Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=time+bandits+video+part+10&btnG=Google+Search"Oh, Robert, Benson, I feel the power of evil coursing through my veins, filling every corner of my being with the desire to do wrong. I feel so bad, Benson."
"Good, good."
"Yes, it is good, for this is the worst kind of badness that I'm feeling."
"Kill me, master. Kill me."
"Not now, Benson. We have work to do. No lesser work than the overthrowing of Creation itself. We will remake man in our image, not his. We will turn mountains into sea, and the skies into rivers, the fjords into deserts, and the deserts into flatland. . ."
". . .into icebergs, and the icebergs into fire, and the fire into a mighty, rushing wind which will cover the face of the earth and wipe clean the scourge of woolly thinking once and for all."
"We can make beans into peas."
"Oh, Benson, dear Benson, you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence."
"Oh, you say such nice things, master."
"Yes, I know. I'm sorry. Now, Benson, I shall have to turn you into a dog for a while."
"Thank you, master."
"Stay, Benson. Guard the map."
"Robert, we must plan a new world together. This time we'll start it properly. Tell me about computers."
"A computer is an automatic, electronic apparatus for making calculations. . .or coherent operations that are expressed in numerical or logical terms."
"And fast breeder reactors?"
"Ah! Fast breeder reactors use a fast fission process for the generation of fission isotopes."
"Be quiet, Benson. Show me more, Benson. Show me, show me, subscriber trunk dialing. I must know everything."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/at_scoop_freelance_reporter_su.htmlWoodstock of Science Set to Dethrone Darwin's Theory of Evolution
At Scoop freelance reporter Suzan Mazur pulls back the veil on one of science's dirty little secrets — Darwinism is dead as a theory of evolution. This won't be surprising to the early adopters here at ENV, but it will come as a surprise to many in the media who have lazily just regurgitated the tired old refrain of the NCSE that Darwinian evolution is the be-all and end-all of modern biology.
Mazur reports on an upcoming conference at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria which she thinks will be the Woodstock of evolution.What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let's call them "the Altenberg 16" – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate "other" new phenomena.Say what? Sixteen scientists who recognize that the theory of evolution, which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. (Suzan, shhhh, don't tell anyone, there's hundreds more over here.) Mazur seems a bit surprised to find out something that intelligent design advocates have known for years. It is not safe to doubt Darwin.A wave of scientists now questions natural selection's relevance, though few will publicly admit it. And with such a fundamental struggle underway, the hurling of slurs such as "looney Marxist hangover", "philosopher" (a scientist who can't get grants anymore), "crackpot", is hardly surprising.The meeting seems largely to have come about because of Jerry Fodor's article Why Pigs Don't Have Wings. In an act of near-heresy, Fodor wrote:In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted. This is, so far, mostly straws in the wind; but it’s not out of the question that a scientific revolution – no less than a major revision of evolutionary theory – is in the offing. Unlike the story about our minds being anachronistic adaptations, this new twist doesn’t seem to have been widely noticed outside professional circles. The ironic upshot is that at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far. Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea that anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true.You can imagine what Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and the rest of the Darwinian politburo thought about that. Mazur reports:When I called Fodor to discuss his article, he joked that he was now in the Witness Protection Program because he'd been so besieged following the LRB piece. ... Fodor also told me that "you can't put this stuff in the press because it's an attack on the theory of natural selection" and besides "99.99% of the population have no idea what the theory of natural selection is".Eminent biologist Stanley Salthe read Fodor's piece and was inspired to start an e-mail debate among a number of leading biologists, which looks to have led to this Altenberg meeting. Interestingly, Salthe, long having been a Darwin dissenter, is pretty straightforward in what he thinks about it all:"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."Someone had better call the NCSE and give them a heads up. What's that? Mazur already has? How'd that work out for her?Curiously, when I called Kevin Padian, president of NCSE's board of directors and a witness at the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial on Intelligent Design, to ask him about the evolution debate among scientists – he said, "On some things there is not a debate." He then hung up.Many different points of view are to be represented at the meeting from Stanley Pivar's geometric approach, to Fodor's endogenous variables, to Stuart Kauffman's ideas on self-organization. Yet one entire field is not represented – intelligent design. It would seem that such a meeting would benefit from including Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe in its discussion as ID researchers, even if only to argue against their ideas. Regardless, there is a debate (whether the NCSE will admit it or not) and a paradigm shift is on the way.
but it’s not out of the question that a scientific revolution – no less than a major revision of evolutionary theory – is in the offing.
