Rhetoric Heats Up Over Dover IDea

first_imgMSNBC reporter Alex Johnson wrote about the trial.  Discovery Institute thought this article was fair-minded enough to reprint on their pro-ID site.New York Times printed a story with pictures.Wall Street Journal calls the case “Scopes 2005” (but this time, the Darwinists are the ones trying to outlaw their opposition).Fox News, along with other major news sources, reported on the trial.Lou Dobbs had Eugenie Scott of NCSE and Frank Sherwin of ICR face off for a few minutes, but the short time slot did not allow for much more than a few sound bites.Pressbox.co.uk last week tried to make the strange case that “intelligent design is blasphemy.”  They appealed to some religious people who think I.D. is blasphemous to science, and some who thought it is blasphemous to Christianity (because it declines to identify the Designer).York Dispatch wrote about the Discovery Institute’s refusal to back Dover.Discovery Institute did not approve of Dover’s policy, but nevertheless denounced the “Orwellian” attempts of the ACLU to stifle scientific inquiry.EvolutionNews, a media-watch blog of the Discovery Institute, has Jonathan Witt on the scene who is providing blow-by-blow coverage.  John West listed media myths to watch out for.The Discovery Institute has posted a resource page for reporters and interested court watchers.  Most of the media coverage begs the question of whether it is proper for the courts to decide matters of science (see 09/16/2005 entry). Saturn’s moon Titan is shrouded in smog that obscures its surface, but scientists have a trick: at certain infrared wavelengths, light travels unhindered through the haze, letting the complex geography be seen clearly.  We’re going to give you some wavelengths to see through the haze of rhetorical smoke that is obscuring the real atmosphere around the intelligent design movement.  The smoke is coming out in billows from certain Darwinistas.  Look at this big lie Ker Than tells, for instance: “Yet no true examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found.”  Are we to just take his word for it?  No elephants have ever been found in his living room, either, despite the smell and the fact he can’t move or see anything, because Big Science ruled that elephants cannot be invoked in explanations.  He follows it up with the old bandwagon gimmick: “The concept is rejected by the majority of the scientific community.”  With this kind of smoke in the air, a well-tuned Baloney Detector is a must for navigating through the media without following the blind into the ditch.  Learn to use well these penetrating wavelengths:Science and religion, not science vs. religion:  If you have been told that science and religion are two non-overlapping domains that have nothing to do with each other, you have been sold a bill of goods, and should demand a refund.  Philosophy of science has a long and varied history.  Up until the Darwinian usurpation, it was primarily religious people who did science.  They were the ones who categorized the fields of inquiry, devised the scientific method, founded the branches of science, and were motivated by their philosophy to do scientific work.  The word scientist did not even exist till William Whewell invented it in the 19th century; it was natural philosophy, restricted to the study of tangible, observable natural phenomena.  Scientists were committed to proof by observation, experimentation, and repeatability.  There was no conflict between the pursuit of knowledge (what science means, by definition) and religion.  This is not controversial.*  Of all religions, in particular, it was the Judeo-Christian worldview that was the patron and best friend of science.  The supposed warfare between science and religion is a myth that was promulgated by anti-religious Darwinists in their efforts to make science a secular replacement for religion.*For support from disinterested scholars (which is always encouraged here), check out, for instance, the two Teaching Company college-level lecture series on the history of science, where you will find two reputable secular professors making this point emphatically.  You can also read our online book, or the new book by Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God.  Also, notice this line from John Tresch in Science 09/30/2005 in a book review of Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey by Bowler and Morus: “… the book shows that the history of science itself has a rich and varied history–how, for instance, in the 1870s and 1880s the idea of a longstanding ‘war between science and religion’ was invented to bolster budgets in new research universities….”Limits of science:  Science cannot know everything, because not everything can be tested in the lab.  