific [?!] view that supernatural beings aren’t just unnecessary to explain the universe, but can be taken as non-existent (Philosphical Naturalism).” He then goes on to self-servingly quote atheistic philosopher, Dr. Barbara Forrest, whom we discover – much to our shock and surprise – agrees with Coyne’s position. However we choose to define “Science,” one thing we can all agree on; that science deals with the physical, material universe. The notion that there is a “Scientific” view of a reality outside of the bounds of the physical – that is to say, the “supernatural,” – is absolutely nonsensical.  A scientist may have personal views about the existence or non-existence of a reality outside of the laws of physics and chemistry, but Science, by definition, has nothing to say on the subject. The notion of a scientific view of the supernatural is clearly an oxymoron.

Dr. Barbara Forrest, Professor of Philosophy at S.E. Louisiana University, shares Dr. Coyne's belief in Scientific Naturalism

Coyne then doubles-down on this inherently incoherent position: “The idea that deities don’t affect the universe, then, is not an unjustified a priori assumption…but a conclusion born of experience; the experience that only a naturalistic – that is, a scientific one – has helped us understand nature and make verified predictions about it. ”  Coyne does not seem to understand that Science – again, by definition – is all about, and only about, the study of the “natural” world. To say that “only the study of Science has helped us understand Nature,” is the same as saying that “only the study of Science has helped us understand Science!” I don’t know of any intelligent believer in a monotheistic religion that does not accept that there are natural physical laws that govern our universe and that there is great benefit and value to the scientific method. That is not the conflict between religion and scientists like Coyne at all. The conflict would be about the source of these laws (about which Science, of course, is clueless) and whether or not there is anything in human experience other than these laws. Coyne continues, “As our confidence that science helps us understand the universe grows, so wanes our notion that immaterial and supernatural forces exist.”  What a puzzling, bizarre statement.  I, as an Orthodox Rabbi, have tremendous confidence that scientific investigation helps us understand the universe! What does that have to do with the issue at hand? I simply assert that scientific investigation is grossly inadequate to explain the totality of human experience and existence.

Coyne’s entire position is based on an incredibly arrogant assumption; namely, that all of us must give special privilege and pleading to those who wear white lab coats to work. In Coyne’s world, the scientist has become the new shaman and medicine man. Everything he says must be accepted without, Darwin forbid, any type of critical analysis or questioning. A telling illustration of this point is found in an article by Lisa Grossman (1/11/12, New Scientist), entitled “Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event.”

Related coverage

September 7, 2016 6:28 am
8

Petty Orthodoxy

Thetorah.com is a website that analyzes the weekly reading of the Torah for people who do not take every word in the Torah...

The opening paragraph of her article describes how some of latest discoveries from the world of cosmology put a damper on a meeting convened in honor of the 70th birthday of world renowned physicist, Dr. Stephen Hawking. The “bad news” was that new research suggested there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the universe is not eternal, “resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.”  Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University explained that, “all the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning.” This was terrible news because as Grossman explained, Dr. Hawking “shies away” from a cosmic beginning and has stated that, “a point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God.”

Dr. Stephen Hawking, world-renowned physicist. Hawking is uncomfortable with the idea of science being limited in its explanatory powers. One might then have to appeal to "religion and the hand of God."

To any thinking human being, Grossman’s description above should evoke several powerful questions that reach out and grab one by the throat: Why should a rational scientist “shy away” from any particular conclusion at all? Why should the notion of a cosmic beginning “disturb” Dr. Hawking? Why should it cause dismay if there is a point where “science breaks down,” causing one to “appeal to religion and the hand of God?” If that is where the evidence leads us, if that is where the truth lies, for what possible reason should this be cause for alarm? There is only one possible answer to this question: Dr. Hawking – in this area – is not really interested in the truth at all. He is interested in promoting his atheistic/materialistic agenda and clothing it in the garb of Science. In the same vein, John Maddox, former editor of Nature magazine, once wrote that the Big-Bang theory was “philosophically unacceptable.” Maddox and Hawking, like Coyne, seem oblivious to the fact that their ideological prejudices interfere with their rational/scientific judgment.

Coyne also declares that “many of the truths revealed by Abrahamic faiths, have been disproven by science, these include special creation…and have rendered implausible other religious claims, like…a soul separate from the brain or body. I have written extensively on both of these topics a number of times, so let’s dispose of them quickly:

  • Special Creation: The simplest living bacterium is functionally complex beyond anything that human technology is capable of producing. There is no scientist or Origin of Life researcher in the world who has the slightest idea (other than speculative musings) how such life could emerge from non-life through an unguided process. This topic is such a sore spot for Coyne that he backed out of an opportunity to debate me on the subject. (The invitation still stands for Jerry or anyone else for that matter) What scientific investigation has rendered “implausible” is a naturalistic origin of life. The obvious solution, an intelligent Creator, is not even considered because it is “philosophically unacceptable.”
  • A soul that is separate from the brain: Scientists probably know less about the source of consciousness and self-awareness than they do about the origin of life. Coyne is in denial of the fact that neuroscientists are utterly bewildered when asked to explain how a physical brain could generate consciousness, self-awareness, and will. As atheistic philosopher Colin McGinn stated in a recent article (New Statesman, 2/20/12), “The more we look at the brain, the less it looks like a device for creating consciousness. Perhaps philosophers will never be able to solve the mystery.” The obvious alternative, a spiritual soul, is not even considered because it is “philosophically unacceptable.”

Sir Fred Hoyle, in his younger years

  • Sir Fred Hoyle, renowned mathematician, astronomer, and physicist wrote that, “a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Hoyle also wrote that the laws of nature “look like a put-up job.”  The simplest and most elegant response would be that the reason the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology suggest being “monkeyed with” by a “super-intellect,” is because they were monkeyed with by a super-intellect. The reason the fine tuning of our universe looks like a “put-up job” is because it is a put-up job. Coyne and his co-religionists, of course, would never even consider that possibility because it is “philosophically unacceptable.”

Are we starting to see a pattern here? Darwin Akbar, Dr. Coyne; I try to show respect to all men of faith.

