Haezed

That is an interesting link. That clears a few things up for me too. Although ID creationism remains as muddied as before. Especially if all the various creationists are united under that title...which is weird since they already have a title according to this Mark Isaac - "creationist".

It's bait and switch. Don't buy into it!!

deistic/theistic evolution.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

 

ID is officially saying that the complexity of life can only be explained by direct creation by god (which is obviously BS from a scientific pov, as evolution has been firmly proven to be capable of creating complex life), but it basically boils down to 'no, god did it, so there '

 

theistic evolution is kinda like 'yeah, ok, evolution etc. but god was tinkering with the process'.

See, I don't think ID says anything officially or otherwise. I think some leading creationists have deceptively packaged their beliefs into a phrase which connotates nothing about creationism. It is a mistake for us all to buy into that phrase because ultimately, to most people, words mean nothing more and nothing less than what they actually say.

This is amply evidenced by the poll cited in this thread. When people are asked whether they believe in Intelligent Design, they don't know the history of how the phrase developed.

M. Rees, no scientific slouch, seems to say we have three choices to explain the incredible fine tuning of the universe which allows life, even matter, to form: (i) incredible coincidence, (ii) intelligent design/divine intervention or (iii) varied infinite universes in which a few like our own get very lucky and life can form.

Actually, I think there are two initial choices.

1. All universes in existence, which might be just ours, have these same rules which seemed fine tuned for life.

2. There are multiple, perhaps infinite universes, each with differing rules and ours simply had the right combination of rules to produce life.

Rees opts for #2. If #1 is true, the options are a. raw chance, b. intelligent design. A, by definition, is highly improbable.

Although Martin Rees' book is on my short list of books I have to read this year, I've not gotten to it yet. However, the article suggests that he at least feels comfortable with an opinion leaning towards #2. I'm wondering if this is more intuition in play than anything else but can't say, obviously, unless I read the book.

My uneducated intuition would be the reverse - it seems more likely that there was fine tuning by intelligence of the initial design than that there are an infinite number of universes with different physical rules in play. For one thing, I can't understand, and from some reviews, Rees does not explain, why rules would differ from one universe to another. This seems squarely outside of the realm of current science, but at least science appears to have narrowed the decision to these two alternatives and given us decisions points at which to aim our intuition (which will mostly likely be completely wrong).

All of this is to repeat the point that I hate how the phrase "intelligent design" has become so tarnished by creationists because I think our species may finally be nearing a point where the issues can be intelligently discussed with something other than blind faith.

Haezed,

 

You're right, sorry. I read carefully the post I quoted but I haven't read all your previous posts. Now I agree when you say it can't currently be tested.

No worries.

However... "Intelligent Design" was coined by Thaxton (of the Discovery Institute) and means that the complexity of life can't be explained without referring to a designer, and I prefer to keep that definition, it avoids confusion.

Half of the battle in advocacy is over what you call a thing. I would not lightly concede the more defensible terrain of "intelligent design" to those who believe in divine daily intervention in life.

I quoted the first two I believe, as those are usually the most common. I also gave you a definition from the New Yorker.

It is possible the definition is in flux as discussions such as these rage on about the concepts. My hope is that a disciplined intelligent definition will emerge and flush out those who are trying to bait and switch.

It's not really untestable, it just doesn't fit data. If genomes were perfectly organized, if there was no traces of the "trial and error" process, then ID would be much more viable. But it's not the case.

I'm not certain you've read all of my posts. My view is that the label "intelligent design" has been commandeered and dismissed overbroadly both by its proponents and detractors. It is really a neat label for the hypothesis that, well, the universe was intelligently designed. The label itself says nothing of intervention by intelligence after the initial design. That's the form of ID I've semi-defended.

M. Rees, no scientific slouch, seems to say we have three choices to explain the incredible fine tuning of the universe which allows life, even matter, to form: (i) incredible coincidence, (ii) intelligent design/divine intervention or (iii) varied infinite universes in which a few like our own get very lucky and life can form.

These three hypothesis are what I'm saying is presently untestable, not the theory of evolution in which I am sold. For the record, I believe the universe is 14 or so billion years old, the earth is 4 billion or so years old and that life evolved through a process of natural selection. None of this precludes intelligent design.