History, for instance, is a branch of knowledge that deals with non-repeatable events of the past; consequently, the methods of investigation are different – eyewitness testimony, artifacts, journals, textual criticism, and the like.  This limitation becomes extreme when dealing with prehistory.  Without observers, one can only make inferences that are more or less plausible.  The farther back one goes, the more these inferences overlap heavily with assumptions, presuppositions and philosophical preferences.  In the limit (when considering ultimate origins), evolution and theology are indistinguishable; the story of origins becomes the science of one religion against the science of another religion.  Here, “science” loses all hope of testability and repeatability, and reduces to its core values: honesty, integrity, love of truth, submission to laws of logic, carefulness and other traits that are essentially religious values.  To suppose that Darwinists, who presume that honesty is a mere emergent property of matter in motion, are more capable of it than theists is as arrogant as it is self-refuting.Natural, Supernatural and Intelligent Causation:  Much of the smog in the debate comes from the Darwinist straw man habit of calling intelligent design “supernatural” and calling it “giving up on science.”  Penetrate this fog with your light saber and you will see much.  Intelligent design is not based on what we don’t know, but on what we do know.  It is not an appeal to a god-of-the-gaps or theological explanation, but the very approach science uses all the time to discern between intentional and non-intentional effects.  I.D. proponents argue that it is a superior explanation of complex, specified, information-rich phenomena, based on the uniformity of experience, than appeals to chance and blind natural law.    Not all phenomena have intelligent causes, but ruling them out by definition is an arbitrary and potentially show-stopping limitation on science.  Intelligent causes can be discerned from natural causes through rational analysis of the causal resources available.  But it is an exercise in futility to rule out intelligent causes when an intelligence has, indeed, acted.  When one is trying to make an inference to the best explanation about Mt. Rushmore, for instance, or about an archaeological inscription or stone tool, it is foolish to restrict one’s thinking to natural forces like wind and rain.  The ID takes well-known and fruitful methods of design inference and applies them rigorously to biology – not with theological pronouncements from prophets, but with rigorous mathematical and logical reasoning – the same kind used in forensics, cryptography, archaeology, and even SETI.    If the Darwinists did not have such a political and emotional stake in defending their religion of naturalism, they would find this perfectly acceptable and reasonable.  In short, ID is not a cop-out answer or escape clause the way the Darwinists portray it: “We can’t figure it out scientifically so God must have done it,” but rather a positive affirmation about something we can know from the uniformity of experience.  Any time we find a language – especially one that can be translated into another language and maintain its meaning – we know that a mind produced it.  To say otherwise in order to maintain one’s philosophical preference is the cop-out.  To promise “the check is in the mail” and “it’s an unsolved problem, but we’ll figure out some day” is the escape clause, and the Darwinists are red-handed guilty.Darwinism, R.I.P.  An assumption clouding up much of the reporting is that Darwinism works, or at least that it works better than any other scientific theory (see best-in-field fallacy).  If you have read Creation-Evolution Headlines for any time, you know that Darwinism is positive anti-knowledge (to borrow Colin Patterson’s phrase).  It cannot explain the origin of life, the development of the embryo, speciation, abrupt appearance of new body plans, anything.  It is a dismal failure, a lame, crippled, half-dead horse at the starting line where the rules prohibit the I.D. Seabiscuit from entry.  There is not a single part of evolutionary theory that is not controversial among evolutionists themselves.  The Darwinian method of science has two parts: (1) declare evolution a fact by fiat, and (2) hunt for corroborating evidence (that is, if you feel up to it; none is really necessary, since by #1, evolution is already a fact).  Darwinism has grown into an unwieldy, just-so storytelling empire built on Charlie’s flimsy heuristic (unguided, purposeless natural selection) that is tautological at its root, and fraught with a history of evil fruit.  Darwinists spend their time connecting distant dots of data with pure fiction.  They think that by extrapolating submillimeter changes in beak size they can explain the vast diversity of life, from whales to magnolias.  