I have come to agree with some of my opponents on this board that there is indeed a double-standard in science regarding what is considered scientific. In particular, as I will show here, the idea that quantum events are purely statistical poses the same problems as ID from a scientific and ontological perspective because they both throw the idea of natural mechanism as a causal principle out the window and truncate scientific exploration.

I have argued here and elsewhere that nothing in science precludes a creator. However, whether or not it is true, positing that the creator does any specific action is unscientific because if prevents us from looking for natural mechanisms.

The EPR experiments show that causality in quantum physics conflicts with intuitive ideas such as locality and with other theories such as relativity. Most of the early quantum physicists (including both Heisenberg and Einstein) were not throwing out causality even when inherently unknowable elements were posited (Heisenberg actually threw out locality and suggested in his book "Physics and Philosophy" that it was a standard part of the Copenhagen Interpretation).

Many recent theories in this area, including the Non-Communication Theorem (testable, but not tested to date) rely on siding with locality at the expense of causality. Such theories suggest that merely knowing in advance the spin of an electron is sufficient to break entanglement, yet this has never to my knowledge been tested (every experiment I have looked into in this area breaks entanglement through other means).

In general, I think that when coming up with likely models, one has to consider ontological impacts. When one posits a lack of locality, one does not harm ontological underpinnings of science, nor are areas of investigation truncated. If one, however, sides throws out causality in order to keep intuitive ideas such as locality, the ontological integrity of science is compromised in the same way that it is with intelligent design.

Fortunately we don't generally teach such notions as a lack of causality for specific forms of quantum events in high school. If we did, I would be the first to challenge them as unscientific.

The problem is of course the LEAPS...usually of faith.

It starts simple....the theory of natural theology or Deism.

That some "supernatural, creative force" caused the Universe to come into being and established natural law for it to function. And that's that. Nothing more and nothing caring about the individual (or species...or even galaxy) and not even a "personality".

Mortimer Adler argued that with some logic and could be seen as "father of the ID movement".

What happens is the Christians, especially fundamentalist/evangelical start taking that to their extreme...i.e.

1. There WAS a Creator....

ergo 2. "He" was a personal God

ergo 3. "He" cares about us and worked specifically on our development (either accepting evolution or hard-core creationism)

ergo 4. "He" was the "God of the Bible"

ergo 5. "His Son" was Jesus Christ and the only salvation of Mankind.

Also 6. We must teach the idea that the "personal God was involved in the creation of the Universe and ourselves", else "risk the souls" of children and young people.

Now, way back at Step #2....a leap of faith occured over to "sacred theology".

If that step is skipped, then really this is simply an academic exercise or philosophical thought-experiment and nothing further....

but rarely is it just left at that....and that's the problem.

"I have argued here and elsewhere that nothing in science precludes a creator."

And I doubt anyone has disagreed with that, just as only Creation Scientists would claim that anything in science demonstrates a creator. The various creators are conveniently beyond the realm of evidence and fact.

A Jewish online friend of mine from years past suggested that G*d was the singularity and burst forth into creativity with the big bang. No conflict between that thought and what we know from the scientific world.

Good piece, just over my head.

My argument is that a natural causative mechanism should be the *last* thing one should throw out of any scientific theory. This is as true of quantum events models as it is of evolution.

Interestingly, if you assume causal natural mechanisms, and throw out locality, several untested parts of quantum physics (including the noncommunication theorem) fall apart, suggesting that they are built on an ID-like laziness.

For that matter, if the quantum events have no natural causative mechanism in how they specifically collapse, then it seems safe to argue that this is the exact mechanism through which intelligent design works ;-).

Interestingly enough, Nima Arkani-Hamed is going to be doing several experiments at the new particle accelorator in Switzerland that may confirm or deny several theories that could reconcile quantum physics with the general theory of relativity. It will be interesting to follow the results as they become available

<link>

I've yet to hear ID proponents argue about physics, though. All the arguments I've seen have to do with biology, specifically evolution. And evolution's a separate deal from the origin of the universe.

"positing that the creator does any specific action is unscientific because if prevents us from looking for natural mechanisms."

I don't have any problem with that. The trouble starts when someone does state there is a Creator, which then by definition requires that this Creator must have created something specific. Whether it is just a big glob of energy, or every hair on an elephants butt. And there must be some description of how this Creator interacts with its creation, which could range from none at all to helping guide those jets into the Twin Towers.

His theories are certainly interesting and may allow string theory to be tested. In general I get suspicious of theories which posit physical (rather than logical) extra-spacial dimensions because I think it is too easy to confuse the map with the territory (i.e. just because a problem can be modeled in multiple dimensions does not mean that those dimensions exist physically).

My larger issue is that attempts to justify relativity with spooky action at a distance have typically lead to physicists adopting a universe which does not admit of natural causal mechanisms for the specific state of a quantum wavicle in an event.