When the Red Army was defeated in WWII, they did not call a retreat as retreat, but as a "transit marching". Of course, everyone knew what that was.Yes, its funny.
But what is it all about?
Revision. Just like neo-Darwinism was a revision.
Not a renunciation. Not a dismantling. And no, not a relapse either. Definitely not a retreat.
A revision. Maybe a major revision. Could be quite interesting. But haven't we all been expecting a revision sooner or later?
When the Red Army was defeated in WWII, they did not call a retreat as retreat, but as a "transit marching". Of course, everyone knew what that was.
When the Red Army was defeated in WWII, they did not call a retreat as retreat, but as a "transit marching". Of course, everyone knew what that was.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htmBut Kauffman also describes genes as "utterly dead". However, he says there are some genes that turn the rest of the genes and one another on and off. Certain chemical reactions happen. Enzymes are produced, etc. And that while we only have 25,000 to 30,000 genes, there are many combinations of activity.
Here's what he told me over the phone:"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. Are you stunned?"
Yes, its funny.
Yes, they were putting their best face on a defeat.
But revision of a theory is very seldom a renunciation of a theory. Usually it incorporates what is best in the current theory and builds on it. A move forward in understanding, not a regression to a former position.
Darwin moved us forward from a failed Lamarkism. Mendel moved us forward from an incomplete Darwinism. What we may be seeing now is another move forward that encompasses but goes beyond natural selection as a mechanism of evolution. IOW a clarification of how factors other than natural selection play a part in evolution, maybe even a more important part than natural selection.
What we will not see is a rejection of evolution, since that has been established as given.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htmNatural selection was only part of Darwin's Origin of Species thinking. Yet through the years most biologists outside of evolutionary biology have mistakenly believed that evolution is natural selection.
A wave of scientists now questions natural selection's relevance, though few will publicly admit it. And with such a fundamental struggle underway, the hurling of slurs such as "looney Marxist hangover", "philosopher" (a scientist who can't get grants anymore), "crackpot", is hardly surprising.
* * *
But Salthe * * * told me the following:"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."Several months ago, Salthe hosted an intense email debate among leading evolutionary thinkers which I was later let in on. It followed the appearance of an article by Rutgers University philosopher Jerry Fodor in the London Review of Books called "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings".
[From the same article.] Does that really mean anything? It means randomness is in question I suppose. It means there are unknown but nonradom powers and forces in nature. What does that mean? Its freaking Dada. An ink blot test as compared to the Mona Lisa.Nevertheless, these kinds of phenomena are part of what's loosely being called self-organization , in short a spontaneous organization of systems. Snowflakes, a drop of water, a hurricane are all such spontaneously organized examples. These systems grow more complex in form as a result of a process of attraction and repulsion
Put me down as skeptical.Yes, its funny.
But what is it all about?
Revision. Just like neo-Darwinism was a revision.
Not a renunciation. Not a dismantling. And no, not a relapse either. Definitely not a retreat.
A revision. Maybe a major revision. Could be quite interesting. But haven't we all been expecting a revision sooner or later?
Put me down as skeptical.
The news article struck me as very confused. It mixes quite a number of currents of thought and treats them as if they were all part of a single coming anti-Darwinian wave. They're not. For example, epigenetics is interesting, but has nothing obvious to do with self-organization (despite being linked to it in the article), and is unlikely to have a role in long-term evolutionary developments, ostensibly the subject under discussion. Self-organization is also interesting, although so far mostly in a "wouldn't it be nice if someone could think of something that this idea could actually explain" sort of way, but is not in any real conflict with the role of natural selection, as far as I know.