I think that both the proponents and detractors of ID make the discussion difficult by sliding too many camels into a rather smallish tent. Those of us who are considering the idea expressed by the actual words are pushed to the outside to scratch our head at the rumpus within.

Again, this is the anthropic principle you are describing. I think you are actually referring to "Dicke's Coincidence" here which was the precursor to AP. Anyway, that is not the same as ID, merely supporting evidence.

I'm certain M. Rees gave appropriate credit to Robert Dicke.

As I understand it, no. You'd have to scoff at natural selection and insist, by faith alone, that god or the supernatural is guiding the process we interpret as evolution.

That is certainly more than the label implies. It's kind of funny how the critics of Intelligent Design have to reduce it to ID, and I don't think that is just for faster typing. Calling them IDers makes them more dismissable.

Maybe they should be dismissed but I also wonder if there isn't some breadth and diversity to the ID belief system. If someone were to ask me in a poll, "do you believe in intelligent design," my answer would be that it is as likely as a pure coincidence in the "six numbers" or in an infinity of differing multiverses.

But it's not since intelligent design rejects natural selection, implying that the hand of god is continuous, or at least interferes regularly rather than the proverbial snowball scenario where god just invents it, and from there it propagates on its own.

Again, many in the movement might but, and I'm agreeing with you, many of the people in that poll certainly did not.

Definitely semantics. I agree that the phrase "intelligent design" sounds quite simply like a belief in god, that created the universe. If god is truly omnipotent and responsible for the universe, then it stands to reason that kind of unfathomable intelligence would elude man's pathetic reasoning skills in contrast.

Actually, the phrase connotates less than that. It only says that some intelligence(s) designed the rules of the universe, e.g. the six numbers. This intelligence might be benign or perverse. It might care about life or something else entirely. For all we know, creating universes is a form of art or entertainment. We could be part of the ultimate reality show.

Inteligent Designers might intervene to help life or it might sit back and watch it unfold for reasons of their own. That's why I think the concept, as it's stated anyway, is a huge concession to science by theology. I don't see ID, at least as the phrase is stated, as being a step backwards from science.

But it's now the new label for a theory. Maybe we need look into "creationists" and see what the difference is, because there certainly is one.

I think the debate, and the 55% poll is hopelessly confusing. The movement has chosen its name well, if this is a discreet monolithic movement....

Maybe these "gee whiz" Levin type ideas are more like generalizations that don't impact the teachings and proofs of natural selection.

I did a diservice to Levin's wonderful book by quoting that one passage. It has a lot of depth, at least to my lay eye, but I agree such sentiments have nothing to do with natural selection. All Levin said is that it is tempting to see the entire cosmic life as a life factory. She didn't even say she secumbed to the temption.

Can you say that J. Levin's quote changes anything we teach in science today? I don't see how.

I don't know. One job of a science teacher is to give his students a sense of awe. The best teacher of the masses, at least that comes to my lay mind, was Carl Sagan who acted something as a preacher for science. Envisioning the sweep of the entire cosmic process and occassionally waxing poetic isn't entirely out of line.

I don't see anything wrong with M. Rees pointing out to the public or college students that the math and science of today appears to reduce the seemingly fine tuned nature of our origin down to three possibilities: (i) incredible coincidence, (ii) intelligent design or (iii) an infinity of variable universes.

I guess I'm frustrated because I think this is where it boils down and the ID folks have commandeered this concept so that it has become an academic leper.

And that's the difference here. Most simply assign god some role in evolution without specifics, retaining the science of evolution and natural selection.

Maybe ID comes in different forms?

Is the anti-war crowd the left's version of the religious right?

 

- They're particularly zealous about their beliefs

- They don't let reality get in the way of their ideology

- They tend to push a general ideology (in this case liberalism) farther than most people want it to go (i.e. they represent an extreme branch of a larger, more mainstream ideological framework)

 

Legitimate comparison, or Panglossian nonsense?

 

Just to help spur the discussion, here's an amusing article about anti-war activists getting their hair all tussled over Democrats "backing down" on the war funding bill:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070523.htm

Excellent point. To this the list I would add:

- They are more apt to villify those with whom they disagree than to acknowledge a good faith difference of opinion.

I found this article by M. Rees on his six numbers thinking:

As the start of the twenty-first century, we have identified six numbers that seem especially significant. Two of them relate to the basic forces; two fix the size and overall 'texture' of our Universe and determine whether it will continue for ever; and two more fix the properties of space itself:

 

These six numbers constitute a 'recipe' for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be 'untuned', there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the 'right' combination. This realisation offers a radically new perspective on our Universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws.