It’s time to call the Darwinists to accountability after 146 years of failure and open the field to fresh ideas.Design vs. non-design exhausts the possibilities.  LiveScience.com mocked anyone who disagrees with Darwinism by posting its “Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)” with the implication that if alternatives to Darwinism need to be permitted, then we must decide if schools should teach the Norse creation myth, the Egyptian creation myth, the Zoroastrian creation myth, etc., or all the above.  Luring the unwary reader in with nude art was a cheap trick, but they forgot to include the most lurid fable of all – Darwinism.  The display assumes all these creation stories are on a level playing field.  Any reasonable person could rank them in order of plausibility, but that is beside the point.  Even with the historical fact that it was Christian Europe that gave birth to science, not Persia or the Norse or the Egyptians, that is also completely beside the point.  No one in the I.D. movement is asking that a specific religious account of creation be taught as science.  The issue is about design, not the Designer or how he designed – just whether the phenomenon under investigation was, in fact, designed.    Either life was designed, or it was not.  Those options exhaust the possibilities.  Design can be inferred by the methods of science without making any claims about who did it, or why.  Even the Darwinists like Richard Dawkins admit that life looks designed for a purpose.  Their approach is to explain away the design, and tempt us away from our common sense and logic, to chase a phantom story that in the misty past design just “emerged” (their favorite miracle word) out of disorder.  Should this mythology have sole rights to be heard in science class?  Intelligent causes are known to be the only explanation for certain classes of phenomena capable of scientific investigation.  No one has ever seen a complex information-rich system, like the DNA language and translation factory, complete with error-correcting mechanisms, arise by chance or natural law.  Why should the philosophical naturalists, like snarling Dobermans, keep healthier bloodhounds, with a nose for design, at bay?  Why should science be arbitrarily restricted from unlocking the mystery of life with a key that works?  More ominously, why should philosophical naturalism be established as a de facto religion guised in the sacred name of science?The Darwinist strategy is to attach the label “scientific” to their beliefs and label their critics “religious.”  In this way, they hope to protect themselves from scrutiny by framing the legitimate controversies about their storytelling empire in terms of religion vs. science.  They arrogate to themselves the euphemism “scientific” and try to pigeonhole anyone who disagrees with their fable with the meaningless and contemptuous label, “people of faith.”  By inference, they assume for themselves the contrasting ribbon, people of reason.    Since we are immune to bluffing here, after evaluating their rhetoric and performance, we suggest a counter-label to describe the rabid Darwin defenders: People of Froth.  Foaming at the mouth, these merciless warriors emit masses of fearsome-looking, bubbling matter from their lips, making reporters wilt with awe.  But what is froth upon closer inspection, but a mere agglutination of thin, vulnerable membranes enclosing hot air?  Realizing this can inspire the next thing that is needed after confidence in one’s own intellectual weapons: courage.  Fear thou not the course of the wroth; go forth against froth with the force of truth.  Say that five times real fast, then act on it.(Visited 11 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Now that the ACLU’s lawsuit in Dover, Pennsylvania has gone to trial, more and more news media are writing about the controversy over intelligent design.  Many seem to think that the school board is trying to replace Darwinism in high school science classrooms with I.D.; actually, the Dover case does not mandate the teaching of intelligent design at all, but rather requires that administrators read a short statement in class expressing the point that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and that materials showing alternative explanations are available to students who are interested.  No student is forced to read them or use them, and no student is tested on I.D.  Darwinian evolution is still the only explanation for the evolution and development of life taught in the biology curriculum.    This legal detail has not prevented a flurry of rhetoric over whether ID is scientific, and whether students should be allowed to hear alternatives or not – or even to be told alternatives exist.  