Rabbi Moshe Averick is an orthodox rabbi, a  regular columnist for the Algemeiner Journal, and author of Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist. It is available on Amazon.com and Kindle. Rabbi Averick can be reached via his website. If you wish to be informed when new articles appear, send an email to moe.david@hotmail.com with the email address and the word  “Subscribe” in the subject line.

The Algemeiner is the fastest growing Jewish newspaper in America.  Your one stop source for all news, commentary and analysis from Israel and Jewish communities around the world. Be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Corinthians I, chapter 15. Within those verses to the chagrin of many agnostics is the disclosure of Heavenly Celestial humans. Since it was written by the Apostle Paul during the 1st century it represent the first disclosure and the earliest disclosure.

  • Of course, Darwin isn’t God — but then nobody is.

  • \\\ Rabbi Averick also mentions this point: “I simply assert that scientific investigation is grossly inadequate to explain the totality of human experience and existence.” ///

    Now, if by “scientific investigation,” Rabbi Averick has in mind nothing more than “that which physicists and chemists do,” then naturally he is quite correct. The problem then would be that that is a terrible equivocation on Rabbi Averick’s part — since there is far more to scientific investigation than merely what “physicists and chemists do.”

    The correct view of the process of scientific investigation is the application of reason (with its components of observation and logic) to the task of following the evidence of the world we live in to learn what’s going on in our experience. That includes the “totality of human experience and existence”. And that is 100% natural. Trying to apply an unnaturalistic approach simply will not work. That would be like trying to fit a real peg into an unreal hole.

  • \\\ As Rabbi Averick points out: However we choose to define “Science,” one thing we can all agree on; that science deals with the physical, material universe. The notion that there is a “Scientific” view of a reality outside of the bounds of the physical – that is to say, the “supernatural,” – is absolutely nonsensical. A scientist may have personal views about the existence or non-existence of a reality outside of the laws of physics and chemistry, but Science, by definition, has nothing to say on the subject. The notion of a scientific view of the supernatural is clearly an oxymoron. ///

    I agree that there is nothing supernatural to investigate, explain, understand, or rationally believe in.

    Humans are physical beings, that is, actually part of existence. The supernatural is not part of existence.

    Rabbi Averick accepts that — but then goes on with the irrational (i.e., religious) leap to believing that non-existence isn’t really non-existence, but rather a special sort of existence that is magical and accessible only through blind (i.e., religious) faith.

    In other words, God is for believing in even though He isn’t there (not even anywhere). Really not.

    Now that’s not so bad, as far as it goes. The blind faith enterprise goes really wrong when people start believing that commandments from this non-existent being from a totally “OTHER” unnatural “life” are somehow relevant to real life in this world.

    A good question is why, if religious people are content to believe in some “otherworld,” they aren’t content to stick to it — and instead try to force the real world somehow into compliance with the unnatural.

    Even that wouldn’t be so bad if they just did it quietly in their own lives. But that isn’t how they handle the situation. They insist that there is something wrong with people who don’t share their fantasies. Sometimes they goes as far as murdering unbelievers, heretics, infidels, etc., etc. It gets complicated.

  • *___ “Is it compatible with reason, reality and the evidence to deny the Big Bang when we have that all-important consensus among physicists and astronomers that the universe began a finite time ago and was the result of an explosion from a singularity? Before which, there was no space and no time.” ___*

    That version of the “Big Bang” is not reasonable. It is simply Genesis in a “scientific” disguise.

    Announcing a consensus on nonsense doesn’t make it non-nonsense.

    Also, remember the “consensus” against plate tectonics, or the “consensus” for “man-made global warming catastrophe.” Those are just two of the examples of the syndrome of “consensus gone around the bend.”

    • RexTugwell

      I’m still officially tagged out but I wanted to put your mind at ease, Steve. When I said “that all-important consensus”, I was being facetious precisely because of the example you cite – man-made global warming and also the “consensus” regarding marco-evolution due to mutation and natural selection. I’m well aware that consensus does not equal truth.

      • The point still stands, of course, on the distinction you made between “natural faith” and “supernatural faith.”

        Nature exists. The supernatural doesn’t.

        People experience nature, and can understand natural processes. People fantasize about the supernatural, and can explain nothing at all by reference to it.

  • Steve,
    Yep,

    May 4, 2012
    1:35 pm

    ___The central dogma of this particular religion is that every phenomenon in human experience can be explained in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry.___

    Just after that statement is a 1 word statement, “precisely.” I did think that you said it because it was not attributed to anyone in particular.But just after it you typed, ‘precisely’ as if to agree with the statement. But you said the statement was wrong so I’m good on phenomena. I gladly withdraw my original complaint and apologize.I have your back on that.

    On the designation for the event I think we don’t agree. As a Christian I call the event supernatural because of the activities accomplished by the Humans and horses. Both have no problem escaping the Sun gravity and when they get into the corona they us flight ability as well as theorized magnetric resonance heating abilities. I thorize that because they are able to maintain an approximate 6,000K temperature on the photospher where they are created. I look on boths creation as a supernatural event. But, I am aware you don’t. That is the designation I gave to the event from the Christian perspective. You on the other hand as a physicist or philosopher probably give it a designation as a physical nature event that is currently unsolved, which is okay since you are not a Christian. That’s just part of human nature called free will.

    Would you happen to know the ratio of physicist and philosophers as far a which ones are christian and what percent are Christian. In something I read, was stated their were fewer Christians among the physics and philosphers profession, but on a national basis the report said Agnostics hold a lower percentage than Christians.

    Thanks for the note. I haven’t read all the posts so the capital letters didn’t mean anything to me that a statement belonged to someone else. It purely my error for not reading all the post. But that was pretty evident. Do you have any negative thoughts about the gravitational constant. I cannot write formula’s but I have read that Einsteins formula can only be resolved to two number place which is insufficient for the overall theory.

    I believe you would enjoy the ieet blog site.It’s run by Giulio Prisco a physicist, who moderates it. It’s a pretty laid back site where we all post but are rational and frienly with the whole group.

    My first cousin in Saint Louis, MO, Larry Stacey, is a Professor of Physics at St louis Univ. He laid back and the quiet type but he studies the Sun, too, and made a disovery a few years ago of a couple of planets rotating around the Sun in a very close manner. His wife has sent me some revealing books and film that I used to produce videos on Youtube.
    Dave Dennis Stacey, retired 67, aka doowop62
    Glen Allen, VA

  • /* I try to show respect to all men of faith.