"Martin Rees is Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics and Master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. He holds the honorary title of Astronomer Royal and also Visiting Professor at Imperial College London and at Leicester University. "

He seems to present three possibilities to explain the apparent fine tuning of the unverse: 1. brute fact, i.e. coincidence, 2. divine intervention or 3. the existence of so many countless universes, each with varied physical laws, that at least one had to "roll" the right combination to allow life.

If such a scientist as M. Rees can opine from a scientific point of view to reject #1 & #2, but advocate #3, why should I have distain for a scientist who argues for #2?

Well keep in mind what got me to this post. The point I've been failing to make is that Intelligent Design is a theory that challenges established science, whereas people who simply believe in god AND evolution are not challenging science.

My head is spinning in with this thread which won't seem to keep still. At least let me know this: If I believe nothing more than that intelligence designed the universe, am I an IDer?

Personally, I see ID as a hypothesis which can't be tested, not a theory.

The latter is not an issue, it's simply representative that many people in our country simply believe in god and so therefore it would naturally follow that they would believe god caused evolution.

Which, to me, sounds like an intelligent design of the universe by God. See for example this book by Reese.

The way Phil was interpreting that poll of 55% believing in ID or creationism, was assuming that 55% understands the difference between accepting that god may be responsible for the invention of evolution and its systems versus a total rehab of scientific theory and evidence for supernatural beliefs.

Again, I don't see why the concept, if not the practice, of a belief in intelligent design necessitates a total rehab of scientific theory and evidence.

To me, you have to fudge the numbers in order to show a majority of the country is made up of ID'ers...because it's not.

I bet the majority of the country believe intelligence designed the universe. Half of the battle is how things are labelled in politics. IDers, as you call them, probably have people like me who don't know what they are really saying in detail but who dont' preclude the possibility of intelligent design.

And I share your distaste for labeling individuals, but not for ideologies. ID is not an individual. That's why I take issue with that 55%, because it's throwing people into a group disingenuously.

Agreed, and I think it is about packaging. The ID movement chose a good label with which most people agree.

No, just a large chunk of it because it rejects the notion of natural selection. Natural selection is not reasonable to ID.

Why?

Either that, or I don't fully appreciate the magnitude of ID. I'm open for education here.

I'm not an expert either. I thought ID folks just believed that there is likely intelligence that designed the universe. They point to various physical laws which if slightly tweaked would have precluded any possibility life at all as evidence.

I gave the quote of J. Levin of MIT earlier who said it is hard to resist the temptation that the entire cosmic cycle is some kind of factory intended to produce organic life. Would this view be ID? I honestly don't know except that it seems to fit the phrase "intelligent design."

Hey, I'm with you here. We may find out the hand of god actually interferes continuously. We may find that natural selection is completely guided by god and made to look as if it's not. We may even find out the spaghetti monster is actually the devil and he and god are at a tug of war that takes place in the process of evolution. I highly doubt it and have basically risked my infinite soul that god doesn't exist, but I can't prove it so...

Did you ever read Sagan's book, Contact which had a different ending than the movie? It gives one possible way in which God might encode a message.

Same here. Until it's proven, it's just another religious story, belief, whatever. We don't teach supernatural beliefs, we teach proven theories.

I think they believe the scientific evidence of intelligence in the design is that the physical laws slightly tweaked would have made life of any kind impossible. See, for example, this book. Rees believes that there are six numbers slightly tweaked woudld have precluded the formation of life and matter but he also believes this did not happen as a result of intelligence.

I'm not certain what I believe about these kinds of debates but I certainly do not dismiss them as insubstantial.

Look out Soccer Moms, here come the SAFs! SAF = "Single Anxious Female". Under 30, unmarried, uneducated, unaffluent, and "thoroughly pissed off at the direction of America". (Maybe because they spend too much time watching Grey's Anatomy and not enough time reading a textbook?)

 

Sounds like something a mean-spirited Republican pollster would come up with, right? Wrong. It's the invention of a women's political group as part of a get-out-the-vote effort and a major focus area for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Apparently this is one of the fastest-growing voter groups. Now I'm concerned about the direction of the country! Anyway, here's an article:

 

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/32135/

We are doomed.