Yes, a narrow, pan-adaptionist population-genetics version of evolution is not going to be enough to explain life -- but that's already conventional wisdom within evolutionary biology. Some of the people involved in this meeting are knowledgeable and are pushing some boundaries in useful ways, but not in ways that will change the basic structure of evolutionary theory. Some of them (Fodor is the obvious candidate) seem mostly to be emitting hot air about things that are better understood by real biologists. And some of the people mentioned in the article are pretty much out in crackpot territory.
I have a general rule: whenever anyone tells me that he or she is introducing a great new idea that is going to induce a "paradigm shift" in the field, whatever field it might be this week . . . I ignore them until they go away. First do some science (or engineering, or what have you) with your great new idea, and then I'll pay attention.
Perhaps we read different articles, because I see nothing in this article that suggests theology would be a better discipline than science for addressing any of the issues that it (badly) discusses.It points out a boundary between science and theology that doesn't work well. Scientists presume to tell us they don't address theological issues and then trash creationism on scientific grounds. Well, in this particular case, we have science complaining that its own methods are not apt to describe processes better addressed in theology.
What boundary? What does, say, epigenetics have to do with theology?You may wish to keep theology out of experimental methodology for the most part. Fine. You don't need demonology issue with controls in your experimentation.
But, here you have a boundary where science has to make a decision about how far it can go while excluded such matters. Now science admits that its paradigm is limited and they try to address it with woolly thinking.
I don't do theology. I let anyone have a place at the table who proposes explanations that are testable by objective evidence. If YECs can start doing that, they're welcome. Until they do, they're not welcome. And I still have no idea what ultimate matters you think are in question here.How about this: either back off of the theology or give the theologians a place at the table, be they YEC or otherwise. Science has presumed to extend its sanitized experimental model to thinking about ultimate matters. Thus, you have the conflict this article represents.
How does it do that? The article cites two functions of philosophers: 1) challenge scientists on the adequacy of their current models, and 2) effectively attack creationists. Presumably you're not crazy about (2), but for (1), what suggests to you that the challenge would concern ultimate matters? In any case, the article would have been more persuasive on this point if it had offered a instance of philosophers being useful to science, rather than simply quoting a philosopher's assertion.One of the funny things about your comment is that we should stay out of the business of qualified biologists. Well, this article says or at least implies that a great deal of these issues were not your business in the first place. The philosophers are now as qualified on ultimate issues.
I find your conclusion pretty funny, given my personal experience. I have zero base in fashionable or powerful evolutionary biology clubs; my PhD is in experimental physics, I got started studying evolution by getting a job as a software engineer and helping out another computer guy, I work at a lab devoted to biomedical research rather than to evolution, and I simply stumbled into studying natural selection. The big shots in evolution aren't all that fond of us: we're known to the Chicago pop gen/evo folks as "The Death Star".It has always appeared that cosmology and evolutionary biology were clubby citadels where admission to the truth business was as much about fashion and power as, well, truth, and sometimes more the former. Wild speculation is acceptable, if it is orthodox. Otherwise, your career is over. Your comments about us leaving these problems as your province confirms this.
Since I don't understand the preceding paragraph, I can't answer your question.Conventional biology drew the boundary as clearly overlapping into the ultimate issues and origins territory. This was the upshot of the intelligent design debate. ID was just as woolly and probably somewhat less than the subject to article. It is pretty much no different, except for the paranoid and frantic attempts to push the boundary into theological territory and defend that line to the death, even in the land of woolly headed musings of adolescents and teenage students.
Is that what you really want?
See, this is what I mean.
Now you are being evil.Indulging in the worst kind of badness.