    Rabbi Moshe Averick */

    That quote raises the question: Why should we consider faith respectable, but reason unworthy of respect?

    Wouldn’t it be better to go with Jefferson? “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

    • RexTugwell

      Every theist can agree with Jefferson’s statement. There’s nothing objectionable in it. We certainly don’t want to do homage to reason in the sense that the French revolutionaries did. God gave us the gift of reason. We’re the only creatures who possess it. It would be an insult to Him not to use it.

      By all means, question the existence of God. As long as we use reason and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Some may even end up coming to the same conclusions that Anthony Flew did. (Please no accusations of mental illness unless you can provide clinical proof.)

      Curious how you quote Jefferson, Steve, when he at least leaves open the possibility of the existence of God; whereas you are most emphatically convinced of the impossibility of the supernatural.

      As for faith; we all live by some form of it. Faith is merely belief in something based on the authority of another. Some faith is supernatural, some is natural. It depends on the authority. Unless you’ve personally measured the distance between the sun and earth, you have a natural faith that the distance is 93M miles. There’s no reason to pit faith against reason. They can be completely compatible.

      • /*\ “There’s no reason to pit faith against reason. They can be completely compatible.” /*\

        So long as it’s not blind (i.e., religious) faith.

        The kind of “natural faith” you are talking about is not a problem. It is the “supernatural faith,” i.e., taking leave of reality, that is completely incompatible with reason.

      • \*/ “By all means, question the existence of God. As long as we use reason and follow the evidence wherever it leads.” \*/

        Follow the evidence, all the evidence, and only the evidence. Feelings about faith are not evidence.

      • RexTugwell

        Is it compatible with reason, reality and the evidence to deny the Big Bang when we have that all-important consensus among physicists and astronomers that the universe began a finite time ago and was the result of an explosion from a singularity? Before which, there was no space and no time.

        • CONSENSUS is most certainly not evidence! And is not even necessarily reasonable . . . .

        • In other words, the answer to your question, Rex, is: absolutely yes.

          I think that the notion of something (e.g., a “singularity”) before which there was no time is basically empty rhetoric. Just like saying “God created the universe.”

        • RexTugwell

          I’m tagging out. Anyone else wanna try?

          • Try what? Try arguing that people should follow consensus rather than evidence? That people should drop reason in favor of blind (i.e., religious) faith?

            Are you “tagging out” because you’re on the losing side of that argument?

          • Maybe a better analogy is that you’ve been tagged out trying to steal second, i.e., trying to substitute “consensus” for “truth.”

  • //// Rabbi Averick offers the proposition that: “What scientific investigation has rendered “implausible” is a naturalistic origin of life. The obvious solution, an intelligent Creator, is not even considered because it is “philosophically unacceptable.” \\\\

    I think that what scientific investigation has rendered implausible is the expectation that scientists will figure out the origin of life this year, or even this decade. But there is no way that it “has rendered ‘implausible'” the fact that life actually exists, i.e., that life is a perfectly natural phenomenon.

    Not only is a Supernatural Creator not “the obvious solution,” it is not a solution at all, not even of any kind. The supernatural is impossible, and that is why, from a rational perspective, it is not philosophically acceptable to consider it as a possibility.

  • \\\ RexTugwell (May 7, 2012 10:00 am): I fail to see the contradiction in the concept of an Intelligent Creator of Life. ///

    It is the same formal contradiction as “the living creator of life,” or “the blue creator of blue.” You are trying to claim that some agent already possessing a certain attribute is nevertheless somehow, magically, the creator of that attribute.

    \\\ On the other hand, a universe that emerged from nothing is a physical and philosophical absurdity since philosophy tells us that from nothing, nothing comes. ///

    Correct. The universe could not have been created. There was never the alleged condition of it being “without form, and void.” Genesis is fiction. (So’s the “Big Bang.”)

    • A little while back, Rabbi Averick posted an article about “Who Created the Creator.” That was about how, while the universe couldn’t come from nothing, God was somehow special in not being part of the universe, and therefore did come from nothing.

      It’s not hard to see the supernatural sophistry in trying to argue like that.

    • RexTugwell

      So you deny the Big Bang.
      I don’t blame you. It must make atheists very uncomfortable.

      To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, the Big Bang makes me an intellectually fulfilled theist.

      • “The Big Bang” is just Genesis in disguise, pretending to be “scientific.” Certainly I reject it — just like any form of supernatural “Creation Ex Nihilo“, that is, “something from nothing” (the religious notion of how things work).

      • RexTugwell

        Are we talking about the same Big Bang?

        • The one that is supposed to be the origin of the universe.

          Is there another one?

  • \\* [E]very phenomenon in human experience can be explained in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. *//

    That notion is so obviously false that it is difficult to imagine anyone taking it seriously. It ignores geology, biology, psychology, horticulture, etc., not to mention reading, writing, and arithmetic.

    But at least physics and chemistry can and do explain some things — as contrasted to the example of religion, where resort to “the supernatural” can explain exactly nothing.

  • ____RexTugwell (May 7, 2012 2:02 pm):The universe being created causes us to infer that the creator ipso facto is alive and intelligent.____

    Yes, that is your inference — and it is contradictory to claim that already living creator as the creator of life.

    Of course, it is also contradictory to claim that He created the universe, since He could not possibly have been in any position to do so.

    • RexTugwell

      :-O

      • Is that your rendition of the “Sun photosphere granulating a human”?

  • -_-_-A theist claims that the universe was created._-_-_

    Right, that is a theistic claim. I think it is exclusively a theistic claim even when the attempt is made to dress it up as science (e.g., the “big bang”).

