Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution & intelligent design
UC Berkeley News ^ | 06/17/2005 | Bonnie Azab Powell,

Posted on 05/16/2007 6:54:51 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-655 next last

1 posted on 05/16/2007 6:54:56 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
"People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change."

I guess they're not. Course, without misrepresenting ID an evolutionist (theistic or otherwise) wouldn't have an argument.

The argument is not about whether or not 'change' occurs, that is given and it is a misrepresentation to pretend otherwise. The argument is about whether the 'change' that is observed can create a man out of an amoeba or whether it is limited e.g. to generating dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals, etc out of an original canine kind.

Was life created with an ability to adapt within and proceeding from separate biological groups or was the first cell created and everything proceeded from there? Naturalists would argue the second position while creationists would argue the first, from the same observed 'change'.

Clearly, what we observe is consistent with life that was created with an ability to adapt within and proceeding from separate biological groups and therefore consistent with ID.

Equally as clear is the fact that what is observed is not consistent with all life proceeding from a single life form. That is a 'fantastic postulate' as Mr. Towne notes and it is interesting that he seems to accept the 'fantastic postulate' where evolution is concerned, yet reject it where the universe is concerned.

"My answer to that is, we should explore as much as we can. We should think about everything, try to explore everything, and question things."

Just don't push the ID boundary forward so that it is consistent with Biblical teaching. That is unacceptable. /sarc

2 posted on 05/16/2007 7:18:58 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

interesting! read again later


3 posted on 05/16/2007 7:39:11 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
"..Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?

I think it's very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.

Some scientists argue that "well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right." Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It's very clear that there is evolution, and it's important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent.

They don't have to negate each other, you're saying. God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But that's not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be taught in Kansas.

People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too.

People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that's a bad word to use in public, but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it's very misleading. .."

Yes, it IS.

Here's an excerpt from the "debate" this month linked below:

George Gilder: "Darwinism may be true, but it's ultimately trivial. It is not a "fundamental explanation for creation or the universe."

That was a non-sequitur. He's equating a "philosophy" (Scientism/Darwinism) with "the theory of evolution" which has nothing to do with the philosophy of "origins".

The whole debate was stupid and meaningless for that very same reason. They were talking about apples and oranges.

But is it Good for the Conservatives - Darwinism and its Discontents
The Weekly Standard ^ | 05/14/2007 | Andrew Ferguson Volume 012, Issue 33

Larry Arnhart, a political scientist from Northern Illinois University; John Derbyshire, an author and a blogger for National Review Online; John West, a political scientist formerly of Seattle Pacific University and now of the Discovery Institute; and his colleague at Discovery, George Gilder, the legendary author of Wealth and Poverty, Microcosm, The Spirit of Enterprise, and Life After Television. Moderator: Steven Hayward, the biographer of Ronald Reagan

For those that are interested, you can watch the entire panel discussion here. "Darwinism and Conservatism: Friends or Foes?"

4 posted on 05/16/2007 7:39:41 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ("But there IS honor among the Racist Left thieves: it is called "political correctness.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
"The argument is about whether the 'change' that is observed can create a man out of an amoeba or whether it is limited e.g. to generating dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals, etc out of an original canine kind."

Try this :)

"..man is not descended from animals, but rather, vice versa. Put another way, the human being is not "animal plus X." Rather, various animals are "human prototype minus X," just as life is not "matter plus Y," but "life minus Y."

("If I recall correctly, this was an argument in Schumacher's Guide For the Perplexed." ).

Source:

Saturday, May 12, 2007: Drinking from God's Firehose

5 posted on 05/16/2007 7:53:04 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ("But there IS honor among the Racist Left thieves: it is called "political correctness.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

More. :)

Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Roget’s Theosaurus and the Tickwttted Illusion of Sweet Fanny Adams
By Robert W.Godwin [Gagdad Bob] , Ph.D is a clinical psychologist whose interdisciplinary work has focused on the relationship between contemporary psychoanalysis, chaos theory, and quantum physics. http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/

Perhaps it’s as simple as Zero and One. Either you have a metaphysics of the One or you embrace the nihilism of the zilch, the nada, the bupkis...