I am trying to find a handle on this notion that we are getting into. Now, it started as a brutish and sadistic impulse to inflame my evolutionist friends. I had been so good of late. (Hopefully they realize I am messing with them in good fun.)
But, how exactly do you "retreat" from, or, excuse me, revise the notion of "natural selection." Being random is like being pregnant. You are either pregnant or not.
Rather, the reaction was that ID was anathema to any reasonable form of scholarship or educational setting. In short, "we can't discuss it" was the answer. Does that suggest a bias? Sure it does.
What this notion of nonrandom selection process should do is put a good deal of mystery back on the table for discussion.
But, I get to have my say that where there is doubt, God just might be the best answer there is. Just might, is what I say with my little poindexter mortar board on.
When I worship, I know better.
We have no idea how God moderates the flight or fall of sparrows, so some notion of randomness has a place in our discourse, ie, it says something about our cluelessness.
But, Darwin depends upon randomness for the integrity of his theory.
The notion that there is a cogent boundary between a random process and an intelligent process is a major, major assumption. It assumes one can be half pregnant.
The notion that Darwinism is likely survive at all is largely based on a irrational fondness and bias.
One issue we are left with is time. Young v. old earth is not an issue resolved here.
But, the very idea that a nonrandom process can be traced out and understood, what does that mean?
I am interested to know what the notion of understanding of such things is supposed to imply? A continuing march away from creationism? Or more doubt about whether God is still the best explanation as the more exquisite and detailed aspects of nonrandom processes become increasing abstruse?
What really struck me about the story was hearing him to this conclusion, and just hanging there with the question, "And there is a God, so then ...... what?" The guy has this epiphany about God and it has all the relevance of realizing that there two new kinds of marshmallows in your Lucky Charms cereal.
Same thing here. If you open the door to inherent nonrandom processes, what the bloody Jehosaphat is on the other side of that door?
Do you even dare to start excluding possibilities to simply fit your experience? How does that make any sense?
The remarkable part about this piece is the lack of content. Why exactly do pigs not have wings? Is there content in that explanation.
It is rock solid content for the proposition that a sparrow falls from the sky randomly and not because of any kind of god.
[From the same article.] Does that really mean anything? It means randomness is in question I suppose.
It means there are unknown but nonradom powers and forces in nature. What does that mean?
What say you Gluadys? I now have understanding. I shall turn your beans into peas!!
Begging the question of why life might be analogous to snow flakes.Well, as I read the background material, it does not seem to be randomness that is the problem, but unexplained non-randomness. Stuff that is clearly not random, but for which either natural selection is not an appropriate explanation, or for which our understanding of natural selection is inadequate.
As someone noted, the self-organization of a snowflake is not random, but it's not natural selection either. It is not even evolution.
I understand that it was in biology books. But, the issue was not which class it could be taught in, but whether it had any validity at all or any place whatsoever in classrooms. Also, as the article implies, much so-called biology is philosophy and not science.I think it has been quite clear that the question of design in nature and its possible intelligent origin is definitely an idea worth discussing in the proper venue: as a question of philosophy. The answer was never "We can't discuss it." It was "We can't discuss it as part of a high-school science curriculum." Why? Because it is not science.
Could be. But not for everyone. I was careful to limit the context and usage. Part of the problem is that the conventional biologists seem to think that criticism of the ragged ends of their science-cum-philosophy is fit only for biologists. But, not so.Actually, I think that, as far as anti-evolutionary creationism is concerned the papers coming out of the conference will be a rich source of mined quotes, mindlessly repeated out of context to misrepresent a fascinating discussion about how evolution happens as a controversy about whether evolution happens.
In many ways, not. There are certainly some known processes that give glory to God. Randomness might be one that doesn't since there may not be any true randomness. I am trying to think of an area where we have ever gotten completely to the bottom of the subject and seen the true origin of anything. At one time random/natural selection seemed to offer a conceptual bottom line. That has been shattered.Question remains: what is the nature of the answer if God is the answer? How does "God" differ scientifically from "we don't know?"