  • Here is the problem one must face. The Sun photosphere is a convection surface. Forced up by convection are granules. Within 3 minutes; per K O Kiepenheuer, The Sun, G P Kuiper, Editor, the granules convert into human form. That process is shown fully in a video I prepared and posted on Youtube more than a year ago. http://www.youtube.com/doowop62. It shows how the celestial humans move into the Corona and the two ways they may leave the corona. Photographs are the only way to study the Sun. These photographs came directly from The Sun, Editor, G P Kuiper astrophysics journal 1 of 4. From the corona they leave by their own flight capabilities into outer space or by CME, corona mass ejection. The process is found in written form at the bottom of my web site; http://stacygenealogy.com/. Atheist physicists wish to promote the idea that the human entity is not created and thus it is not supernatural. But, not mentioned is the fact that the celestial humans can fly, too. Physics cannot formulate how the flight is done. Therefore, it is supernatural. And, because the creation of the human celestial cannot be written to formula either, it is deemed, supernatural. You may go to my website to educate yourself in this process and find out how celestial horses are created and the specifics about that. The research is written in natural human language and is as easy to read as this post. I will answer this post if you have any questions about it. By the way, I am a christian and have nothing against those who may be agnostic. I have read that Atheists are a minority population in America when compared to christians. Any data on that is welcome to correct that if necessary.

  • To take the research a little farther, Spot celestial horses were called Penumbra, Leader or spectra when written in abstracts to cover up their real identity. In addition to the creation of the two types of entities, they both can fly.

    The faculae, celestial humans, can build a biological space craft and fly it at incredible speeds by linking hands and forming a circle; another supernatural event that happens through physics that cannot be explained.

    Physicist have hidden this knowledge for more than 100 years. Now it is out in the open and the Atheists in the physics groups are howling loud to try and deny the knowledge again. Now understand, all physicist are not Atheists. Christian Physicists exist, too.

    So, someone, tell me there’s no supernatural in physics routines. Believe me when I say, my research on the Sun Activity on the photosphere is not hardly all of the research I have accomplished.
    Dave Dennis Stacey, retired, researcher
    Glen Allen, VA

  • Belief in an “Intelligent Creator of Life” is philosophically unacceptable in the same sense that belief in a “square circle” is philosophically unacceptable. That is: contradictions don’t exist.

    • RexTugwell

      Steve, I fail to see the contradiction in the concept of an Intelligent Creator of Life. It may be disputed but strictly speaking there is no contradiction. You’re long on bold claims but short on intelligible reasons to back up those claims. On the other hand, a universe that emerged from nothing is a physical and philosophical absurdity since philosophy tells us that from nothing, nothing comes.

      It really is true that an atheist lives by faith more than the theist does. Faith / wishful thinking. Take your pick.

      • It is a contradiction, Rex, even if you say you don’t see it.

        Since intelligence comes from life, it is necessarily a contradiction to claim that life comes from intelligence.

        An analogy could be something like claiming that a computer created electricity, or like claiming that the sunrise created the sun.

        It simply doesn’t make sense to claim that something that exist because of life actually came before life.

      • RexTugwell

        You have such a fundamental misunderstanding of life and intelligence that I’m actually having trouble following your argument let alone answering you. In fact, I only engage in debating you with the hope that it may benefit the other readers.

        A theist claims that the universe was created. After all, that’s what current scientific observations of the cosmos, cosmological constants and the origin-of-life point to. (But those aren’t the only reasons) The universe being created causes us to infer that the creator ipso facto is alive and intelligent. You seem to be implying that intelligence can only be terrestrial intelligence. That terrestrial intelligence is the cause of terrestrial life which preceded terrestrial intelligence. In other words:

        Terrestrial intelligence –> Terrestrial life –> Terrestrial intelligence

        That would be a contradiction. However, theists claim:

        Divine intelligence –> Terrestrial life –> Terrestrial intelligence

        Again, one may dispute the existence of a creator but there is no contradiction if properly understood.

        • In other words, you position is that there is no contradiction if you ignore the contradiction.

          You take the subjectivist approach, and I take the objectivist approach.

          • In other words, Rex, your position is that there is no contradiction if you ignore the contradiction (“if properly understood”).

            You take the subjectivist approach, and I take the objectivist approach.

        • –__]“You seem to be implying that intelligence can only be terrestrial intelligence.”[__–

          How do you figure that?

          I say “intelligence must be real” — and you translate that as “intelligence must be terrestrial”!

  • Eli

    Well then the question remains… are we distinguishing between material intelligent beings and “other” intelligent beings or not?

    If not, then Hotwheels and sonnets demonstrate that all intelligent beings contain FCSI, just as YOU argue that these things demonstrate that all FCSI is created by intelligent beings.

    If so, then FCSI is only the product of material intelligence as Hotwheels, sonnets, and all of YOUR examples demonstrate.

    So, which is it?

    • Only material beings, intelligent or otherwise, exist.

      The notion of “a being other than material” would mean a being with no physical capabilities, no physical presence, no energy, no effects on anything — in other words: nothing.

  • Rabbi Averick keeps offering this proposition: “The very first living organism in the universe either was (a) created or (b) emerged through an undirected process.”

    He has set up a false alternative. He claim there is a real alternative between the supernatural, which is impossible, and reality, which is actual.

  • Eli

    Moshe writes, “”Only material beings are functionally complex.”

    You just said such a distinction is “arbitrary and self-serving”. Now, your response to my question hinges on that distinction?

    Are we distinguishing between material intelligent beings and immaterial intelligent beings or not?

    If not, then Hotwheels and sonnets demonstrate that all intelligent beings contain FCSI, just as these things demonstrate that all FCSI is created by intelligent beings.

    If so, then only material beings are functionally complex and able to create things. If an immaterial being is not functionally complex because it is made of nothing, then it can’t create anything for the same reason (it’s nothing).

    • Moshe Averick

      Eli,

      It’s not “nothing”, it’s “other”. The only question becomes, does it/he exist?

      The very first living organism in the universe either was (a) created or (b) emerged through an undirected process.

      If the truth is that it was created, then it is an non-physical creator outside of the boundaries of time, space, matter, and energy, that is to say “other.”

      Our job simpy boils down to determining whether it is more likely that the first living organism was created or emerged naturally.

  • Eli

    RECAP: The premise of your argument is that all FCSI is the result of intelligent intervention. You justify this by stating that “a child’s Hotwheel car and this sentence are both the result of intelligent intervention… you cannot give me any example of FCSI that is not the result of intelligent intervention.” You noted that life could not be used as an example since “that is the very point of contention”. AW pointed out that your examples are all of PHYSICAL intelligence, to which you responded that distinguishing between PHYSICAL and NONPHYSICAL intelligence is “arbitrary and self serving.”