Hmm, here’s an interesting little factoid. I was just looking up synonyms for zero in my thesaurus, and I see that the very first two categories are Existence and Nonexistence, followed, appropriately enough, by Substantiality and Insubstantiality, then Intrinsicality and Extrinsicality. Thus, the first three pages of the thesaurus tell us pretty much all we need to know about theology, metaphysics, and ontology.

For, it is written, in the beginning was 1. EXISTENCE, or being, essence, presence, substantiality, reality, actuality, factuality, authenticity, not a dream, the truth of the matter, what’s what, the nitty gritty, absolute, self-evident, inescapable, and indisputable fact, brass tacks, self-existence, uncreated being, noncontingent existence, aseity, and others.

How true, which is to say, correct, valid, sound, accurate, well-grounded, logical, veridical, inerrant, self-consistent, cogent, authoritative, uninvented, unadulterated, square, dead right, bang-on, straight-up-and-down, and honest-to-God, for Being implies Truth.

Indeied, In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was EXISTENCE. Or, you might say that In the Beginning God created BEING and NONBEING, or, to be precise, pulled BEING out of his own ASEITY, or beyond being.

What about the alternative, which is to say, 2. NONEXISTENCE? Let’s see, we have nonbeing, nothingness, emptiness, vacuity, “the intense inane” (Shelley), unreality, negation, negativity, zero, absence, goose egg, not a whit, not a hint, not a blessed one, just Sweet Fanny Adams. In short. “ain’t nobody here but us leftists.”

What are the implications of this philosophy of zero, this metaphysics of nonbeing? According to Roget, it is to not exist, to be absent or lacking, to be annihilated, destroyed, eradicated and wiped out, to vanish, to be no more and leave no trace, to disappear, evaporate, melt away, die out, pass out of the picture, peter out, perish, circle the drain, go kaput, and just plain die.

This is indeed the fate of the leftist. In fact, he admits as much. Why then are they such chronic whiners? If their absence is intrinsic, why do they complain about it so much? I guess that’s why. As we said yesterday, leftism is the attempt to use horizontal politics to fill a vertical hole of their own creation. They are self-inflicted victims of their own nothingness. Envy takes care the rest.

All because you never allowed yourself to exist by aligning yourself with the Real, the Absolute, and the Intrinsic. Rather, you made yourself nonexistent, unreal, imaginary, fanciful, unsubstantial, illusory, and without being. Which is to say, you made yourself. But nobody made you. .....”

“... What is “nothing,” anyway, and why are there people who believe in it? Schuon writes of nothingness that it is, “on the one hand, an intellectual notion and, on the other hand, a cosmic tendency; this notion of nothingness is identical with that of impossibility; that is to say, nothingness is total impossibility, whereas there do exist relative impossibilities, namely those which represent situations modifiable in principle.”

So true nothingness cannot really exist except in the minds of nihilists. Therefore, they know of what they speak, since they themselves are the absurd “possibility of nothing,” which is just one of the diverse possibilities of Something. The nihilist is just a self-unmade man, or man unmade, to be exact.

Schuon continues:

“The notion of ‘nothing’ is essentially a reference — obviously negative — to something possible or existent, otherwise it would be meaningless and even inconceivable. Indeed, ‘nothing’ indicates by definition the absence of something: it excludes one or many objects, or all objects, according to context; to speak of an intrinsic ‘nothingness,’ of a nothing in itself, without reference to the things which it excludes, would be a contradiction in terms. When a receptacle is filled and then emptied, there is a difference; now this difference is a reality, otherwise no one would ever complain about being robbed. If this ‘nothing’ were in itself a ‘nothingness’ — if it had no ‘referential’ character — there would be no difference between presence and absence, plenitude and vacuity, existence and inexistence; and every thief could argue that the ‘nothing’ he produced in someone’s purse does not exist; the word ‘nothing’ would be devoid of meaning just as the nothingness is devoid of content.... an intrinsic nothingness cannot concretely be opposed to anything or be affected by anything in any way.”

So EXISTENCE and NONEXISTENCE aren’t actually opposites. Rather, the one is real, the other entirely fanciful, an absurdity, an impossibility, a... never mind.