And outside of quantum mechanics, it may be that "cluelessness" is all that randomness is. That and a level of complexity which we do not have the resources to disentangle sufficiently to make reliable predictions.It would seem that natural selection is a predictable and orderly process that does not require random mutation per se. It can operate on any change in the genetic code. But, the eons of evolution do posit the random change that is sifted by natural selection.How so? Darwin's principal focus is on natural selection, which is not random. He doesn't touch on why individuals in a species vary. Variation might or might not be a random process as far as his theory goes. It does not really matter. What matters is that given variation and given an ecological fit, natural selection happens and species change.
I look at Darwinism as a movement, not a man.Perhaps, as many are wont to do, you attribute to Darwin factors not added to his theory until after his death.
Some teach that there really isn't any random activity. Some argue it has never been found in nature. If we assume that some randomness exists, we still don't know if what proportion or where one would stop and the other would take over. If you assume that you have found a nonrandom process in nature, would it be rational to assume that it can be understood. Do you just say that, well six sided snowflakes and that's the end of that. Or, do you wonder whether the cause is beneficent, malevolent, or capable of organizing the molecules in your body based upon love, hate, judgment, pity, etc.? The subject article is vague enough to suggest the boundaries are never going to be clear enough to exclude such things.I am not sure I follow this. Are you assuming that an intelligently designed process cannot include random elements?
Micoevolution is a fact.I think Darwinism will survive in any future model of evolution in much the same way as Newton's principles survive in a relativistic and quantum model of the universe. It won't be the whole picture of evolution, but it will still be useful and applicable within its terms of reference.
Relentlessly.Perhaps you are looking for a more epistemological answer.
It actually contains more data than randomness, which arguably doesn't exist. Love is an expression of intention, a tendency, a series of data points -- at least when compared to randomness. The latter was in good standing with science for many years. Relatively speaking, religion is an improvement. But, yes, I know, it will never make the cover of Nature."God as an explanation" is the phrase that intrigues me. How is God a scientific explanation of anything at all---even for a creationist?
Love and Mercy, or precious little that can get published.I do not see how that belief leads to a scientific explanation of anything. Or as I asked earlier, scientifically, what is the difference between "God" and "we don't know"?
Nothing that is merely human is safe, except by grace. So, yes, even your socks are on the table. I haven't yet found a good boundary to exclude Him, but I have plenty of bad ones.Exactly. One needs a great deal more than the logical necessity of God for God to be an answer to anything.
So God exists? So then? Does it mean I need to change my brand of socks? Or join a monastery? Why? What is the connection between the existence of God and any prescription for how to live humanly in the world?
Indeed not. That should imply shock and worry. We may be under the law, which could be a big problem.A necessary God does not immediately imply the ethical God revealed in the Bible with claims on your life.
In my experience, my experience is pretty limited. We all believe in the miraculous, but assume we have a handle on the fact that it seems (or ought to be) rare. Our experience is not all that great a predictor of anything. You have lots of experience with weather. Try predicting it.The only thing that makes sense is what fits our experience. That is the point, to discover how to make sense of our experience.
Rats have wings (bats). Lizards had them (pteradons). Even fish do. Why not pigs? Apparently it just didn't work out. I am not sure there is a clear answer for why not.Of course, there is content. You really don't know why pigs have no wings? What in the explanation needs unpacking for you?
What would science be if it was concerned with how and why God would allow sparrows to fall from the sky? The assumption seems to be that this is a nonissue. Not exactly atheism. It could be deism.Oh, sure. Randomness=atheism.
Well, a bunch of guys are going to this conference to suggest that there may not be any such thing. Add to this that scripture suggests they don't. I kind of like those odds, but that is a personal decision. Lets see you prove that randomness exists. Which of us is going to have the burden of proof?Why? What is so unfathomable about God creating a world in which stochastic processes operate?
Could be, but the article suggests its getting awfully murky.Not really. Just that there may be more than one non-random process (natural selection) that factors into natural phenomena, including evolution.
