damocles Posted October 10, 2005 Report Posted October 10, 2005 Oh, I see. Once Damocles declares an argument "DEAD", then it's "dead". Nevermind why it's dead. Nevermind an explanation… Damocles said it, therefore it's true and there can be no debate on the issue. Sorry, I didn't understand this previously. My mistake… I thought this was a "science" forum. By the way, I'll take your non-answer as a "No." Listen. False analogy dodges the central question. Nobody cares about some hypothetical human political situation dredged up to illustrate some corrupt human POLITICAL process. You have the power, talent and money to run your tests independent of the alleged corrupt scientific community and publish your results. If you want to know how that works; GOOGLE PILTDOWN MAN. Scientists corrected that mistake because they checked each other for their lies, despite the POLITICAL process. Use the power you have. The question is intelligent design. Now test for god and publish results. And stop this evasion of the question. Otherwise go. ADDENDUM; For edification; http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4152 Close minded to any possible speculation are rational men on the question?
TRoutMac Posted October 10, 2005 Report Posted October 10, 2005 False analogy dodges the central question. That my analogy is false is simply your opinion, and it's an unfounded one at that. Yes, science has acknowledged some mistakes in history. Soon, it will acknowledge the one we're discussing now, which is methodological naturalism. Now test for god and publish results. And stop this evasion of the question. You're being very dishonest about the claims being made by Intelligent Design theorists. I understand, of course, that this is quite literally the only means left to you for defending your position. Nevertheless, the Intelligent Design hypothesis does not identify the designer as God or anybody else. We would only "test for God" if the hypothesis identified the designer as God. Do I personally believe the designer is God? Sure I do. But that goes beyond what's testable. Intelligent Design theory stays well within the bounds of what is testable by not concerning itself with the designer's identity. And in so doing, it rides right alongside other disciplines of science which use precisely the same reasoning and which you accept as being legitimate, such as archaeology, forensics, SETI, etc. I can only conclude that you reject I.D. only because on a personal level, you don't like to consider the possibility that an Intelligent Designer exists. You would never argue that the Rosetta Stone was not the result of intelligent design if an archaeologist presented you with the suggestion that it was[b/], would you? No, that would be preposterous. Nobody questions that the Rosetta Stone is the result of Intelligent Design. And that reveals that you agree that the basic logic and rationale behind Intelligent Design is quite sound. You just don't like it, and based on that and that alone, you claim it's not science. Well, sorry… science should not be defined by what you "like" or "don't like".
Erasmus00 Posted October 10, 2005 Report Posted October 10, 2005 In other scientific pursuits, such as "How do birds fly?" or "What causes superconductivity?" the competing hypotheses can all be characterized as "natural explanations" and each competing hypothesis is considered "equally possible" until the evidence from observation and experimentation begins to disprove alternate hypotheses. But, by your logic, I should also allow the God lifts the birds up theory or God directs electrons theory into my explanations, because I need to get out of my "naturalism box." So I allow these explanations. Now, "God did it" (or, as you say "an intelligent designer did it.") can be used to explain everything. You want to escape this by saying that only in "big picture" questions can I whip out the old "God did it," but what criteria establishes what is big picture, and what isn't? Who among you are actually willing to say that science should steer itself away from certain conclusions? Trapped again, aren't ya? Nobody is saying science should steer itself away from anything. As has been said many times, predict something with intelligent design, and do an experiment. No one has yet to predict something, though several "post dictions" have been made. Once again, a willful misrepresentation of Intelligent Design. Here are several "predictions" of I.D. Some of which I've already mentioned, although you are loathe to admit it. (1) Machine-like complex structures will be found in biological systems. Care to deny the existence of "molecular machinery"? But evolution predicts this too. Now, I must ask, how do we tell a machine that evolved from one that was designed? Give me criteria, a deffinition? Is it, as Behe would have us, the issue of irreducible complexity? So give me a working deffinition of irreducibly complex, and we'll hunt for those. Plus, if something is currently explained by evolution, why should we change to your new and rather bizzare theory? (2) Instructions for building and operating an organism would be discovered within the cells of the organism. Ooops, look at that. We've got DNA. Shazzaam!! But evolution predicts this too. With no way to pass down information about the parents from organism to organism, evolution couldn't happen. Some claim that Darwin, in fact, predicted DNA. (3) Single cells would be very complex. Heh. Darwin and others believed that cells were simple because they lacked the technology to break down the cell and figure out how it functioned. In that day, the cell was regarded as a simple homogenous blob of undifferentiated matter. Since then, however, science has discovered that a single cell is tremendously complex. Why should design imply complexity anymore then evolution? What seperates designed complexity from evolved complexity? This is what you need to answer before you can use this as a claim. (4) Numerous forms will be found in the fossil record which appear suddenly and without any precursors. Ever hear of the "Cambrian Explosion"? And by the way, evolution would predict just the opposite, and yet the Cambrian Explosion is there for all to see. This implies that your god creates continually. i.e. new species magically appear all the time. Why don't they? And, by the way, punctuated equilibrium fits the Cambrian explosion quite well. (5) Genes and functional parts would be re-used in different unrelated organisms. Oooo yeah… all the way down to DNA and the Universal Genetic Code. Same information storage, retrieval & processing system used for all living organisms. As intelligent designers ourselves, we tend to do the same thing. (although we're not all that successful!) In drafting, for example, there are standard methods for representing certain design features, and standard protocols for presenting, interpreting, duplicating and executing those instructions. Similarly, parts are interchangeable and similar design themes are employed, even amongst unrelated machines. A motorcycle, for example, might use the same spark plug(s) as a car, and might also burn the same gasoline. These characteristics exist among machines designed by intelligent humans, and the same characteristics exist among biological machines. But this is, again, true of evolution as well. If both theories predict the same thing you aren't distinguishing them. (6) The genetic code will NOT contain discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA". Looks like you guys are hosed here, too. Molecular biologists are now finding uses for stretches of DNA previous referred to as “junk.” John Bodnar, for instance, has found “non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes [that] encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development.” To write off so-called "junk DNA" as useless is arrogant premature, because it presumes we already know what we haven't discovered yet. What was regarded as "useless" yesterday may yet prove to be quite useful. Now we have a geniune difference, and a geniune experiment. If every single bit of junk DNA (or even 95% or so of it) turns out to have a use, then yes, intelligent design is quite a reasonable theory. However, given that roughly 97% of the human genome appears to be junk, this "experiment" is heavily favoring evolution. And here's another prediction along those