    Next question: Do you agree that all intelligence contains FCSI? Or can you give an example of intelligence that does not?

    • Moshe Averick

      eli,

      See my reply below to AW beginning with the words “All material beings are functionally complex…”

    • Moshe Averick

      Eli,

      It actually begins with “Only material beings are functionally complex..”

      • That is only natural, since immaterial beings have no capacity to function, either simply or complexly.

        Nothing cannot do anything.

  • RexTugwell

    Steve writes:
    That’s complete nonsense.

    If you tried to take it [God’s infinite love] literally, then, since to be infinite is to have no specific, particular value, you’d have to image God as knowing nothing specific and loving nothing in particular. In other words, a big bunch of nothing.

    You can’t be serious. You know, Steve, it’s statements like this that make me believe you’re just being ornery and you don’t believe half the stuff you write … or the alternative …

    OK now follow me on this. I almost know how you’re going to respond. If someone were to say to you “Steve, I love you a lot”, are you going to turn around a say, “That’s nonsense. ‘A lot’ is not a specific, particular value. You must not love me at all. So your love means nothing.”

    • I think if you use “a lot” to mean “an infinite amount,” Rex, you are being idiosyncratic. That is not how people use the phrase.

      If you merely meant “God has a lot of love,” why didn’t you say that? Having a lot of love is not impossible; possessing an infinite amount of anything is impossible.

    • Referring to “God’s Infinite Love” is a literary conceit. It is not meant to be taken literally, since God is after all only a fictional character.

    • If you are really trying to believe that God actually exists, then you are engaging in what is called “magical thinking,” or “wishful thinking” — or you are simply indulging in blind (i.e., religious) faith.

    • Rex, you seem desperate to convince yourself that I am not serious (maybe even insane). Why bother? If you don’t like criticism and ideas that don’t suit you, just ignore it all.

  • -____Moshe Averick (May 6, 2012 1:23 am): Only material beings are functionally complex.____-

    Correct. Immaterial things don’t function.

  • -___Moshe Averick (May 6, 2012 1:23 am): The question then simply becomes to determine whether or not the first living organism was created or emerged through an undirected naturalistic process.___-

    That is not legitimately a problem, since the “undirected natural process” is the only possibility. “A Supernatural Creator” is not a possibility.

    The question isn’t to determine whether or not the first living organism was created by a fictional character/process. Clearly, that is NOT what happened.

    The actual, legitimate question is: what was the process through which life came about from the preceding set of conditions where no life and intelligence existed?

    Nobody has successfully answered that question yet. But at least we know it happened — and not knowing how it happened is no reason to short-circuit the process, blow off the question, and pretend that some magical “Creator” miraculously did it via some “Supernatural Process.”

  • -___Moshe Averick (May 6, 2012 1:23 am): A Creator who consists of neither matter nor energy, and exists in neither time nor space, but is the Creator of those dimensions is “other” than all that we know.____-

    You can say that again!

    “Other than real” — just to complete the thought.

  • Lion IRC

    Isnt it true that science only has one way of accounting for anything/everything? It’s certainly straightforward and simple but that’s equally a handicap when contemplating stuff beyond the capacity of science.

    As Abraham Maslow said, when the only tool you own is a hammer, everything starts to resemble a nail.

    Or to use another analogy, if the net you use to catch sharks allows minnows to escape through the mesh, would it be right to think the universe is finely tuned for the existence of sharks?

    • The universe is neither “finely tuned” nor “badly tuned,” it just “tuned” at all. It is just out there.

      At best you could make the analogy that “the universe is finely tuned for the existence of the universe — and everything that’s in it.

      • oops — that should have said:

        The universe is neither “finely tuned” nor “badly tuned,” it isn’t “tuned” at all. It is just out there.

        At best you could make the analogy that “the universe is finely tuned for the existence of the universe — and everything that’s in it.”

  • RexTugwell

    AW writes: What do you mean? You’re the one claiming that “information is produced only by intelligent agents”. I’m asking how you know this?

    What do you mean what do I mean? That’s my claim because that has been our only experience in all of human history. By asking how do I know, you must know something we don’t. So why don’t you share what you know with the class. 

    • AW

      Our only experience in all of human history is that information is produced by intelligent, PHYSICAL agents.

      You are claiming that DNA is the one exception, so you must know something we don’t. Why don’t you share what you know with the class?

      • Moshe Averick

        AW,

        “DNA is the exception”, in other words LIFE itself is the exception

        Secondly: Whose experience are you talking about?

        Thirdly: If SETI scientists received intelligible messages from another galaxy they would acknowledge their intelligence, consciousness and creative ability even though they would not have the slightest idea about who or what they were. In fact, they would not even know if they/he/it was even physical. Your distinction is arbitrary and self-serving.

        • AW

          Ok. So, let’s ignore the distinction. To summarize your argument:

          1. All FCSI* is the result of intelligence.
          2. Life contains FCSI.
          3. Life is the result of intelligence.

          Next question: All intelligence contains FCSI does it not?

          * functional complexity and specified information.

          • AW,

            Only material beings are functionally complex. Material beings are subject to the limitations and paradigms of cause and effect. A Creator who consists of neither matter nor energy, and exists in neither time nor space, but is the Creator of those dimensions is “other” than all that we know.

            If the very first living organism to appear in the universe was created, it could only have been created by such a Creator. Only such a creator is not subject to the infinite regress of creators. Only such a creator is one whom there is none before him, because, not being in time, there is no “before.”

            The question then simply becomes to determine whether or not the first living organism was created or emerged through an undirected naturalistic process.

          • AW

            Let us propose that the level of intelligence displayed by the makers of a child’s Hotwheels car is Level X of intelligence. Let us propose that the level of intelligence demonstrated by the author of the words “Hello Rabbi, so nice of you to respond to my comments” written in the sand on a beach is Level X of intelligence. I would assert that you cannot give me any example of displayed intelligence above Level X that does not contain FCSI. Can you?