In that sense, the controversy should be about whether Darwinism, and the naturalistic philosophy behind it, should be government-protected from scrutiny.  Instead, however, most of the reporting is focused on the scientific merits of intelligent design.  The implicit assumption is that Darwinism is already sound science, no longer in need of critical evaluation.  The mere attempt to arouse doubt about the soundness of Darwinism was enough for the ACLU to pursue its lawsuit.  Since any such doubt is assumed to be “religiously motivated,” the ACLU argues it amounts to an “establishment of religion” and is prohibited on the grounds of “separation of church and state,” even though no church or sect is being promulgated, let alone mentioned.    Regardless of positions on the lawsuit, both sides are facing the Dover case with trepidation.  A single federal judge – John E. Jones III – may set precedent affecting many other states and school districts.  One side or the other may face difficulty advancing their views depending on the outcome.  With the scientific institutions nearly unanimously lined up on the pro-Darwin side, it looks like a classic David vs. Goliath setup.LiveScience.com is posting a strongly anti-ID series by Ker Than:Part 1 claims ID is trying to “drag science into the supernatural.”Part 2 calls ID “the death of science.”  This article was reprinted on MSNBC.Part 3 calls ID “belief posing as theory.”Part 4 looked at the history of court cases that supposedly ruled “creationism” unconstitutional.last_img read more

The Fundamentals of Series and Parallel Heat Flow

first_imgWhen you do the calculation, you should get 0.038. Taking the reciprocal gives you an average R-value of 26.6.The video below is from the building science module in our online home energy rater course and explains series and parallel heat flow with another example and a bit more information.Why windows are rated by U-factorIf you’ve ever wondered why insulation is rated by its R-value and windows are rated by U-factor, it’s the difference between materials and assemblies. Generally speaking, materials are rated by R-value and assemblies are rated by U-factor. The reason should be clear from what we did above. So, the heat has a choice. It can go through pathway #1 or pathway #2. Less of it goes through the pathway with the higher R-value, in this case #2.But how do you find the R-value of an assembly like this? You can’t just average the two R-values. The first problem with that method is that it doesn’t consider the different areas of the pathways. In a wall with studs spaced every 16″ apart, you’ve got 1.5″ of wood and 13.5″ of insulation in each cavity so there’s a lot more area with insulation than with wood. When you add the wood in the bottom plate, top plates, and other framing members, a standard wall has about 23% wood and 77% cavity.But we can’t just do a weighted average of the R-values either. We actually have to go back to the heat flow equation (Q = U x A x ΔT) to figure out how to do it, and it turns out that we have to do a weighted average of the U-values, not the R-values. Once we find the average U-value, we can convert to R-value to find the average resistance to heat flow, using the equation R = 1/U. Assemblies are combinations of layers series and parallel pathways, so to find a number that characterizes their thermal performance, you have to do the calculation for average U-factor. Rather than taking the next step and calculating the average R-value, manufacturers just report U-factor. Not a big deal, especially since we can go between R and U so easily.The real world is complexAs I pointed out in my caveat above, the real world is more complex than we’re making it out to be here. Also, the examples I used in this article are simpler than the analysis usually done to find U-factors for assemblies since I’ve ignored air films, the complexities of framing, and the other layers that are often present.In our classes, we provide a spreadsheet that allows students to put in the R-values for each layer in each pathway and see the resultant average U-factor and average R-value. You can do the same thing in the path layer view in the home energy rating software REM/Rate. If you want to get into more accurate modeling of heat flow, you need to use a tool like THERM or WUFI.Now that you know the fundamentals, you can start calculating average R-values and blow your mind when you see how important a little bit of uninsulated area can be or why it’s important to keep your insulation flat, not lumpy. And if you want to understand thermal bridging, you’ve got to understand layers and pathways. Allison Bailes of Decatur, Georgia, is a speaker, writer, energy consultant, RESNET-certified trainer, and the author of the Energy Vanguard Blog. Check out his in-depth course, Mastering Building Science at Heatspring Learning