lines… the more we delve into DNA, the more layers of coded information we will find, even in the midst of what you NOW like to call "junk DNA", which will make the genetic code as we understand it currently (which is already incredibly complex) look like child's play by comparison. And if that's what we find, then that will be further support of Intelligent Design, and likewise will further discredit Darwin's silly little theory. You are right. If all the junk DNA turns out to be more and more complex coding, then evolution fails. Evolution creates junk as a by product. Right now, however, the best minds in the field regard quite a lot of that string as junk. Sure, every now and then a tiny, tiny bit of that junk turns out to have a use, but for the most part it seems unlikely that most of it ever will. So what it comes down to is this, guys: The suggestion that I.D. makes no predictions and is "untestable" is just so much hot air and baloney. It is utterly false. You would be well-advised to stop making the claim and start dealing with the issue honestly and stop accusing me of dodging questions. Well, given that the only real tested listed above was the junk DNA test, and it seems to have failed that (at least at our current level of understanding), then perhaps ID is debunked. On a side note, it seems as if all ID proponents (at least all that I've read) are religious, the vast, vast majority of them christian. If you know of an ID proponent (who has published) who isn't let me know. Meanwhile, evolutionary scientists tend to run from devoutly atheist to agnostic, to religious. -Will
C1ay Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 Here are several "predictions" of I.D. Some of which I've already mentioned, although you are loathe to admit it. (1) Machine-like complex structures will be found in biological systems. Care to deny the existence of "molecular machinery"? (2) Instructions for building and operating an organism would be discovered within the cells of the organism. Ooops, look at that. We've got DNA. Shazzaam!! (3) Single cells would be very complex. Heh. Darwin and others believed that cells were simple because they lacked the technology to break down the cell and figure out how it functioned. In that day, the cell was regarded as a simple homogenous blob of undifferentiated matter. Since then, however, science has discovered that a single cell is tremendously complex. (4) Numerous forms will be found in the fossil record which appear suddenly and without any precursors. Ever hear of the "Cambrian Explosion"? And by the way, evolution would predict just the opposite, and yet the Cambrian Explosion is there for all to see. (5) Genes and functional parts would be re-used in different unrelated organisms. Oooo yeah… all the way down to DNA and the Universal Genetic Code. Same information storage, retrieval & processing system used for all living organisms. As intelligent designers ourselves, we tend to do the same thing. (although we're not all that successful!) In drafting, for example, there are standard methods for representing certain design features, and standard protocols for presenting, interpreting, duplicating and executing those instructions. Similarly, parts are interchangeable and similar design themes are employed, even amongst unrelated machines. A motorcycle, for example, might use the same spark plug(s) as a car, and might also burn the same gasoline. These characteristics exist among machines designed by intelligent humans, and the same characteristics exist among biological machines. (6) The genetic code will NOT contain discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA". Looks like you guys are hosed here, too. Molecular biologists are now finding uses for stretches of DNA previous referred to as “junk.” John Bodnar, for instance, has found “non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes [that] encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development.” To write off so-called "junk DNA" as useless is arrogant premature, because it presumes we already know what we haven't discovered yet. What was regarded as "useless" yesterday may yet prove to be quite useful. And here's another prediction along those lines… the more we delve into DNA, the more layers of coded information we will find, even in the midst of what you NOW like to call "junk DNA", which will make the genetic code as we understand it currently (which is already incredibly complex) look like child's play by comparison. And if that's what we find, then that will be further support of Intelligent Design, and likewise will further discredit Darwin's silly little theory. What's really funny is that the idea that every natural phenomenon has a natural explanation is an idea that cannot be "tested". How do you prove empirically that every natural phenomenon has a natural explanation? You can't!! So once again, when you point your finger at me, you've got three more fingers pointin' back at you!! So what it comes down to is this, guys: The suggestion that I.D. makes no predictions and is "untestable" is just so much hot air and baloney. It is utterly false. You would be well-advised to stop making the claim and start dealing with the issue honestly and stop accusing me of dodging questions.In a nutshell you've got known observations mixed up with predictions. You cannot look out the window, see a bird and then predict that there are birds outside. Observations are that set of data we already know. Molecular machinery, DNA, complex cells, holes in the fossil record, etc. All are current knowledge from observations. From this you need to form a testable, falsifiable hypothesis from which you can make predictions of the unknown to see if the observations of your tests match your predictions. That's science. Turtle 1
TRoutMac Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 But, by your logic, I should also allow the God lifts the birds up theory or God directs electrons theory into my explanations, because I need to get out of my "naturalism box." So I allow these explanations. Now, "God did it" (or, as you say "an intelligent designer did it.") can be used to explain everything. You want to escape this by saying that only in "big picture" questions can I whip out the old "God did it," but what criteria establishes what is big picture, and what isn't? Even if someone suggested that "God did it", with respect to a bird flying, it still has to pass this test: Is it the best explanation? And to find that out, you still use the standard scientific method to separate the explanations that make sense from those that don't. Nobody's throwing out all natural explanations and saying they all need to be replaced by "God did it." But it's clear that the question of origins must step beyond most people would call "natural". Methodological Naturalism reminds me of the story of creation where someone said the earth is actually riding on the back of a turtle, and someone said, "What's carrying the turtle?" and they said "ANOTHER turtle!" and then someone said, "What's THAT turtle riding on?" and finally the person said, "You idiot! It's turtles ALL THE WAY DOWN!!" Methodological naturalism suffers from the same exact problem. It can NEVER provide an answer to origins. It always explains something by reference to something else that's natural, and then has to explain THAT thing. Given that, how could it ever answer the origins question? Nobody is saying science should steer itself away from anything. Erasmus, you're trying to have it both ways here. Either science considers all possibilities and then lets the evidentiary chips fall where they may, or it doesn't. There's no in-between. I'm very sorry, but if you subscribe to methodological naturalism you most certainly are saying that. You don't have any choice. You're just like the detective's superior telling him he can't investigate the Senator. It's the same thing. Now, I must ask, how do we tell a machine that evolved from one that was designed? That presupposes that we know machines evolve at all. We're saying they don't. We're saying they cannot evolve. On the other hand, we know very well that machines do come about through design, and that makes Intelligent Design a far more reasonable conclusion. If you knew nothing about Stonehenge, for example, and you saw it for the first time, how would you know that it was the result of