            If SETI scientists received intelligible messages from another galaxy they would acknowledge their complexity even though they would not have the slightest idea about who or what they were. In fact, they would not even know if they/he/it was even physical. Your distinction is arbitrary and self-serving.

            Do you recognize these words? Most of them are yours. In summary, based on your logic:

            * You cannot give me an example of intelligence that does not contain FCSI; therefore, all intelligence contains FCSI.
            * Your attempt to modify this conclusion by distinguishing between PHYSICAL/MATERIAL and NONPHYSICAL/IMMATERIAL intelligence is “arbitrary and self-serving”.

        • SETI scientists certainly would know that the sender of a message was a real, i.e., physical, being — since otherwise no message could have been sent.

        • -____Secondly: Whose experience are you talking about?____-

          It’s the experience of the humans of Earth. That’s a pretty diverse bunch, but you may be familiar with some of them.

    • RexTugwell

      Your assumption about intelligent agents is wrong. All intelligent agents are immaterial. Our experiences are of physical creatures with intelligent, immaterial minds/souls. Maybe when my left shoelace talks back to me I’ll agree with you that specified complexity can come from non-intelligent sources. So my claim still stands. Our intellectual and voluntary faculties are spiritual / non-physical.

      Darwinists are hard-pressed to explain why the writing of a Shakespearian sonnet or the reading of one, contributes any evolutionary advantage to humans. Or how contemplating the origins of the cosmos contributes to the natural selection and survival of our species. Darwinism can’t explain why we are the equivalent of a 600 mph cheetah but a theology teaching the existence of a body/soul creature is the best explanation.

      • AW

        “All intelligent agents are immaterial. Our experiences are of physical creatures with intelligent, immaterial minds/souls.”

        You know this how?

      • AW

        To be more specific, I don’t know why humans write poetry. “Darwinists” don’t know why humans write poetry. You apparently do. How do you know that we write poetry because of a nonphysical soul?

      • ____All intelligent agents are immaterial.____

        Not exactly.

        To be precise: All intelligent agents are composed of matter; no intelligent agents are immaterial.

        That’s a particular instance of the general principle that “material things things exist, and immaterial agents don’t exist.”

        To be is to be something.

      • _-_-_Our experiences are of physical creatures with intelligent, immaterial minds/souls.</b<_-_-_

        Nobody has ever experienced anything immaterial. There’s no way it could be done. You are simply fantasizing if you feel that you have experienced something, anything, immaterial.

        For an interesting experiment, you should try to prove that you have experienced something immaterial. Notice that you would have no evidence, and nothing to actually offer for consideration.

      • Oops, here’s the correctly formatted version (starting with the quote from Rex):

        _-_-_Our experiences are of physical creatures with intelligent, immaterial minds/souls._-_-_

        Nobody has ever experienced anything immaterial. There’s no way it could be done. You are simply fantasizing if you feel that you have experienced something, anything, immaterial.

        For an interesting experiment, you should try to prove that you have experienced something immaterial. Notice that you would have no evidence, and nothing to actually offer for consideration.

  • Emma

    “A soul that is separate from the brain”

    Our “souls” *are* our brains. There are numerous case studies of people who undergo drastic personality changes due to brain damage. (For instance, the fascinating case of a Jesuit priest-in-training who suffered severe damage to the right hemisphere while scuba diving, and subsequently was incapable of feeling concern for himself or his family.) If there is such a thing as a soul, it’s no more than a plaything of the material world, namely, the forces of the nervous system.

    • [[[Our “souls” *are* our brains.]]]

      That is not true any more than it is true that a pitcher’s curve ball *is* his arm.

      A person’s soul is his mind and his basic values. In other words, it is what he does with his brain — what he makes of himself by using his brain.

    • Moshe Averick

      EMMA,

      Your conclusions are simplistic. No one denies that the brain is involved in our conscious lives. The question is if brain activity is adequate to explain th totality human consciousness and experience. It clearly is not.

      We can actually change the physical configurations of our brain by our willed activity. This would be impossible from a purely materialistic standpoint.

      There is much more.

      • Emma

        “We can actually change the physical configurations of our brain by our willed activity.”

        lol wut? [citation needed]

        • MC

          “”We can actually change the physical configurations of our brain by our willed activity.”

          lol wut? [citation needed]”

          Try virtually every functional MRI study ever performed.

          Why did this provoke an LOL? Rather than appealing to ridicule, maybe you should just educate yourself.

  • Hitler had people killed because they were the wrong religion. Stalin had people killed because they were the wrong economic class. God had people killed because they worked on the wrong day of the week.

    Hitler and Stalin rejected God because they wanted to be in charge of the killing and issuing of commandments — not because atheism advocates murder.

    The distinction of America was that it broke with the established practice of the “Divine Right of Kings” and set up a system in which people would be free instead of commanded.

    The Soviet Socialists and the National Socialists wanted to run the “command and control” type of system, and they simply substituted the “will of society” for the “Will of God” as the justification for an all-powerful state.

    So history shows both theists and atheists as oppressive, even murderous, rulers. And as we can see in today’s world, there are both theists and atheists who believe in freedom.

    Atheism is not necessarily bad, and theism is most certainly not necessarily good.

  • “every phenomenon in human experience can be explained in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry.
    Of course they can. The question is: “Do we know all the laws of physics and chemistry?” I don’t think we do. Otherwise, why would we still be studying them?

    Once you accept that we do not know everything there is to know, there is no reason that God cannot or should not be a part of our scientific enquiries, insofar as we are able to incorporate Him. That is the problem scientists currently have. How to test the existence of the Creator of all the laws that we currently have available to test His existence.

    Because science is simply a method of research, not a philosophy/religion in and of itself-except to those who misapply it.

    • ___“Because science is simply a method of research,…”____

      … science can only deal with nature, since there is nothing else around to research.

      • RexTugwell

        science can only deal with nature
        I couldn’t agree more , Steve.

        Now you just have to show us that the universe is all there is. You know, the universe that was scientifically proven to have had a beginning out of nothing? No space. No time. These facts might not bother you but they have bothered great intellects like Fred Hoyle who grasp the limitations of science and the implications of a finely tuned yet finite universe.

        • [[[“You know, the universe that was scientifically proven to have had a beginning out of nothing?”]]]