Similarly, as Will was saying the other day about the “ether,” or the spiritual substance of reality, in the absence of such a metaphysical category, the cosmos makes no sense at all.

For, “space, if it were an absolute emptiness — if it did not in practice coincide with ether — could not comprise distance and separation, for a nothingness added to another nothingness — if this were conceivable without absurdity — could not produce a distance.”

Now, back to the ZERO and the ONE. Schuon notes that “the difference between 1 and 2 is relative, but the difference between 1 and 0 can be termed absolute...” Which is to say, “A thing cannot exist half-way, either it exists or it does not exist; consequently, since there is something absolute about existence in relation to inexistence,” this speaks to “the whole miracle of creation.”

Or, put it this way: “When one, two or three out of four candles are extinguished, the difference in luminosity is relative; but when the last one is extinguished, the difference is total, for it is that between light and darkness. This is what allows negative expressions such as ‘the Void’ (Shunya), ‘not this, not this’ (neti neti), and other terms of the kind to be applied to pure Being, and a fortiori to Beyond-Being. All apophatic theology stems from this principle of terminology.”

Ah ha! So NOTHING does exist. In fact, it is not the negation of BEING, but the ABSOLUTE EXISTENCE of the God-beyond-being, who must exist — and if so, must coincide with the sovereign good.

“The idea of ‘being’ positively implies reality, and restrictively manifestation; we say ‘restrictively’ because manifestation or existence represents a ‘less’ or a limitation in relation to the Principle which is pure Being. In signifying reality, the idea of ‘being’ evokes ipso facto the ‘good’ and also the ‘more,’ hence quality and quantity; but above all it evokes ‘presence.’ As for the opposite idea of ‘nothingness,’ it implies first of all the ‘absence’ of being, or impossibility, and more relatively the absence of determinate things; it also implies, by derivation and by analogy, the phenomenon of ‘less’ and, in another respect, that of ‘evil.’ But this idea can also be applied, quite paradoxically, to the transcendent or principial order: from the standpoint of the manifested world — hence from the standpoint of existence in the restricted sense of the term — all that transcends this world and consequently is free from existential limitations, is ‘nothingness.’”

Which was the point of beginning — and ending — and beginning — the [book] with the word nothing. Not to signify negation, non-being, nothingness, ... or some other addle-pated hooey. Rather, this is the infinite gap between the first and last Word of existence, which is to say,

... nothing,
a formless void without mind or life,
a shadow spinning before the beginning over a silent static sea,
unlit altar of eternity, fathomless vortex of the Infinite Zero.
Darkest night, dreamless sleep:
Outside in. Spacetimematterenergy.
No beforeafter, nobodaddy, no mamafestation, nothing but neti.
One brahman deathless breathing breathless,
darkness visible the boundless all.
Unknown origin prior to time and space,
fount of all being, unborn thus undying,
beginning and end of all impossibility,
empty plenum and inexhaustible void.
Hello, noumena!

bttt


6 posted on 05/16/2007 8:28:59 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ("But there IS honor among the Racist Left thieves: it is called "political correctness.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
"...man is not descended from animals, but rather, vice versa. Put another way, the human being is not "animal plus X." Rather, various animals are "human prototype minus X,"..."

Ever think how that might fit with Genesis 9:5a, "And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal."

"...just as life is not "matter plus Y," but "life minus Y."

I assume that he meant that *matter* is "life minus Y", not that *life* is "life minus Y"? That would fit better with his previous statement about humans/animals.

7 posted on 05/16/2007 9:40:29 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; SirLinksalot; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; marron; kosta50; metmom; Jeff Gordon; Coyoteman; ...
Was life created with an ability to adapt within and proceeding from separate biological groups or was the first cell created and everything proceeded from there? Naturalists would argue the second position while creationists would argue the first, from the same observed 'change'.

Hi Gourmet Dan! I guess you could say we have an "observer problem" here: different articulations of the same evidence, both of which may actually be "true" from the respective points of view of the observers who have constructed their "experiments" differently. Personally, I regard science and philosophy (and theology is the "queen of metaphysics") not as "mutually-exclusive," but as complementary.