Intelligent Design? Why would it be unreasonable to postulate that Stonehenge was an accident of geology? You would know immediately that that formation was the result of Intelligent Design because you know that random chance never produces that kind of order. Give me criteria, a deffinition? Is it, as Behe would have us, the issue of irreducible complexity? So give me a working deffinition of irreducibly complex, and we'll hunt for those. In part it is irreducible complexity. Because IC systems only function when they exist as they exist now. Any slight change away from their functional state results in non-function. A unicycle is irreducibly complex. So is a bicycle. You can't gradually modify and unicycle to become a bicycle and have it be fully functional at every little stage in the progression. A venus fly trap is irreducibly complex. It cannot "eat" if it doesn't have all the parts is has right now, and not only does it need every part, but the parts have to be arranged in the proper orientation and configuration in order to serve their function. Just like a unicycle. That kind of specified complexity requires intelligence. It's not possible by any other means. A sundew cannot "evolve" into a fly trap because the intermediate stages would be non-functional, unable to trap insects. It's really no more complicated than that. Plus, if something is currently explained by evolution, why should we change to your new and rather bizzare theory? Because science is the pursuit of the truth about our natural world. (notice I said "pursuit", because we are always chasing it) To say that we can't abandon one theory simply because it's already there is to say that we should never admit that we're wrong. But evolution predicts this too. With no way to pass down information about the parents from organism to organism, evolution couldn't happen. Some claim that Darwin, in fact, predicted DNA. Evolution predicts information? Sorry, I reject this completely. And some "claim" that Darwin predicted DNA? Either he predicted it or he didn't. Darwin couldn't know anything about the inner-workings of the cell because he lacked the technology to discover it. Granted, not his fault, but still… the advance of technology has rendered his theory obsolete. Why should design imply complexity anymore then evolution? What seperates designed complexity from evolved complexity? This is what you need to answer before you can use this as a claim. The discovery of the complexity of the "simple" cell was made only about 50 years ago. Darwin had no knowledge of the complexity of the cell and lacking such knowledge or any means by which to acquire it, he assumed the cell to be very, very simple; something he could consider a "given". From that standpoint, it's easier to imagine Darwinian evolution. There is no information, just clusters of simple cells that just happen to assemble themselves in certain useful ways. But, unfortunately for Darwin, science moved forward and finally managed to break open the black box of the "simple cell". Darwinism cannot account for the complexity of the cell… how could it, when Darwin was blissfully unaware of such complexity? Darwinism cannot account for the information within DNA. How could he? He was unaware there was information in DNA. He was unaware of DNA!! Again, there is no "evolved complexity". There is only that which some people believe is "evolved complexity". It's not evolved, it's designed. Specified complexity cannot evolve. It must arise from intelligence. This implies that your god creates continually. i.e. new species magically appear all the time. Why don't they? And, by the way, punctuated equilibrium fits the Cambrian explosion quite well. Sorry, I was speaking in past tense…*my fault for not being more clear. The cambrian layer reveals incredible diversity right out of the gate. This would be expected from an Intelligent Design viewpoint, but evolution would expect that diversity would increase gradually as you move upward through the geologic column. But this is, again, true of evolution as well. If both theories predict the same thing you aren't distinguishing them. There are two possible explanations for the recurrence of certain designs in living organisms. One is common ancestry; one grew out of the other. But the other explanation is common design. The unicycle and bicycle share certain design themes… does that necessarily mean bicycles grew out of unicycles? Of course not! Unicycles and bicycles share these design features because they share a common designer: intelligent humans. Now we have a geniune difference, and a geniune experiment. If every single bit of junk DNA (or even 95% or so of it) turns out to have a use, then yes, intelligent design is quite a reasonable theory. However, given that roughly 97% of the human genome appears to be junk, this "experiment" is heavily favoring evolution. Well, if you write it off as "junk", then aren't you throwing in the towel? Why bother trying to figure it out if you've already decided it's "junk"? If your hypothesis is Design, however, you are driven to continue trying to figure out how the code works, right? Whatever the current thinking on "junk DNA", it is the current thinking and will likely be superceded by new information. That's how science works. If you start from a naturalist stance, you're going to assume it's "junk" because, frankly, you have to. If it means anything, you're sunk. It goes back to our discussion about the data storage… DNA, or parts thereof, might APPEAR random, but if meaningful information can be pulled back out of it, then it ain't random. You are right. If all the junk DNA turns out to be more and more complex coding, then evolution fails. Evolution creates junk as a by product. Right now, however, the best minds in the field regard quite a lot of that string as junk. Sure, every now and then a tiny, tiny bit of that junk turns out to have a use, but for the most part it seems unlikely that most of it ever will. So although science is finding, however slowly, that "junk DNA" isn't really junk, we're supposed to teach our kids evolution to the exclusion of Intelligent Design, even though I.D. becomes more and more plausible (as though it's not plausible already) as more research discovers that DNA isn't junk? That makes no sense at all. I say that children deserve to be taught the best explanation. They don't deserve to be taught a myth. Well, given that the only real tested listed above was the junk DNA test, and it seems to have failed that (at least at our current level of understanding), then perhaps ID is debunked. Wait a minute… are you admitting now that I.D. is testable? Are you admitting that it's made at least one prediction? You and several others have said I.D. is not science because it's not testable and has made no predictions. I guess you have to accept it as science now, don't you? Or did you plan on moving those goalposts on me? That aside, that the other five tests I listed are not "real" tests is merely your opinion. All of the above are legitimate tests, legitimate ways to compare what we find in nature against what we know intelligence produces and see if it stacks up, and it does. On a side note, it seems as if all ID proponents (at least all that I've read) are religious, the vast, vast majority of them christian. If you know of an ID proponent (who has published) who isn't let me know. Meanwhile, evolutionary scientists tend to run from devoutly atheist to agnostic, to religious. You're right… that is a side note. I'm sorry, but this is just too funny. You guys are so bent out of shape trying to make the case that I.D. isn't science and then you suggest that scientists' religious beliefs are an issue? First, I would point out the recent public conversion of Antony Flew, who is not a Christian (he's now a "deist", apparently) who had the change of mind because he can no longer deny the appearance of design. He's a believer in I.D. but is not a Christian. Granted, he's not who you think of when you say "I.D. proponent", but it's still worth mentioning. That aside, I would happily concede that most, if not all, I.D.ers are Christian. So what. If you're going to reject I.D. on the basis that it's scientists are the wrong religion, then you lose all credibility when it comes to deciding what's science and what's not. Religious views of scientists are totally irrelevant.