SFS says its already old hat. But, since the bunsen burners keep burning reliably that we should all just not worry about it and wait for further instructions from the biological/evolutionary mothership.Let's see what the reports say when they are published next year.
Oh thank you master!I'd turn you into a dog for a while, if you weren't one already.
Mostly I say that criticism of Darwinism, like criticism of anything else, should be coherent and well-informed about the subject being criticized.SFS says its already old hat. But, since the bunsen burners keep burning reliably that we should all just not worry about it and wait for further instructions from the biological/evolutionary mothership.
Begging the question of why life might be analogous to snow flakes.
I understand that it was in biology books.
In many ways, not. There are certainly some known processes that give glory to God. Randomness might be one that doesn't since there may not be any true randomness.
It would seem that natural selection is a predictable and orderly process that does not require random mutation per se. It can operate on any change in the genetic code. But, the eons of evolution do posit the random change that is sifted by natural selection.
I look at Darwinism as a movement, not a man.
If you assume that you have found a nonrandom process in nature, would it be rational to assume that it can be understood.
Do you just say that, well six sided snowflakes and that's the end of that.
Or, do you wonder whether the cause is beneficent, malevolent, or capable of organizing the molecules in your body based upon love, hate, judgment, pity, etc.? The subject article is vague enough to suggest the boundaries are never going to be clear enough to exclude such things.
Micoevolution is a fact.
Relentlessly.
It actually contains more data than randomness, which arguably doesn't exist. Love is an expression of intention, a tendency, a series of data points -- at least when compared to randomness. The latter was in good standing with science for many years. Relatively speaking, religion is an improvement. But, yes, I know, it will never make the cover of Nature.
Love and Mercy, or precious little that can get published.
Nothing that is merely human is safe, except by grace. So, yes, even your socks are on the table. I haven't yet found a good boundary to exclude Him, but I have plenty of bad ones.
In my experience, my experience is pretty limited.
Rats have wings (bats). Lizards had them (pteradons). Even fish do. Why not pigs? Apparently it just didn't work out. I am not sure there is a clear answer for why not.
What would science be if it was concerned with how and why God would allow sparrows to fall from the sky?
The assumption seems to be that this is a nonissue.
Well, a bunch of guys are going to this conference to suggest that there may not be any such thing. Add to this that scripture suggests they don't.
Lets see you prove that randomness exists. Which of us is going to have the burden of proof?
SFS says its already old hat.
Not life to snowflakes: self-organization in snowflakes to self-organization in a biological environment.Philosophically, one can imagine that it would, since it would be delimited by glorious purpose. You could argue for or against, and you could use scripture, but most of this is a flight of imagination anyway.And if there is true randomness in God's creation, is there any reason it would not redound to God's glory?
The problem seems to be for people that they often assume that boundary to suggest a great deal of modesty in God's plan. So, rhetorically, I am inveighing against an assumed bias in favor of too much randomness.
However, theologicall, do we dare draw this line? Altenburg suggests we are bad at drawing that line. Much of the jury is still out, but I thing this is a reasonable extrapolation.
However, just think about what you are saying. If a random process is delimited by purpose, can it still be random? Again, there is at least a major problem of defining a real boundary. I suspect that those scientists who just plain reject randomness are right.I just think the whole argument that something about random events stands in opposition to God is groundless. Who are we to say God may not choose to have some things happen at random?
True, but as suggested above, are we talking about ways that people express what they don't understand, or are we talking about real randomness? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RandomIt is wise to note that even in this context, there are various different ways of being random.
OKHowever, you had said "Darwin" not "Darwinism". Neither of course is identical to "evolution".
The other thing a non-random process does is that it starts you down what is at least an virtually interminable path. For example, what was before the Big Bang? We can argue about what the future might hold, but it seems the variables are getting bigger, not smaller.I would think so. Something non-random indicates some sort of regular process which can be studied and used as a basis for predicting outcomes.