          I don’t know of any such alleged “universe.” I am only aware of this one, viz., the one we actually live in.

          • RexTugwell

            Hmmm, maybe Jorge was right

          • It’s up to you, Rex, if you wish to wear blinders and join Jorge in considering observation and logic (the scientific method of applying reason) to be “philosophically unacceptable” (i.e., religiously unacceptable).

  • RexTugwell

    I don’t know how life began. Scientists at Harvard don’t know. You apparently do. How do you know that life is the product of nonphysical intelligence?

    How do we know life is the product of intelligence? Because of the undeniable content of information in DNA and other constituent parts of the cell – the basic unit of life. Since information is produced ONLY by intelligent agents, intelligence as the cause of life is the best explanation; what science refers to as the inference to the best explanation. It’s what led Sir Fred Hoyle to say what is quoted above. Chance has failed to explain it. Necessity (physical laws) has failed to explain it. A combination of the two has failed. The only other cause in our experience that is the cause of specified complexity is intelligence. Ergo, intelligence is the cause of life.

    Scientists make inferences to the best explanation all the time without having to identify primary causes. Archaeologists, cryptographers and criminal forensics make these inferences constantly – determining a phenomenon is the result of an intelligent agent rather than an accidental or necessary cause.

    Intelligent design advocates make no claim as to whether the cause of life is physical or nonphysical. They may have personal opinions as to the cause’s physicality but that’s not the official position of ID.

    • ___“Ergo, intelligence is the cause of life.”____

      That, of course, is impossible, since intelligence is an attribute of some living species. That is, intelligence came after life originated, not before.

      Your “inference to the best explanation” is like an “inference” that a skyscraper was designed by an architect in an office on the top floor of the building before the building had been built.

      In other words, your “best explanation” is no explanation at all — but rather the deliberate avoidance of looking for the explanation(s).

      • RexTugwell

        That is, intelligence came after life originated, not before.

        To quote the great philosopher AW: How do you know?

    • AW

      “Since information is produced ONLY by intelligent agents…”

      How do you know?

      • RexTugwell

        Enlighten me then

        • AW

          What do you mean? You’re the one claiming that “information is produced only by intelligent agents”. I’m asking how you know this?

          • MC

            “What do you mean? You’re the one claiming that “information is produced only by intelligent agents”. I’m asking how you know this?”

            Universal experience. Find us a counterexample.

  • AW

    One more question for Averick I forgot to add:

    7. How one can undertake a scientific study other than under the assumption of naturalism?

    • Nobody needs to assume naturalism, since nature is directly observable — and there isn’t anything else to actually work with.

  • RexTugwell

    5. What does it mean to be created in the image of a nonphysical being?

    To be created in the image of a nonphysical being is to be created to do the things that that being does. God, being infinite, knows and loves infinitely. Knowing and loving are the powers of spiritual beings. So we image God by knowing and loving. No other creature can claim such faculties.

    6. Why does being created in the image of God make human being inherently valuable?

    Related to #5, we have inherent value because if God created us in his image, He created us for a purpose. And purpose gives meaning. For examples of those who deny this, you can look to Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia to name just two.

    • In Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, people had a purpose: to serve the state and the powerlust of Hitler and Stalin.

      Simply having a purpose is not the problem. We need to understand what purpose and whose purpose.

      The basic alternative under the latter category is this: is one free to act for one’s own purpose, or do we exist to serve the purposes of others (whether God, Hitler, Stalin, “society,” or whatever)?

      Choices for the “what purpose” category fall under two general options: 1) love and respect, or 2) command and control.

      Politically, we have the Declaration of Independence on one side, and the Ten Commandments, The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, Obamacare, etc., on the other side.

      • RexTugwell

        Well we agree on Obamacare

    • AW

      Why does God deciding the meaning of my life make me inherently valuable, and deciding my own meaning of my life doesn’t?

    • [[[“God, being infinite, knows and loves infinitely.”]]]

      That’s complete nonsense.

      If you tried to take it literally, then, since to be infinite is to have no specific, particular value, you’d have to image God as knowing nothing specific and loving nothing in particular. In other words, a big bunch of nothing.

      If you don’t want to take it literally, but rather figuratively or allegorically, that’s a different story.

  • RexTugwell

    3. Can you cite one thing containing specified complexity and information that is NOT the product of PHYSICAL intelligence?

    Yeah, DNA and the information processing system in the cell to read, copy, edit and splice it and correct for errors. Blind watchmaker? No, just blind faith if you believe the cell evolved undirected.

    As Meyer points out in his book, Signature in the Cell, this problem is so vexing, Harvard has announced a $100 million dollar research program to address the origin of life and the information needed to produce it.

    • AW

      I don’t know how life began. Scientists at Harvard don’t know. You apparently do. How do you know that life is the product of nonphysical intelligence?

    • AW

      I forgot the most pertinent question to this article:

      7. How one can undertake a scientific study other than under the assumption of naturalism?

  • 3. Can you cite one thing containing specified complexity and information that is NOT the product of PHYSICAL intelligence?

    No.

    There is no such thing as specification “that is NOT the product of PHYSICAL intelligence.”

    You cannot have the products of intelligence without intelligence. You cannot have intelligence without a real — i.e., physical — body and brain, etc.

    The notion of a “non-physical, i.e., supernatural, intelligence” is nonsensical.

    • To claim there could be “specified information” absent human specifiers is like claiming there could be rainwater when it has never rained.

  • AW

    Questions we’re still waiting for Averick to answer:

    1. What are your criteria for claiming an argument is “logical”?

    2. How did a non-physical being create the first living organism?

    3. Can you cite one thing containing specified complexity and information that is NOT the product of PHYSICAL intelligence?

    4. What was the size and composition of the genome of the first living organism? How do you know this?

    5. What does it mean to be created in the image of a nonphysical being?

    6. Why does being created in the image of God make human being inherently valuable?

    • 5. What does it mean to be created in the image of a nonphysical being?

      For one thing, you’d be invisible — and sightless. You also wouldn’t be able to talk to anybody, or hear anything. Or touch anything. Etc.

    • 2. How did a non-physical being create the first living organism?