damocles Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 Even if someone suggested that "God did it", with respect to a bird flying, it still has to pass this test: Is it the best explanation? And to find that out, you still use the standard scientific method to separate the explanations that make sense from those that don't. Nobody's throwing out all natural explanations and saying they all need to be replaced by "God did it." But it's clear that the question of origins must step beyond most people would call "natural". Fine. Live up to the words just written. Test for negation. Methodological Naturalism reminds me of the story of creation where someone said the earth is actually riding on the back of a turtle, and someone said, "What's carrying the turtle?" and they said "ANOTHER turtle!" and then someone said, "What's THAT turtle riding on?" and finally the person said, "You idiot! It's turtles ALL THE WAY DOWN!!" Methodological naturalism suffers from the same exact problem. It can NEVER provide an answer to origins. It always explains something by reference to something else that's natural, and then has to explain THAT thing. Given that, how could it ever answer the origins question? An intelligent designer made us. How did it come into being? An intelligent designer made it. Ludricrous. Wheels within wheels. GOOGLE Copernicus and see if the connection is clear. Erasmus, you're trying to have it both ways here. Either science considers all possibilities and then lets the evidentiary chips fall where they may, or it doesn't. There's no in-between. I'm very sorry, but if you subscribe to methodological naturalism you most certainly are saying that. You don't have any choice. You're just like the detective's superior telling him he can't investigate the Senator. It's the same thing. Get on question. Test. Quit using circular non-applicable logic. That presupposes that we know machines evolve at all. We're saying they don't. We're saying they cannot evolve. On the other hand, we know very well that machines do come about through design, and that makes Intelligent Design a far more reasonable conclusion. If you knew nothing about Stonehenge, for example, and you saw it for the first time, how would you know that it was the result of Intelligent Design? Why would it be unreasonable to postulate that Stonehenge was an accident of geology? You would know immediately that that formation was the result of Intelligent Design because you know that random chance never produces that kind of order. Chemistry(if you ever practiced it in the field or learned it as a discipline) shows something strange.. Simple molecules clump into complex molecule(monomers into polymers). This can be explained mechanically as simple charge attractions between ions or as a manifestation of electron charge balancing among atoms(the filling of incomplete electron shells) That is a statistical and geometric process that is ststistically distributed. It is also the way organic self-organizing molecules begin from CHON-carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen. Look around. Smell the methane. In part it is irreducible complexity. Because IC systems only function when they exist as they exist now. Any slight change away from their functional state results in non-function. A unicycle is irreducibly complex. So is a bicycle. You can't gradually modify and unicycle to become a bicycle and have it be fully functional at every little stage in the progression. A venus fly trap is irreducibly complex. It cannot "eat" if it doesn't have all the parts is has right now, and not only does it need every part, but the parts have to be arranged in the proper orientation and configuration in order to serve their function. Just like a unicycle. That kind of specified complexity requires intelligence. It's not possible by any other means. A sundew cannot "evolve" into a fly trap because the intermediate stages would be non-functional, unable to trap insects. It's really no more complicated than that. Go spelunking underwater. Capture a cave lobster. See those vestigial blind eyes? Irreducible complexity? Mousetrap. If it was an AIDS virus, why does it change shape constantly to match its "key" to the evolving anti-body locks that it encounters. For that matter if life was IC why does it need to change over time? Why do species go extinct? Why do humans try to design better mousetraps if the mousetrap is designed pewrfectly to its minimum to handle the poerfect mouse? Because science is the pursuit of the truth about our natural world. (notice I said "pursuit", because we are always chasing it) To say that we can't abandon one theory simply because it's already there is to say that we should never admit that we're wrong. A model is not the phenomenon. Approximation is not equivalence. Seems to be an outstanding defect in the ID approach to science, that the ID crowd confuses explanation of the event as the event itself. Do they not see that the explanation is an event in its own existence? Beside that the ID group act more as a persecuted cult than as seekers of the truth. (Test, test, test, test, test, test, test......) The scientific method, itself, is also not a method that is restricted to methodological naturalism alone. It is applicable to any observed situation notwithstanding your philosophical base. You can be a rock worshipping cannibal and you would still experiment to produce the best(safest and best tasting) version of "long pig" recipe. Evolution predicts information? Sorry, I reject this completely. And some "claim" that Darwin predicted DNA? Either he predicted it or he didn't. Darwin couldn't know anything about the inner-workings of the cell because he lacked the technology to discover it. Granted, not his fault, but still… the advance of technology has rendered his theory obsolete. Evolution is obsolete? What technology? Evidence! Assertion is not proof. Once again the statement is supposed to be the demonstration? Faulty logic. Incidentally the theory of evolution--------evolves. Each explanation that is advanced to model the observed results of experimentation is a twiddle on the macro-model. It should have been obvious to an objective observer of gross phenomena, that once the gross phenomenon is identified and grossly modeled, that the details would be the avenue of research to try to match the approximation more closely to the phenomenon. Occasionally(more than occasionally in fact; GOOGLE KEPLER) the model is junked as attempts to fine it show gross errors in explanation. Evolution or COMMON DESCENT is nowhere near that condition as the allied science of genetics matches predictions of variance and distribution of genome characteristics among the various species of animals. The ID crowd doesn't like the idea that the mapping of genes show that chimpanzees and humans diverged about seven millioln years ago and surprise, this is also showing up in the fossil records. Why would this happen if chimps and men were IC? The discovery of the complexity of the "simple" cell was made only about 50 years ago. Darwin had no knowledge of the complexity of the cell and lacking such knowledge or any means by which to acquire it, he assumed the cell to be very, very simple; something he could consider a "given". From that standpoint, it's easier to imagine Darwinian evolution. There is no information, just clusters of simple cells that just happen to assemble themselves in certain useful ways. But, unfortunately for Darwin, science moved forward and finally managed to break open the black box of the "simple cell". Darwinism cannot account for the complexity of the cell… how could it, when Darwin was blissfully unaware of such complexity? Darwinism cannot account for the information within DNA. How could he? He was unaware there was information in DNA. He was unaware of DNA!! GOOGLE Gregor Mendel. He is the father of genetics. He laid down the statistical methodology for the transmittal of parents to offspring. Zacharias Janssenvan possible inventor of the microscope supplied a tool that http://microscopeworld.com/misc/history-of-the-microscope.htm Sometime about the year 1590, two Dutch spectacle makers, Hans Janssen and his son Zaccharias started experimenting with these lenses. They put several lenses in a tube and made a very important discovery. The object near the end of the tube appeared to be greatly enlarged, much larger than any simple magnifying glass could achieve by itself! They had just invented the compound microscope (which is a microscope that uses two or more lenses). Galileo heard of their experiments and started experimenting on his own. He described the principles of lenses and light rays and improved both the microscope and telescope. He added a focusing device to his microscope and of course went on to explore the heavens with his telescopes. Anthony Leeuwenhoek of Holland became very interested in lenses while working with magnifying glasses in a dry goods store. He used the magnifying glass to count threads in woven cloth. He became so interested that he learned how to make lenses. By grinding and polishing, he was able to make small lenses with great curvatures. These rounder lenses produced greater magnification, and his microscopes were able to magnify up to 270X! Well Anthony Leeuwenhoek became more involved in science and with his new improved microscope was able to see things that no man had ever seen before. He saw bacteria, yeast, blood cells and many tiny animals swimming about in a drop of water. From his great contributions, many discoveries and research papers, Anthony Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) has