I don't know about monolithic, but it's beyond simply believing god and evolution, both. They actually want to pretend that the supernatural should be considered scientific theory. Here's some key snipets in the first paragraph of the Wiki search on Intelligent Design.

I ask because I think there is a valid possibility, if not plausibility, that intelligence designed the universe and set it in motion. I see no evidence that that intelligence has intervened subsequently. It seems a valid, if presently untestable, hypothesis.

Anytime I hear someone labelled in such a group, "IDer", "card carrying ACLUer", etc, I start to want to defend the people thrown into the group indiscriminately. I suspect many of those who believe in intelligence in the design of the universe understand that there is a limit as to how far science can go to test the hypothesis.

This basically debunks a large chunk of evolution, in their view anyway. I don't understand evolution enough to really grasp how far reaching that is, to the study, but it's certainly an extreme step beyond simply believing god "Got the ball rolling" and evolution is the result, because natural selection is key, and in jeopardy by ID, but not the masses.

You seem to be saying that the way Intelligence Design is defined by this movement, it rejects evolution. I don't see why intelligent design as a concept does so.

I also don't think it's impossible that the hypothesis will forever be untestable. Look at how far the species has come in a nanosecond of time on the cosmic clock in understanding nature. Who is to say we won't find marks of intelligent design in the future?

In the meantime, I agree that teaching it as science today is nothing short of bogus. OTOH, I've never sat through what the advocates would consider to be a class on ID.

They only look bigger because of the folks that don't understand the true POV of ID'ism.

Please explain to me to the true pOV of ID'ism. Is it monolithic?

It would be silly for someone to believe in god, and NOT believe he has a hand in evolution. Most people believe in god. So what's the problem?

If by having a "hand in evolution," you mean He created the the laws of the universe and kickstarted the process with a big bang, I'm with you. That theory is as good as any other at this point in our species' ... well, evolution.

It is certainly not silly to believe in the possibility of God in the former sense without accepting that he tinkers with the ongoing process he designed and initiated.

God creating the universe to make such processes IS a divine spark.

It may or may not be a divine spark. The universe could be a simulation in a computer lab somewhere and the Gods are the extradimensional equivalent of geeks on steroids.

That's not even in the same ballpark with this IDist / creationist movement.

As I've said numerous times before, with no response, I really regret how creationists misuse the phrase Intelligent Design. By itself, this phrase nicely encapsulates the possibility you are describing - a God or Gods (at least from our POV) designed and initiated the universe.

It's a theory, like any other.

It always boggles my mind that 40 years ago we were still actively being held down in society and somehow the majority of white people seem to think everything must be cool now and that the entire situation has reversed itself in a mere 40 years.

I can understand a racial minority that was literally chattel not too long ago would at least have skeptism that racism just vanished.

OTOH, when you talk about 40 years, you are talking about before the birth of many of the people on this board. The younger generations were raised during a time when it was extremely uncool to be bigoted and I think there has been an actual paradigm shift.

Also, let me ask you, how does it help African Americans to dwell on the history of their birth? If African American youth become convinced by their older generation that they can't get a fair shake in America today, how does that help them? Would it be better to have a little faith that this country provides opportunity for all with talent who work hard and take risks?

There is a risk that any formerly oppressed segment of society will indulge in a self-defeating mind set where it is keeping itself down and doesn't recognize the new opportunities that exist in a culture..

White people forced blacks and many other minorities into lives of poverty and strife for a long time out of greed, and ity going to take a lot longer then 40 years for us to be on equal standing. There are many families living in poverty today because bigotry put them there.

You say "white people" did this. Now, if I were to say "black people" did x,y or z negative action, wouldn't I be in dangerous territory?

MLK would have us judge each other not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character. My families' ancestors were rich plantation owners who lost their wealth, primarily their slaves, in the war between the states. My family still has one of our relatives' gun from that war. I see this as distant history and in no way feel guilty. It wasn't me.

Slavery has an ancient lineage which wasn't always or even usually racial. I agree racial enslavement is especially repulsive but at some point it has to stop being an excuse for irrational behavior.

The above becomes even worse when people start promoting science or religion because they like the associated politics. Racists promote evolution because they like the idea of eliminating or subjugating those they believe to be inferior. Bigots promote their religion because they like steeling the property of their neighbors who worship a different god.