      While there are living organisms, there are no non-physical beings. The latter fact is due to the literal impossibility — logically, physically — of “non-physical beings.”

  • ____I simply assert that scientific investigation is grossly inadequate to explain the totality of human experience and existence.____

    Certainly it is true that science has not explained everything in “totality.” But, so far, it has been able to explain some things.

    Religion, on the other hand, has not only explained nothing, but it has no way to explain anything.

    If you want to understand anything, facts and logic, i.e, science, is the way to go.

  • Jorge

    An excellent post, Rabbi Averick. It delights me to see that you and I are in full agreement on the core of this war – *philosophical* unacceptability. The opposition is certainly NOT based on actual science – it can’t be. Coyne, Forrest, Hawking, et al. are nothing but some of the ‘apostles’ of that religious movement. I’ve been singing that tune for a long time – it’s good to hear it from another source. Bravo!

    I won’t dignify the weird ‘input’ of Steve Stoddard with any comment – he seems to be floating in some incomprehensible mystical realm.

  • Philosophically, sciences like physics and biology are rational pursuits — and religion is not.

    “Life as a natural phenomenon” makes sense. “Life as a product of s Supernatural Creator” does not make sense.

  • Thank you, Rabbi Averick, for yet another fine article. It occurs to me that truth has a tendency to triumph. I’ve noticed science can’t explain that either. God bless.

  • Kevin Bjornson

    Humanism does not say, all natural laws can be reduced to physical laws. Because the root word of “physical” is “physics” and there are other natural laws than physics, such as chemistry, biology, economics, etc.

    Similarly, humanism is not materialist, because that root word is “matter” and we acknowledge the existence of things other than matter, such as energy. In fact, matter and energy are simply different aspects of the same underlying reality.

    In our degraded modern society, people specialize too much. This means, scientists tend to be not properly trained in rhetoric, philosophy, etc. So we can’t reasonably expect them to be coherent, outside of their specialty.

    Neither does humanism say that all knowledge must come from science. The other day I stubbed my toe on a box; I did not have to conduct a scientific experiment to know that the box exists. Or I may have simply guessed that the box exists.

  • part of the reason the fallacy of ToE has had such staying power is the lack of a coherent, better alternative, that is more consistent with the valid science and the facts.
    ‘The Recent Complex Creation’ is a (the?) framework for understanding science in full context.

  • At the website designated as stacygenealogy.com, you will find my Sun research written in Natural Language Protocol. Anyone with reading skill should be able to understand it. Created by granulation and called faculae, are celestial humans. Spot creat horses that were previously call penumbra or spectra. The spots are always encircled by special faculae who assist the horses out of the spot. If that form of creation is not an act of God produced during creation of the Sun, I am open to listen to any discourse about it. A short video at http://www.youtube.com/doowop62 is availble to features several photographs take from G P Kuiper’s book, The Sun which contain as many as 97 very telling photographs which is the only way to study the photosphere of our Sun. It amazes me that Athiest Physicist oppose the truth about Sun Activity. My religion is Christian and I harbor not hatred for those who don’t believe in religion. It is physicist who hid this data for 100 years or more and now are complaining because they have been found out.

  • ___The central dogma of this particular religion is that every phenomenon in human experience can be explained in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry.___

    One error you are making, Rabbi Averick, is the assumption that there is nothing to science but “physics and chemistry.” Crucially, in the context of this discussion, you are ignoring the science of biology. Not to mention psychology — and also geology, etc.

    It’s a huge fallacy to believe that since you cannot deduce Plato and Aristotle from photons that you, therefore, must resort to the supernatural.

    • Moshe Averick

      I you cannot deduce Aristotle from atoms and chemical formulas then what is it? It is obviously not physical.

      Now philosophy is also Science? Excellent, Steve, Just Excellent!

      • Aristotle was an actual person — obviously physical, in spite of your assertion to the contrary. Nowadays, we study the ideas of Plato and Aristotle in the physical forms of books and computers. You just can’t get away from the physical world, Moshe. It’s a dead end to try escaping the physical world.

        The basic definition of science is: “a system of knowledge about general truths.”

        Philosophy is the fundamental science, the one that sets the epistemological foundation (evidence, logic, etc.) for the special sciences (like physics and biology). Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamentals of the nature of existence. The task for which we use philosophy is to set us up with a comprehensive view of life.

        When you get right down to it, atheism is philosophically unacceptable to a theist — and vice versa.

        The significant factor is that the idea of an “Intelligent Creator of Life” is self-contradictory.

  • ___The notion of a scientific view of the supernatural is clearly an oxymoron.____

    Precisely. There is nothing supernatural to have any scientific view about. Science deals with actual facts; the supernatural is fantasy fiction.

  • Belief in an “Intelligent Creator of Life” is philosophically unacceptable in the same sense that belief in a “square circle” is philosophically unacceptable. That is: contradictions don’t exist.

    • Denial of reality is simply unacceptable in my circles. A person may deny a reality forever, but, that denial will do nothing to banish the reality in physics or in society. This is in reply to Steve Stoddard’s comment about religion. In this case denial may be a syndrome of the brain. Or just one’s way to blow off steam.

      • You must not hang out in religious circles, where denial is the name of the game.

        • @ Steve,

          Of interest is a physics blog site I found that requires a registration. It’s
          http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/prisco20120505 . I like it because of the moderation its post observe. In other words one may find reply’s and posts that render no here or there disparagement or angst.

          Being a new poster, I am unable to determine whether your statement that there are no phenomenon unsolved in physics when reality show there is more than one. As a side note, I am the original discloser of the Truth in sun Activity on the photosphere. I did the research and produced the evident from a physics journal. Perfection may be just a wish on your behalf, but it does not exist.Is your just a denial on behalf of the new discovery out of displeasure or is it just real skepticism?

          Dave Dennis Stacey, retired 67, aka doowop62
          Glen Allen, VA

          • You’ll have to excuse me for asking, but I’m curious about what your native language is. I’m having real difficulty making sense of your English.

            Apparently, you are trying to attribute to me “your statement that there are no phenomenon unsolved in physics” — which is quite unlike anything statement I have actually made (or implied).

            That statement itself (regardless of who might or might not have said it) is certainly false.

Algemeiner.com