Finally you scientists are getting a grip on Romans 1:19Apparently not. Otherwise, how did they discover its principles of self-organization?
Now your self-organizing concept starts again down that interminable road. Why do we have the physical laws we have, which could possibly have been different if Big Bang had happened a bit differently? Why does frozen water float and what about snowflakes. We never get to that "self" in "self-organizing". All we ever get is a part of the "organizing." Do you see why this phrase betrays such enormous philosophical weakness (a problem special to all human, not just scientists)?I expect molecules are organized on the basis of chemistry. Of course, some say that love is also chemistry.
Then I guess I don't by that estimation.If you truly understood microevolution, you would understand that macroevolution is also a fact and cannot be otherwise, given microevolution.
Science is theoretically trying to account for cause and effect. As noted two subposts above, the notion of "self-organizing" betrays that the results are spotty.And, that is why you find scientific answers unsatisfactory. You are looking for a different kind of answer.
Once the scientist gets out of the origins business and does not presume to have a conclusion on such matters, all of his Altenburg problems disappear. That should reduce his workload by about one seventh, giving him time to get to Church for some real answers.
{singing} Some say love it is a ..... (Get the hook out)So is love chemistry?
I think scientists should draw a better boundary that keeps them out of the philosophy business unless they are willing to be explicit and let the rest of us join in. Origins is a philosophy problem.I am not sure whether you want that question answered in the affirmative or negative. Which do you assume would be more desirable? To be able to account for love on a molecular basis? Or for love to continue to transcend the capacities of science? You seem to want both at the same time.
As an evolutionist, would you think they would be better off by saying, "We seem to be lead to an idea of "self-organizing" by issues in the data, but we know that nothing can create itself, so the principle at work must be God. Lets pray that He shows us how He did it." A bit sentimental and non-scientific, but it does acknowledge the philosophical limit of science at least.
Amen.Well, now you are making a TE argument. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in science excludes God. Once that principle is grasped, we can focus on good science without any fear that we will lose God in our study of the created order.
If we discover deep time, that does not exclude God. If we discover randomness, that does not exclude God. If we discover self-organization, that does not exclude God. If we discover mutations, natural selection, evo-devo, transitional fossils, that does not exclude God. If we discover our common ancestry with the rest of biological life on this planet, that does not exclude God. You have not found a good boundary to exclude God because there is none. No boundary at all.
I have been called a TE! I guess I should be proud.
Experience is not such a great guide to origins. Thus, my crack above about Romans 1:19 above. Experience does suggest that this are "uncanny" as Altenburg suggests.Nevertheless, it is what we have, and what we seek to explain. We have no questions about what we do not experience.
Why do we ask about pain? Is it not because we experience pain? Without the experience, would the question arise?
However, experience does a poor job of explaining where this boundary between the non-random and random lies.
Experience says that we should not expect God to heal us. That luck, positive thinking and sensible treatment is the appropriate boundary. The Word says otherwise. God is Jehova-Raffa, the God who heals you.
Again, can there be anything that is randomness or luck if randomness is in anyway delimited by the purposes of God?
That is probably true. But, is there a presumptive boundary? The context for that statement suggests that there was, ie, all of our fears for the future:Pretty much the same as it is now, I think. We are back on the same ground. Scientifically is there a difference between "why do sparrows fall from the sky?" and "why does God allow sparrows to fall from the sky?"
Luk 12:7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.
Had science not presumed to have really dealt with things like "self-organizing" I would be less preachy. But, think about exactly how that phrase measures up to really sound philosophy:Science studies the phenomena of falling sparrows. It may or may not come to some conclusions about concurring, possibly causative, natural forces. Are you asking it to do more?
2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Now, I would believe that the outcome of this work would be different, better and more scientific with the glory going to the Lord. But, that is my bias. Again, this is philosophy. But, they started it!!
Now, WRT God, I think this is irrelevant. If God is outside time then every random event is laid bare before him. It is complete. It is finished.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?