Indeed, as the great psychologist/philosopher Willam James -- who was keenly interested in evolution issues and quotes Darwin extensively in his magisterial classic of psychology -- wrote, "metaphysics means nothing but an unusually obstinate effort to think clearly." [The Principles of Psychology, originally published 1890]

Darwinists are fond of reminding us that evolution theory is not an origin of life theory. Granted, this is true. There's another problem it doesn't address: consciousness; and actually this is a problem that seems to be related to origin of life speculations. Although Darwinism isn't an origin of life theory, it may well be that the issue of the origin of consciousness is ineluctibly bound up with the same origin as life itself.

James treats of consciousness in this classical work, and lays out the problems as he sees them. In the chapter "The Mind-Stuff Theory," James said:

The point which as evolutionists we are bound to hold fast to is that all the new forms of being that make their appearance are really nothing more than results of the redistribution of the original and unchanging materials. The self-same atoms which, chaotically dispersed, made the nebula, now, jammed and temporarily caught in peculiar positions, form our brains; and the "evolution" of the brains, if understood, would be simply the account of how the atoms came to be caught and jammed. In this story no new natures, no factors not present at the beginning, are introduced at any later stage.

But with the dawn of consciousness an entirely new nature seems to slip in, something whereof the potency was not given in the mere atoms of the original chaos.

In the case of consciousness, the "potency" upon which evolution "acts" is not there at the origin, whatever the origin may have been. So how to account for consciousness? How and when did it sneak in?

Some schools of evolutionary psychology have attempted to introduce a theory of consciousness based on discrete cell intelligence; thus consciousness is to be understood as the composite of a congeries of "smart" cells which comprise the physical brain. On this view, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of physical brain activity which has no independent causal power of its own.

The theory in question [i.e., Darwin's evolutionary theory], therefore, if radically carried out, must set up for its elementary and irreducible psycho-physic couple, not the cell and its consciousness, but the primordial and eternal atom and its consciousness.

But why stop there? Just as cells are composites of atoms, so are atoms composites of nuclei and electrons. Electrons appear to be indivisible; but protons and neutrons which make up the nucleus are themselves composites of even smaller parts, the subatomic particles (the list of which seems still to be growing). So a "cell theory" of consciousness doesn't rest on ultimate grounds. Though it is certainly convenient for science to employ it; it "quantizes" consciousness, which helps make it tractible in scientific applications.

But James strongly argues that in the mind/brain relation, the entire consciousness is "indivisible" -- not "quantizeable" -- and coextensive with the entire current brain state, not just individual brains cells or any combination of them.

I dunno. To me it seems that saying consciousness is the ultimate product of primordial cells as it expresses via evolution is just to say we aren't going to deal with consciousness; because it, like the origin of life, is just too difficult a problem.

James wraps up this chapter with an observation: "...nature in her unfathomable designs has mixed us of clay and flame, of brain and mind, ... the two things hang indubitably together and determine each other's being, but how or why, no mortal may ever know."

It appears that Charles Townes would not be scandalized by such a view.

Anyhoot, I still say that Darwinist evolution theory is "incomplete." This drives my Darwinist friends a little nutz, 'cause they just don't see it that way. But to me, the theory has got to be incomplete if, as a life science, it knows nothing about the origin of life and consciousness....

8 posted on 05/16/2007 11:29:56 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real.

But, but, but, how can he accept intelligent design ....?

His degree isn't in evolution, he's speaking outside his area of expertise.

Ummm... he believes in creation, he isn't a *real* scientist....

PhD's are a dime a dozen, anyone can get them....

Uh, he doesn't have credentials .... ooops....

There's got to be some way to discredit him....

9 posted on 05/16/2007 11:48:08 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Anyhoot, I still say that Darwinist evolution theory is "incomplete." This drives my Darwinist friends a little nutz, 'cause they just don't see it that way. But to me, the theory has got to be incomplete if, as a life science, it knows nothing about the origin of life and consciousness....

Nice try.

Germ theory doesn't say anything about those things either, so I guess its a pretty incomplete theory?

And my lawnmower doesn't cook breakfast, so its incomplete?