Institute, and follow him on Twitter at @EnergyVanguard.Footnotes1. Yeah, I know it’s winter as I write this and I even see snow on the ground on this chilly Atlanta morning, but no one gets taken seriously in the world of building science unless they display a hot-climate bias. Either that or I’m hallucinating. Wait, is that really snow!?2. The colors chosen here don’t represent an endorsement on my part for any particular brand of insulation. Pink happens to show up well in the diagram, but I could just as easily have used blue, yellow, white, green, or black. We used to build houses without giving much thought to heat flow through the walls, ceilings, and floors. The main thing was to provide some resistance against wind and rain, and then we’d get a fire going to try to make the indoor temperatures bearable.If you’ve ever lived in an old, uninsulated house, you know that method didn’t work that well so later we started putting insulation into the cavities in building assemblies. Homes with insulated cavities are much more comfortable, but how exactly does heat flow through building assemblies? Turns out there are two ways.Layers in seriesOne way heat flows is layer by layer through a building assembly made of multiple materials stacked together. The diagram below shows two layers separating the hot side from the cool side1.This method of heat flow is pretty simple. All the heat has to flow through each layer. Starting from the hot side (because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the heat flows through the pink layer2, then the grey layer. With the caveat about one-dimensional heat flow below, the same amount of heat flows through any section of the assembly. RELATED ARTICLESWhat Is Heat?Understanding R-ValueWhy Doesn’t Heat Flow Backwards?How to Perform a Heat-Loss CalculationThe Diminishing Returns of Adding InsulationInsulation OverviewAll About Thermal MassAre Dew-Point Calculations Really Necessary?The Thermal Bridge to NowhereThermal Bridging The total R-values are 12.0 for pathway #1 and 30.5 for pathway #2.The areas are 94 and 906 square feet, so to find the average U-value, you’d set up the equation as follows:center_img OK, here’s the caveat. It’s not really as simple as I’m making it out to be. It never is really, but we always have to start with the simplified cases and add complexity. In reality, heat flows in three dimensions, and we have to consider what happens at the boundaries. For this analysis, though, we’re considering heat flow in only one dimension. That means a red arrow represents the same amount of heat flow no matter where it enters the assembly.If all our assemblies were like this, we’d have an easy time with the math for R-values: you just add them all together. Here’s the rule:Parallel Heat Flow: Do a weighted average of the U-valuesIf you’ve got three pathways, you’d add another term to the numerator with U3 x A3. You can add as many terms as you need to include all the parallel pathways. After you’ve got your average U-value, you can then take the reciprocal (1/Uavg) to find the average R-value.The series and parallel comboOf course, most building assemblies are a combination of layers in series and parallel pathways. In a wall, for example, you’ve the framing and insulation in one layer, then you’ve got drywall on the inside and sheathing (usually OSB) and cladding on the outside. There’s also air films, drainage planes, and sometimes other stuff to add in there, too. The diagram at left shows a simple example of a series-and-parallel combination. It could be a ceiling with 2×10 joists, insulation between the joists, and drywall below. (I’ve ignored air films and other stuff here.)To solve this, you start by identifying the two parallel pathways, 1 and 2. Then you notice that each pathway is a series of layers, A and B. You add the R-values for each layer and then do a weighted average of the resulting total R-values for the two pathways.The table below lays it out. The rule:Series Heat Flow: Add the R-valuesIf you’ve put R-5 foamboard on an R-2 concrete wall, for example, the R-value of the combination is 7. Got more layers than that? Just add them in, too.Parallel pathwaysAs you can see in the photo at the top of this article, however, the standard wall assembly isn’t just a series of continuous layers. You can see two parallel pathways in the main part of the wall. Windows and doors represent more pathways. A header above a window is another pathway, different from the studs and plates because of the gap between the two pieces of wood, which is filled sometimes either with insulation or partially with wood spacers.The diagram below shows the heat flow through two different pathways: the framing of a wall (#1) and an insulated cavity (#2). The heat that goes through the insulated cavity (#2) has a harder go of it because insulation is more resitive to heat flow than wood is. The short red arrows indicate that less heat flows through that path.last_img read more