 

The average person never gives one thought to how things work. Most are simply looking for affirmation of their pre conceived notions.

 

It is far better if science, economics, and religion stand on their own. Each should pick at the other, and in this process perhaps religion will fade away. This was Darwin’s belief. All three can inform politics on how best to govern but watch out if any one of them becomes government.

I'm not sure if I've proved your point or we just agreed all along. I didn't understand your point and certainly agree with these last paragraphs.

When you talked about the damage that was produced by "politics motivated by evolution," I admit this threw me for a loop. It seemed that you were blaming science for the political result which would be like blaming the discovery that friction can cause fire for the burning of London in 1666. Thank you for clarifying your point.

My only quibble would be that, personally, I can't let my religion "stand alone" against science. I have to mesh the two as best I can. I find it remarkable that creationists have to hide the God ball in the phrase "Intelligent Design." When you think about it, they've conceded a termendous amount of ground to science in a short period of time.

I also find it remarkable that so many non-believers have a visceral reaction to the possibility of pure ID, i.e. design at the outset with no subsequent intervention in operation of the design. It's a theory like any other and who knows what the next 200 years will prove or disprove.

Perhaps articles like this one <http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm> make me think there is a link between communism and evolution. These Marxists seem to think there is a link.

This article seems to be an attempt by a Marxist to suggest that that Marxism has the same solid scientific basis as Darwinism. Since Darwin was correct, it is hardly surprising that many intellectual arguments referenced his theory.

In fact, it's hard to develop any comprehensive theory about the human condition without in some way referencing Darwin's explanation as to why humans evolved. Darwin's theory of evolution is "linked" to practically everything since it explains how we came to exist.

I am not trying to divert this discussion to that of religion, nor am I trying to suggest that evolution caused world war two. I was trying to suggest that people don't get science and as a result good science can cause bad things to happen in politics.

Here again you are suggesting that evolution was the cause of some "bad things to happen in politics."

Evolution supporters brought us eugenics.

Ummm... no.

It also brought us Nazism with at the master race and all its purifying humanity crap.

No.

Then there is Communism where the masses are more important than the individual.

This is a non sequitur.

You often here people talk about the human casualties brought about by religious belief. All the human suffering brought about by all the worlds religions throughout the ages don’t hold a candle to the bright inferno of politics motivated by evolution that came about in the 20th century.

Actually, I haven't seen much talk on this board about religion.

If I was forced to list the top 1,000 factors contributing to the outbreak of WWII, evolution would not make the list. Googling the issue, I see that some creationists make much of the use of the word in Mein Kampf, but the word "evolution" was not used in the context of Darwin's theory. Darwin is not mentioned but the book does have references to God and Jesus.

Fundamentally, evolution tells us that we all come from a common lineage. When the white slave owner of an earlier era might african american slaves to monkeys, science teaches us today that we are all descendents of apes and other less intelligent life forms.

Evolution is marvelous science, but it has so far brought us mostly horror is politics.

If you agree it is marvelous science, the world will just have to grow up and get used to evolution.

why? it's not inconsistant with science.

 

sure, science says that evolution was completely unguided, but thats due to lack of evidence that it was: theres no actual evidence that it was unguided.

 

'evolution guided by god' is not scientific, but it's not incompatable with science. 'god did it', otoh, is incompatable with science.

 

"scientifically, we evolved; religiously, i believe that said evolution was guided" is a vast improvement over ID.

If someone believes the universe is designed by intelligence, must they also believe that the intelligence has to intervene in the operation of its design?

"It is tempting to see the entire cosmos unfold like a giant factory driven towards the production of organic life -- the cycle of life and death and regeneration."

 

J. Levin, How the Universe Got its Spots

If someone gives into this temptation and also believes that the factory was created with intention, they can still believe in evolution. I see these as two completely unrelated concepts which are mixed both by the religious and those who oppose them.

I'm not necessarily disputing that it would "implode," I'm just asking what the significance of that fact, if true, would be.

Potentially, genocide. Compare and contrast that to the status quo as bad as it is, or the Saddam regime, as horrendous as that was.

If the "Iraqi government" is completely unable or unwilling to control the violence on its own, then what does that mean?

Control "the violence." There are degrees or horrible and what was being suggested by George to John was that what could come would be a human tragedy of genocidal proportions.