since been called the Father of Microscopy. Robert Hooke, an Englishman (who is sometimes called the “English father of microscopy”), also spent much of his life working with microscopes and improved their design and capabilities. Little was done to improve the microscope until the middle of the 19th century when great strides were made and quality instruments like today's microscope emerged. Companies in Germany like Zeiss and an American company founded by Charles Spencer began producing fine optical instruments. So the claim that Charles Darwin didn't know of the existence of cellular complexity was a LIE wasn't it? Learn history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_van_Leeuwenhoek Anton[1] van Leeuwenhoek (October 24, 1632 - August 30, 1723, full name Thonius Philips van Leeuwenhoek) was a tradesman and scientist from Delft, in the Netherlands. He was known as "the Father of Microbiology". Born the son of a basket weaver, he is best known for his contribution to improvement of the microscope and his contributions towards the establishment of cell biology. Using his handcrafted microscope he was the first to observe and describe muscle fibers, bacteria, spermatozoa and blood flow in capillaries (small blood vessels). Van Leeuwenhoek ground over 500 optical lenses during his lifetime. He also created over 400 different types of microscopes, only nine of which still exist today. His microscopes were made of silver or copper metal frames holding home-wrought lenses. Those that survived the years are able to magnify up to 270 times. It is suspected, though, that Antoni possessed some microscopes that could magnify up to 500 times. The true statement is that Charles Darwin did not know specifically about cellular genetic mechanisms. That just makes his work in the field of common descent and the transmittal of characteristics by successful progenation all the more remarkable in how closely his explanations meshed with Mendels observations down to the present time. Darwin made a very good APPROXIMATION modelthat works quite well. Again, there is no "evolved complexity". There is only that which some people believe is "evolved complexity". It's not evolved, it's designed. Specified complexity cannot evolve. It must arise from intelligence. Explain organic chemical reactions, catalysis, the common descent chain of differentiation, the fossil record, matter accretion, statistical information distribution in any system examined......Not to mention stellar fusion, spatial expansion etc. The bedrock science models of how are at variance with any need for specific appeals to some "watchmaker" who maps out specific operators for each event. Why do the ID crowd not explain how incompetent the intelligent designer is for designing a system that has so much that is out of whack with it? Planets orbit in ellipses.Animals walk around with atrophied organs, the platypus? Sorry, I was speaking in past tense…*my fault for not being more clear. The cambrian layer reveals incredible diversity right out of the gate. This would be expected from an Intelligent Design viewpoint, but evolution would expect that diversity would increase gradually as you move upward through the geologic column. Evolutionists would expect a simplification of planforms in the competition not complexification(Occam applies to survival as well as to explanation.). This shows that there is a complete lack of knowledge among the population of the ID group of how information is systematically distributed in systems out there, doesn't it? There are two possible explanations for the recurrence of certain designs in living organisms. One is common ancestry; one grew out of the other. But the other explanation is common design. The unicycle and bicycle share certain design themes… does that necessarily mean bicycles grew out of unicycles? Of course not! Unicycles and bicycles share these design features because they share a common designer: intelligent humans. Again with the false analogy! Try bats, birds and insects. That is the battleground the ID crowd are ultimately after, but they have no courage to argue the direct question. Or try seals, whales, and penguins. Try explaining why the fossil record shows the various animals changing over time in form to adapt to flight or to swimming in the ocean. The ID crowd don't want to do that. Here is the reason. Their HOW doesn't describe the process mechanism over TIME and they would like to hide the fact that their intelligent designer doesn't handle this phenomenal condition that current despised(by the ID crowd) theories pounded together at great effort by scientific methodology explain quite well..In fact the interlocking theories(models/approximations) we do have; handle the "design" snafus and the information dfistribution, and the TIME component quite well----precisely because the explainers try to match the models to the visible results and not invoke some grandparent in the sky. Well, if you write it off as "junk", then aren't you throwing in the towel? Why bother trying to figure it out if you've already decided it's "junk"? If your hypothesis is Design, however, you are driven to continue trying to figure out how the code works, right? Whatever the current thinking on "junk DNA", it is the current thinking and will likely be superceded by new information. That's how science works. If you start from a naturalist stance, you're going to assume it's "junk" because, frankly, you have to. If it means anything, you're sunk. It goes back to our discussion about the data storage… DNA, or parts thereof, might APPEAR random, but if meaningful information can be pulled back out of it, then it ain't random. Incompetent reasoning. The genome mappers started with a tableau rosa and sequenced the genome. Then and only then did they start looking at operators. It was predicted in genetics circles that the gene would be riddled with junk due to poor old Gregor Mendel's pioneer work and subsequent research. Simple information theory and a realization that the standard DNA molecule all by itself could encrypt billions of combinations on a strand among the four base combinations was a clue. If you have billions of combinations, and an animal that shows at most a few million characteristics? Hello? Prediction based on observation....learn mathematics, as well as history, and information theory. You might try high school genetics too, ID crowd. So although science is finding, however slowly, that "junk DNA" isn't really junk, we're supposed to teach our kids evolution to the exclusion of Intelligent Design, even though I.D. becomes more and more plausible (as though it's not plausible already) as more research discovers that DNA isn't junk? That makes no sense at all. I say that children deserve to be taught the best explanation. They don't deserve to be taught a myth. Statement intended as proof with no evidence cited, no test, no proof. Proslytation not discussion. Incidentally the genome mappers are twiddling with the genetic grammar. Expect commas, splices, end runs, sentence fragments, split infinnitives, whole blank spaces. I would expect this to occur since that is what sequenced information strands show as a common feature, whatever the self replicating system.. Wait a minute… are you admitting now that I.D. is testable? Are you admitting that it's made at least one prediction? You and several others have said I.D. is not science because it's not testable and has made no predictions. I guess you have to accept it as science now, don't you? Or did you plan on moving those goalposts on me? That aside, that the other five tests I listed are not "real" tests is merely your opinion. All of the above are legitimate tests, legitimate ways to compare what we find in nature against what we know intelligence produces and see if it stacks up, and it does. Won't speak for others, but I've wasted a dozen posts pointing this out, ID vcrowd. Make a set of predictions and test them. Now will you TEST, or will you IDers continue to run away from the experimantation and the cenjtral question. When you test and publish to peer review and possible refutation, then you use the scientific method. Take the bible coders for example. They published and they are trying to meet the standard, Will you IDers show the same courage? You're right… that is a side note. I'm sorry, but this is just too funny. You guys are so bent out of shape trying to make the case that I.D. isn't science and then you suggest that scientists' religious beliefs are an issue? First, I would point out the recent public conversion of Antony Flew, who is not a Christian (he's now a "deist", apparently) who had the change of mind because he can no longer deny the appearance of design. He's a believer in I.D. but is not a Christian. Granted, he's not who you think of when you say "I.D. proponent", but it's still worth mentioning. That aside, I would happily concede that most, if not all, I.D.ers are Christian. So what. If you're going to reject I.D. on the basis that it's scientists are the wrong religion, then you lose all credibility when it comes to deciding what's science and what's not. Religious views of scientists are totally irrelevant. I don't care about religion in this discussion(though you would test for the lack of an intelligent designer's actions and footie prints in the universe to refute intelligent design---that is;you would test for a god's existence no matter how much the IDers try to deny that this is the case ). I simply want them to meet the standards of scientific methodology if they claim a scientific basis for their model. TEST.