Ceres left with mountain to climb after away leg

first_imgThe Busmen absorbed a 0-4 drubbing at the hands of Tajikistan champion Istiklol in the first leg of their inter-zone semifinal tie on Tuesday, leaving them with a mountain to climb at Panaad Stadium in three weeks time.On a chilly night in the outskirts of the capital Dushanbe, Ceres, the Asean zonal champion, struggled to cope against a relentless Istiklol side that made the most of its physical advantage by hassling and harrying the visitors at Hisor Stadium.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSWATCH: Drones light up sky in final leg of SEA Games torch runSPORTSSEA Games: Philippines picks up 1st win in men’s water poloSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutout“I thought we could have done better, but we will give them a good fight at home,” said Ceres midfielder Stephan Schrock. “We’re not giving up just yet.”Panaad has been a fortress for visiting teams with Ceres coming away with big wins in the group stage including a 6-2 win over Hanoi and a 5-0 demolition of Tampines. WATCH: Streetboys show off slick dance moves in Vhong Navarro’s wedding LOOK: Venues for 2019 SEA Games MOST READ Catriona Gray spends Thanksgiving by preparing meals for people with illnesses Brace for potentially devastating typhoon approaching PH – NDRRMC View comments Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. UPLB exempted from SEA Games class suspension SEA Games in Calabarzon safe, secure – Solcom chiefcenter_img Read Next Istiklol got a goal each from Akhtam Nazarov and Romish Dhzalilov in the first half, before a second half brace from Manuchehr Dhzalilov ensured the Tajiks go into the second leg on Sept. 12 at Panaad Stadium in Bacolod City with a comfortable advantage.A 5-0 win at home will allow the Busmen to advance, but a 4-0 scoreline will send the tie to extra time. But with the way the Tajik champions dominated the first leg, it seems the Busmen would need a miracle for that to happen.It was a tough reality check for the Busmen as they paid dearly for another sub-par away performance.Nazarov opened the scoring by converting a penalty in the 25th minute after Kota Kawase brought down Dimitri Barkov inside the area. Romish Dhzalilov doubled the lead at the stroke of halftime with a clinical strike that left Roland Muller with no chance.The Busmen hardly threatened in the first half as Istiklol controlled proceedings, pressing high and winning the ball early.ADVERTISEMENT HISOR—Sensational at home in the AFC Cup, it looks like Ceres Negros will need to top all of those performances to survive this latest challenge.ADVERTISEMENT LIST: Class, gov’t work suspensions during 30th SEA Games Trending Articles PLAY LIST 00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles01:37Protesters burn down Iran consulate in Najaf01:47Panelo casts doubts on Robredo’s drug war ‘discoveries’01:29Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university01:35Panelo suggests discounted SEA Games tickets for students02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games Stags battle Bombers minus star SEA Games: PH’s Alisson Perticheto tops ice skating short program LATEST STORIESlast_img read more

Matthew Baldwin to transfer to TCU

Redshirt freshman Matthew Baldwin (12) throws a pass down the field in the first half of the 2019 Spring Game on April 13. Gray beat Scarlet 35-17. Credit: Casey Cascaldo | Photo EditorRedshirt freshman quarterback Matthew Baldwin’s transfer from Ohio State is now official.After taking to twitter to announce his transfer on April 18, the now former Buckeye stated Tuesday that his transfer destination would be TCU, per reports by 247Sports.At the time he entered the transfer portal, Baldwin cited a desire to be closer to home as his motivation for leaving Ohio State.“My family and I have prayed and talked a lot about where I belong and what is best for me,” Baldwin said in the April 18 twitter announcement. “In the end, we’d feel it’d be better for me to step away from Ohio State.”TCU is located in Fort Worth, Texas, a three-hour drive from Baldwin’s hometown in Austin, Texas.Baldwin will apply for immediate eligibility with the Horned Frogs.Baldwin concludes his Ohio State career before taking a single snap. At the 2019 Spring Game he finished 20-for-36 for 246 yards through the air, with two touchdowns and three interceptions.While sophomore quarterback Justin Fields appeared to lead for the starting job at the position for the Buckeyes, he and Baldwin were considered in open competition by head coach Ryan Day.Should he be granted immediate eligibility, he’ll have four seasons available to play at TCU. read more