But isn't that pretty much where my point comes from? The current ID theorists suggest that the Creator steers genetic mutations in order to help life evolve towards the Creator's intelligent designs.

Note that usually the "evidence" from the ID camp is actually wrong. Accessible information in any closed system will generally increase over time, and natural forces can account for a slight positive bias in utility of mutations (because particularly bad mutations may not lead to viable organisms).

I have only the most elemental (ahem) grasp of quantum physics, but I don’t see your analogy as particularly apt. No matter how we look at it, quantum entanglement is counterintuitive on its face. The mechanism for it, if “mechanism” is even the correct kind of term, remains unknown. Intuitively we might assume that either the entangled particles are in some sense pre-programmed with certain information or responses (a notion reflected in the concepts of Hidden Variables and Local Realism) or else we assume that the entangled particles can affect each other at a distance via some unknown mechanism. And yet various mathematical theorems, e.g. Bell’s Theorem and the No-Communication Theorem, suggest that neither intuitive explanation is correct. Local mechanisms of causation do not appear to be sufficient (and there’s a good deal of empirical evidence to support this claim, no?), but the existence of any mechanism that would permit the transmission of physical information faster than the speed of light, thus allowing instantaneous influence at a distance, appears to be problematic. In other words, we don’t really know exactly what’s going on. Our traditional notions of causality have been confounded by the empirical data we’ve collected. It’s already out the window, at least in connection with any non-theoretical mechanisms for information transfer. Therefore physicists have constructed a number of theoretical explanations for what we observe. I suppose it’s worthwhile to debate whether or not all of these are “scientific.” Regardless, all are highly speculative at this point and may remain so for some time. Heck, who knows how long it might take to resolve the apparent paradoxes we’ve encountered? We’re talking about the ragged edge of human understanding here. I haven’t heard any physicist claiming to have elaborated The Truth.

So then, I don’t know exactly what you mean when you suggest we should be mindful of the ontological impacts of this or that hypothesis. I don't know exactly what you mean by the "ontological integrity of science" either. Now I'll admit that I’ve never been all that interested in ontological arguments. Most of them strike me as little more than artifacts that litter our minds as a result of the way we process information. In any case, I don’t see why any one of the above-mentioned speculative explanations for quantum phenomena is inherently less scientific than another. None of the advocates for any explanation has suggested that the intervention of some intelligent agent is required to explain the phenomena we’ve observed. No one that I’m aware of has indicated that natural forces cannot explain quantum physics. And no one claims that his or her hypothesis is supported by the absence of empirical data, do they? On the contrary, aren’t the advocates of this or that interpretation making predictions and at least trying to devise experiments to test those predictions?

Those seem to me to be mighty big distinctions between ID and any branch of physics. So where’s the double standard?

Cheers.

Bell's proof largely shows that hidden variables and local realism cannot explain the EPR experiments.

My argument is limited to one interpretation of the reality underlying quantum phenomena, namely that "God plays dice" or that quantum phenomena are purely probabilistic. In essence, if ID theorists want a mechanism, this would be one which would fit in line with a great number of physicists' views (i.e. that God controls evolution by steering the outcome of quantum events). Because there is an unwillingness to look for a natural mechanism, why not just hand it to the ID folks and suggest that this is what they are looking for? But more to the point, why not continue to look for a natural mechanism?

BTW, there is one other issue with 20th century physics generally (though not all 20th century physics has this problem)--- there seems to be a general confusion between theories and the underlying reality. For example, I can create a logical space for modelling stock prices against time. I could create axes for NYSE, NASDAQ, GDP, Prime Rate, and Time. Such a space logically exists and is useful, but does this mean that it physically exists? (Actually, to be fair, relativity treats time as *fundamentally* different than space and so it may be more accurate to call time a logical rather than physical dimension. However string theory strikes me as very much of a map vs territory problem.)

What leads you to identify a probabilistic interpretation of quantum phenomena with a lack of, let alone an unwillingness to search for natural mechanisms? And why would ID proponents need quantum phenomena to support their ideas?

I can understand the value of a debate regarding the scientific merit of purely theoretical – and currently un-testable – concepts such as String Theory. But again, I don’t see any physicists insisting that string theory, for example, is The Truth. Presumably our capacity to gather data and test various hypotheses will catch up to our theories some day. And that’s exactly what I see physicists hoping for and working towards. So where’s the confusion between theory and reality?

Curious what you think you think of this piece of garbled and misunderstood famous references. Reminded of Rand's judgment (misquoted) on a fool's appraisal of art: It must be good if I don't understand it. Indeed, good enough for you to rate positively. Just for the recording. Variant of creationism without the social aspect (that is, some different obsessive silliness). Incidentally, your friend is trite and and your conception of what "anyone" might disagree with reflects your limited imagination. Although I suspect you're a nice person.