TRoutMac Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 Incidentally the theory of evolution--------evolves. Now that is flippin' hilarious. "The theory of evolution evolves." And you even stuck the hyphens in there for impact, which makes it even funnier!! If the theory of evolution evolves, it's because an intelligent agency (humans) is making changes to it! Suddenly you're talking about the theory of evolution as though it's its own entity, its own being, and is changing of its own accord. I'm sorry, but that is utter and complete foolishness. How in the world can you say that and keep a straight face? Do you really not see what a ludicrous statement that is? And you say I use faulty logic? And you say I'm the one spewing rhetoric? Oh, man… that is rich. Besides which, to say that "The theory of evolution evolves" is just a fancy way of saying that scientists are philosophically so invested in the concept of evolution that they will stick with it at any cost, and that means continually reshaping it in an attempt to evade and obfuscate its deficiencies. In any case, it is intelligent agency that is reshaping the theory of evolution. The theory isn't reshaping itself. Thank you. You gave me a big laugh… made my day!!
damocles Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 Now that is flippin' hilarious. "The theory of evolution evolves." And you even stuck the hyphens in there for impact, which makes it even funnier!! If the theory of evolution evolves, it's because an intelligent agency (humans) is making changes to it! Suddenly you're talking about the theory of evolution as though it's its own entity, its own being, and is changing of its own accord. I'm sorry, but that is utter and complete foolishness. How in the world can you say that and keep a straight face? Do you really not see what a ludicrous statement that is? And you say I use faulty logic? And you say I'm the one spewing rhetoric? Oh, man… that is rich. Besides which, to say that "The theory of evolution evolves" is just a fancy way of saying that scientists are philosophically so invested in the concept of evolution that they will stick with it at any cost, and that means continually reshaping it in an attempt to evade and obfuscate its deficiencies. In any case, it is intelligent agency that is reshaping the theory of evolution. The theory isn't reshaping itself. Thank you. You gave me a big laugh… made my day!! You confuse the evolution of explanation for the phenomenon of common descent. Again you fail to see this difference between human cultural evolution; which in one of its subset activities(human exploration); contains the search for explanation for that in which we find ourselves; to equate that with the actual event chain that constitutes the history of life.. Our evolution in our modelling techniques is by the process of survival of the best explanation It results in improved modelling to explain the observed event(Life's history as a phenomenon). Physical common descent is a separate phenomenon that we try to model and the fact that you don't understand this distinction underlies one example in the whole error in your methodology and logic. It is easy to entertain those who think in such a fashion. But educating them? Well, I'll keep trying. Go.
TRoutMac Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 You confuse the evolution of explanation for the phenomenon of common descent. No, you do. You used the same word (root) in the same sentence, but you meant two different things by it. Now, I already knew that you intended the word "evolve" to have a slightly different connotation. The theory of evolution demands (according to the hard-liners, anyway) that there be no direction by any intelligent agent. You say the theory of evolution "evolves". But it doesn't evolve with lack of direction from an intelligent agent, does it? Why is it necessary for an intelligent agent to direct the "evolution" of the theory of evolution? Why doesn't the theory of evolution simply "self-organize" into a cohesive, bullet-proof theory? Why is intelligence required to shape it and refine it?