If the guys we're trying desperately to support are weaker than the guys we're trying desperately to wipe out, what does that mean?

I don't know if the guys we support are weaker. It's simply easier to tear down than it is to build up. That's the nature of reality. It may take 2-5 years (i really don't know) to build the WTC, and a little bit of resources and a willingness to die will tear them down. That's what we are seeing in Iraq BUT it is different completely from the scenario we are discussing.

I was suggesting Vietnam as an analogy inasmuch as it was a situation in which we threw in our lot with an uncommited and corrupt faction against a more passionate and numerous adversary.

I see no evidence of that at all. We threw ourselves against ultimate corrpution and evil and we are fighting imported forces and some insurgents and sectarian violence whipped up by all of the above. The vast majority of Iraqis made their way to the polls and want this to work.

The only real analogy to Vietnam is that we are suffering without a real end in sight.

In that situation, victory is impossible, even if you win every battle. Is it exactly the same? No. Is it useless as an analogy? No.

It's a very weak analogy. For one thing, there was a stable regime before we went in. It was a despicable horrendous regime but it was stable. I think we have some responsibility to give this time and 4 years is miniscule in the sweep of history.

The Vietnam analogy is also tricky because it will lead us into a quicksand debate as to what really caused us to lose that war. See, e.g. the Tet offensive.

Yet cars are far more destructive than smoking in environmental terms. Waving this aside because of a perceived societal benefit is an unquantified and arbitrary value judgement.

 

I would classify cars as being a convenience, rather than an overall benefit.

Note you shift to "overall benefit." You're now talking about net benefit.

Smoking has no gross benefit to society so there isn't even an argument about "overall benefits." It's all loss.

I had an essential meeting today 45 miles from my office. A bus route would have been uneconomic and counterproductive.

How was I to get there?

They cost us massively in terms of raw resources, and the true extent of the damage done (to humans and the planet) by collisions and accidents, the burning off of fossil fuels, carving the planet into roads, and belching out millions of tonnes of exhaust every year, very much remains to be seen.

What alternative are you proposing?

I don't think this is really comparable to a minor and user-controllable vice like smoking, in any way.

We'll see if my argument continues to be ignored...

There's a social benefit large enough to justify the thousands of dead bodies we mourn over year after year?

To driving? Yes, of course.

There's a social benefit if we quit insisting on driving vehicles that weigh thousands of pounds, made of metals and unforgiving, non-elastic materials.

I'm not sure that would save lives or that the costs would be similiar. I don't understand your point.

My argument is simple:

1. Smoking has zero social benefit and is known to be deadly in certain concentrations. Therefore, I want to know that it is not hurting people before it is used in the public. This wouild be an obvious rule if we were not trying to unwind centuries of custom and addiction.

2. There is an enormous benefit to a mobile society. We can argue about the best policies re car composition, design, or the speed limit but there is no question that cars provide enormous competitive and other advantages to society.

3. It's a nuisance with no corresponding social benefit. Does no one want to take on my rat entrail analogy?

This is very wrong reasoning, IMO.

Sorry, I worked my way up the chain before seeing this post. Let me take this one on.

You can't just pick a subject and decide that its adherents need to prove themselves non-threatening to you.

No, I would pick an activity which is (i) non-useful to society and (ii) absolutely known to cause harm in some concentrations.

You look funny. Prove you're not dangerous to me. You have a strange name. Prove you're not dangerous to me. Your farts smell awful. Prove they're not dangerous to me.

Moreover, I didn't rely only on the health aspects but also believe that there is no right to engage in nuisance activities (i.e. actions which are noxious with no social utility) in public spaces.

I think you know better than that. I have no problem with your objections to noxious odor and discourteous behavior, by the way. By all means, object on that basis. I support your right to take your business elsewhere, 100%.

If it became a fad for 20 somethings to start carrying about in public places rotting plates of rat entrails and sniff the vapors from time to time, I think it would be perfectly appropriate for a state legislature to pass legislation banning the practice.

No, it does not. Name one study that shows drinking water does not cause cancer. No one would fund such a study, for one thing. The study would be inconclusive, for another.

Right. We know this as truth. We don't know that about second hand smoke. When you have the same degree of certainty let me know, but I still won't want you smoking next to me in a public space any more than I would want you carrying a plate of rotting rat entrails.