paultrr Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 No, you do. You used the same word (root) in the same sentence, but you meant two different things by it. Now, I already knew that you intended the word "evolve" to have a slightly different connotation. The theory of evolution demands (according to the hard-liners, anyway) that there be no direction by any intelligent agent. You say the theory of evolution "evolves". But it doesn't evolve with lack of direction from an intelligent agent, does it? Why is it necessary for an intelligent agent to direct the "evolution" of the theory of evolution? Why doesn't the theory of evolution simply "self-organize" into a cohesive, bullet-proof theory? Why is intelligence required to shape it and refine it? I am going to play devil's advocate on this one. Bear in mind I support evolution and am an agnostic. But one thing science has tended to lack at least at present is some finialized reason why evolution would self-organize. If one pushes this whole issue about the start of life back enough one gets beyond a point we have any solid evidence from. The same could be said about our best cosmology models. Yes, they are both built upon abstraction from what we do know and can demonstrate with hard evidence. But those periods(the BB and the start of life) actually cannot be studied directly at the present time. All we do have is this sudden bursting forth of life over an expance of time even we admit is rather abrupt. After that we have tons of evidence for evolution. But almost nothing from that actual time period and totally no signs of life prior to that. That is a huge gap in our nice neat explination which in the strict interpretation requires self organization. Our best physics construct that might lead to a unification solution involves strings or membranes. These constructs are in most cases smaller than the planck scale. At the Planck scale the wave function for anything spreads to infinity. According to quantum probability those sub-atomic structures have an infinite probability of being anywhere in the universe at that same instant. An important question that goes back to all that self-organization is how does that self-oganizing structure we call the universe keep tract of where all those strings or branes actually are when they could be anywhere. In human terms such would require something akin to a self correcting program of sorts when you think of every particle or string as information which is the real root meaning of entropy. That makes the universe somewhat a better brain than even we are if you really stop to think about the implication of such. I am not saying it is a program, but it would at certain levels act like such. So the natural question to be asked is did that program self-evolve itself or did someone write the code, so to speak. Looking at our world for an example to get programs like that takes an intelligence to write them. So it is not unnatural to for some to suggest perhaps we are the product of some intelligent designer. Such a suggestion does not by itself have to imply the God figure of say the Bible. In fact, unless you want to count in order itself nothing in that has suggested any of the Creator's spoken of in man's religions where that first cause. We could be one hell of a big lab experiment with as little as all of that possibly suggests. We also could be the result of something that evolved itself. The problem is to actually prove that line one needs hard evidence and the only hard evidence in self-organizational aspects comes from a time far latter than that. So people naturally have that unanswered question in the back of their minds. That by the way in all these years is the closest thing I have come across as nearly having an intelligent designer pop out on a slide rule to date. Its also something very close to what Hawking brought up the God equation in some of his writtings over. Interesting enough it is us who study and work with physics who more often tend to speak of simular questions than I ever find biologists asking them. If you ran a poll on those in that field you'd be surprized just how split on that subject a lot of us are. Yet, a lot of us tend to agree the idea of a designer of some type is not as remote as some tend to think. Ever hear about articles speaking of the universe acting like some giant hologram? The question has been asked and is a valid one about who built the machine, so to speak. The background assumption is its self built. But not all of us are that convinced on a personal level which might shock some of you. But it is true. I have said this before and I will say this again not every scientists out there is an athiest. The actually common approach is that of agnosticism. But we also do have believers in our ranks from a lot of different religious backgrounds. Some to them have a lot of sympathy towards the ID camp. Some agnostics like myself do not fear an open discussion. But I do find the ID camp as a whole tends to not always follow the rules of proper scientific research. All of you closest and out in public techno-pagans will love this one. If the program that keeps information in this universe going right is self-organized is it complex enough to be aware itself? If so, then perhaps the answer to a quantum riddle is the Universe is its own observer. Try that for something to sleep on over night. Turtle 1
C1ay Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 If one pushes this whole issue about the start of life back enough one gets beyond a point we have any solid evidence from. The same could be said about our best cosmology models. Yes, they are both built upon abstraction from what we do know and can demonstrate with hard evidence. But those periods(the BB and the start of life) actually cannot be studied directly at the present time. All we do have is this sudden bursting forth of life over an expance of time even we admit is rather abrupt. After that we have tons of evidence for evolution. But almost nothing from that actual time period and totally no signs of life prior to that. This is where I think a line needs to be drawn. IMO, we have no observable evidence from which to form any hypotheses on the origin of life. We have some evidence to support evolution as a model for adaptation, acclimation and at least some speciation. We have no evidence in my opinion to support evolution, creation or intelligent design as an origin of life. For all we know the origin of life as we know it may even predate the alleged big bang from somewhere else in the universe. Both events are beyond our observable event horizon and observations are required to form a hypothesis to fit those observations. I do not think at this time that we have sufficient observable evidence to support any theory or testable hypothesis on the "origin of life" and none of the current speculation should be taught as hard science. At most it should be reserved to philosophers. BTW, can anyone produce any evidence that there was ever a time that nothing existed, no matter, no energy, no anything? How can we hypothesize that there was ever a beginning without this evidence?
Turtle Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 All of you closest and out in public techno-pagans will love this one. If the program that keeps information in this universe going right is self-organized is it complex enough to be aware itself? If so, then perhaps the answer to a quantum riddle is the Universe is its own observer. Try that for something to sleep on over night.___Paul, yours is some of the most cogent discourse in the thread; it is going to occupy my mind tonight, but not in sleep. The self-organization may not yet have reached the 'self-awareness' you imply. The fertilized human egg is self-organizing, but not self-aware in the vein we mean here until at least brain formation. Perhaps the universe is in vitro & not even born? :surprise:
Erasmus00 Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 TroutMac, this will be my lost post in this thread. Damocles is fighting the good fight, and there is no sense having two people presenting essentially the same things. Before you make claims about information, and current genetic theory, I suggest learning a bit of each. For information theory, I highly recommend Amazon.com: Information Theory: Robert B. Ash: Books http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0486665216/103-2472805-6675013?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance For evolutionary biology, I've heard Amazon.com: Evolutionary Biology: Douglas J. Futuyma: Books http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0878931899/103-2472805-6675013?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glanceis good For genetics: Amazon.com: An Introduction to Genetic Analysis (INTRODUCTION TO GENETIC ANALYSIS (GRIFFITHS)): Anthony J.F. Griffiths, Susan R. Wessler, Richard C. Lewontin, William M. Gelbart, David T. Suzuki, Jeffrey H. Miller: Books http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0716749394/103-2472805-6675013?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance A good college library can supply all three. The information theory dover book is especially good, and cheap if you want a copy to own. If you wish to present meaningful critiques of current theory, you must learn it. -Will
Boerseun Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 100%, Damocles. TroutMac, as an example of "Intelligent Design", in the 'fifties, Carl Sagan did his PhD on the formation of complex chemicals needed in the formation of basic life, including amino acids, etc. What he did was to basically emulate Titan's atmosphere. He chucked the basic elements in gaseous form into a jar, and spiked it with electricity, as would be found in lightning bolts, although several orders of magnitude less voltage. The whole setup was very credible, so much so that he was indeed awarded his PhD. So the research was properly and acceptably done, it went through the peer review process, the whole process passing the test. In any case - within less than one week, a dark brown tarry sludge was formed against the inside wall of this jar, and was found to contain all the chemicals and molecules needed (including amino acids) for ancient life to start. They dubbed this sludge 'Titan tholin', and this same experiment (as designed by Sagan) is used to this day in labs world-wide to illustrate the possible origins of life. So - Life could have started in the above manner, with chemicals bombarded with lightning (as an example - keep in mind there was no ozone layer in those days, so the UV input from the sun was a lot higher than today; vastly increasing the energy input) for billions of years, smothering the Earth - land and oceans - in a layer of 'Titan tholin', providing the building blocks of primitive life. Or... Life could have been designed by some odd extraterrestrial entity in a lab somewhere, which doesn't explain the origins of this entity, nor why, nor how. Which would be the more reasonable explanation, from an objective scientific point of view? I can see why people would go for the second option. It provides an instant explanation for our being, it takes a lot less effort to just accept it than to actually get off your butt and do some research of your own, it's compatible with all major world religions claiming that some 'God' did it, but, in the final analysis, the second explanation is simply not science, and shouldn't pretend to be. It's paying homage to human insecurities and fears, and a vestigial remnant of our superstitious and ignorant past. It has absolutely no validity in the scientific search for answers to fundamental questions such as these. I honestly suspect that Intelligent Design is a vehicle for American politicians who are trying to make a name for themselves, to get on the political map, so to speak. And politicians have been known from the earliest days to suck at science. Honest citizens who are falling for ID because their politicians tell them so, should question the politicians' intentions. Because short-circuiting something as vast as the current science curriculum for short term benefits to a handful of people with no vision beyond the next election, is stupid, stupid, stupid. The effects of this dumbing-down and letting superstition and ignorance in through the back door will be felt for generations to come, long after the current set of politicians to whose benefit this is being done have been dead and buried. Question the bona fides of people telling you that ET did it. As a matter of fact, question the bona fides of scientists telling you ET didn't do it, as well. But do your questioning objectively. That's the key. Saying that ET did it, without saying where ET comes from, is like your Turtle analogy, TroutMac. I know you'll turn this around and saying that the Big Bang suffers from the same fault. We can't say where the Big Bang came from, I concede. But the Big Bang hypothesis is the only one that currently explain the expanding universe, redshift of distant galaxies, the Microwave Background Radiation, etc. Science accepts that from just before the inflation period (a couple of billionths' of a second after the Big Bang started), we don't have any answers. Currently. They are working on it. Vacuum energy, string theory, everything starts playing a role here. You can make quite a name for yourself if you can come up with a credible explanation of what happened there. Saying it was ET, isn't credible. Saying it was ET points to you trying to evade the responsibility as a scientist of actually thinking about the problem. Saying it was ET is dodging the topic, evading the question, and, to put it mildly, simply a display of basic ignorance. Beware the Baloney Detector! Sincerely, Boerseun
paultrr Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 ___Paul, yours is some of the most cogent discourse in the thread; it is going to occupy my mind tonight, but not in sleep. The self-organization may not yet have reached the 'self-awareness' you imply. The fertilized human egg is self-organizing, but not self-aware in the vein we mean here until at least brain formation. Perhaps the universe is in vitro & not even born? :surprise: I agree and actually do not think it is self-aware at all, unless you count beings like us as extensions of the universe. Nor do I think little green men brought us into existance. What I was trying to point out is that we do have unanswered questions out there. As another so well pointed out one can get the building blocks of life via experiment through natural process. However, building blocks are not living matter in the classical sence of the word. There is still that gap, yet to be proved out where those building blocks self-organize into living organisms. That no one to date has managed in a lab. I've also suggested before something else that is true. The exact conditions on the earth when such took place is still not fully known at this time. We keep revamping our early earth models all the time. It is those unknowns that open the door for possible debate on this subject. But real valid debate requires honestly done and peer reviewed research which is something the whole ID camp tends to lack. That is why most of us honest scientists do not agree with schools forcing the introduction of the subject. Government politics makes for poor science in general. The worst damages done to science over the years has stemmed from political pressure in general. That same pressure has at times generated decent advancements. One reason this country has fallen behind in the tech field is political in orgin. We lost our chance at the supercollider over politics. Other countries got that research area now. The whole space program has suffered due to politics over the years. Environmental groups and regulations got us into the modern fuel crisis along with the political power the oil groups have to begin with. Simply put, politics does not always make for good science. The Government does not belong in this whole agument to begin with. Its not the government's place to decide who is right and who is wrong. Does anyone out there in their right mind actually want the government to dictate choice, especially in the area of something as close to belief as this debate gets? If you do then I suggest you are in the wrong country to begin with if our Constitution has any meaning left in it. Freedom of Religion is in that constiutution. That includes the freedom to not believe also and the freedom to believe. It does not and cannot be interpreted as meaning the government must dictate what to believe. The moment the government local or national does that then we no longer live under the constitution. That is one point I think most of the Christians out there are not getting in all this. It might seem like some big victory. But what happens one day when you have the wrong leaders up there telling you that belief in the virgin birth of Christ is no longer valid? Guess what guys and girls. All you well meaning Christians just handed the totalitarian system of the Anti-Christ of Biblical orgin right over to him. For that type of system to work you have to have the eroding of basic constitutional rights of which freedom of religion is just one example. If anyone thinks religion dictating everything is good for people go study the Taliban, go study the history of the Catholic church. It is not and never has been. Even in Israel, according to the Bible story by the time Christ came along the religious/political system was incapable of decerning the truth. They had no checks and ballances. The check and ballance system of science is Peer review and experiment and observation. Short change those and you no longer have real science anymore. Debate is fine, open discussion is fine. Telling people you're point of view is fine. Using the system to open and honest dialog is fine. But having the government decide is a step in the very wrong direction.
paultrr Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 Saying that ET did it, without saying where ET comes from, is like your Turtle analogy, TroutMac. Sincerely, Boerseun We have a simular problem confronting us in cosmology. Hawking's approach calls for a instanton in time to solve the singularity problem. But does not answer where everything coming through that instanton came from. Gott's approach uses a time loop and itself does not answer that question. The problem all stems from a singularity in the origin BB model. We cannot study it because we get infinities when we try. So current models try to route around that problem by shifting it all, so to speak. The real problem all goes back to something Godel tryed to point out to Einstein via math. Some answers remain beyond our scope of knowledge. If one thinks of Entropy as information then the clear implication of our best cosmology models is some of the information in this universe stems from beyond our scope to directly view and study. As long as that gap exists there will be open questions on all this. It also means we cannot prove everything out fully. For us scientists relying upon the knowledge we do have as a guide makes better sence. That knowledge seems to imply self-organization. Based upon that knowledge we make the assumption the whole thing depends upon the same. Now is that a leap of faith in the strict sence of the word? No, faith is a leap not based upon logic or rational discourse. It is based upon something inside of each individual. The leap we make(at least in published format) is based upon logic and rational discouse. That is why scientists, even the believers, tend not to mix their beliefs in with their science. But we can pay devils advocate because we never forgot that lesson Godel pointed out to Einstein. Boil it all down I suspect this universe, (the system) is self-organized. I cannot prove how it did it beyond points in time I can directly study. Call those gaps admitted problems we face and you are right. Does that leave room for open debate of the ID type? Yes, if such debate can be done via acceptable scientific methods and not forced into the equation by the Government.
C1ay Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 What I was trying to point out is that we do have unanswered questions out there. And that right there seems to be the single, most difficult point to get across to non-scientists, that fact that there are things we just don't know. That seems to be the one reason that man continues to resort to mythological explanations for those unanwsered questions of science. What baffles me is why those that resort to this want to call it science when science doesn't have an answer.
Recommended Posts