(Most of the thread seems to be psychobabble. Not my field.)

10 posted on 05/16/2007 1:58:35 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; marron; Jeff Gordon; Quix; metmom
And my lawnmower doesn't cook breakfast, so its incomplete?

Coyoteman, we don't ask our lawnmowers to provide an account of the evolution of life (er, species is the standard reductionist term).

If something "evolves," it must be evolving from something, and probably towards something. My conjecture is, that "something" contains (at its origin) the specification of evolutionary potentialities and the context of their development (materials and laws). Just the word "evolve" implies a rational, not a haphazard process. For something to be "rational," it must have a "limit" somewhere. It can't be pure chaos and be "rational": Our universe appears to be lawfully ordered. But a chaos cannot order itself.

Many Darwinists I know seem to think a doctrine can be understood as "equivalent" to natural processes. If you have the right doctrine, you can just squeeze all of nature into it, and it will make perfect sense.

Metaphysics, which as James suggests is about "thinking clearly," enables us to see that we are dealing, however, with two completely different categories in such a situation: articulations in language and articulations in the natural world -- they are not equivalent; no "A = A" obtains here.

This might seem like perfect psychobabble to you. If so, I'm really sorry for that. (Mainly I'm just recapitulating Aristotle here.) It seems to me, the character of evolutionary development may very well depend in some way on the conditions of its origin. It seems to me a "life science" cannot forever dodge this problem.

Darwin's theory is not a theory about the origin of life (or consciousness). I accept that. Though you'd think biology in general would want to come to grips with origins at some point.

At the same time, I notice many people these days making Darwinist evolution theory the linchpin of an entire cosmology that does speculate about the origins of life.... On my view FWIW this is an illegitimate translation from science into fields where it is not appropriate.

Be that as it may, to say that I do not regard Darwin's theory as "complete" should hardly be objectionable. It is the job of science to constantly prepare to find itself in a situation where its "best" theory is overcome by new insights and developments. There have been two earth-shattering revolutions in the physical sciences within the past 100 years; but Darwinism just goes along "unevolved" as it were, as if none of the new physical discoveries are relevant to it.

Don't forget, Darwinist theory is just that: a theory. It is not a law of nature. So it seems to me it is perfectly appropriate to question perceived shortcomings, if only to make our understanding of the relevant problems better and stronger. Especially since as science, Darwinist theory is a tad peculiar in that it is not premised on direct observation and replicable experiments. It is historical in its approach to nature, and is largely intuitive in form.

Well, I don't know where all this leaves us. But I'm so very glad to hear from you, Coyoteman!

11 posted on 05/16/2007 4:54:56 PM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"Hi Gourmet Dan! I guess you could say we have an "observer problem" here: different articulations of the same evidence, both of which may actually be "true" from the respective points of view of the observers who have constructed their "experiments" differently. Personally, I regard science and philosophy (and theology is the "queen of metaphysics") not as "mutually-exclusive," but as complementary."

What I found interesting is that Towne could recognize a 'fantastic postulate' wrt the universe, yet overlooked the same 'fantastic postulate' wrt evolution. It was a fascinating insight into the inconsistencies of his beliefs."

"Darwinists are fond of reminding us that evolution theory is not an origin of life theory. Granted, this is true."

That's a modern-day cop-out born out of necessity. It was not always so. Early Darwinists loved the 'primordial ooze' concept that supposedly generated life spontaneously. As the evidence for abiogenesis receded into the distance, the paradigm was changed to exclude abiogenesis from 'evolution'. Ask them this, at what point did molcules begin 'evolving' [changing]? Before they became alive or after? They can hardly argue after because then they need a fully-functional cell to self-assemble. Obviously, some evolutionary 'change' had to be occurring before life appeared and methinks they protesteth too much.

"But James strongly argues that in the mind/brain relation, the entire consciousness is "indivisible" -- not "quantizeable" -- and coextensive with the entire current brain state, not just individual brains cells or any combination of them."

"I dunno. To me it seems that saying consciousness is the ultimate product of primordial cells as it expresses via evolution is just to say we aren't going to deal with consciousness; because it, like the origin of life, is just too difficult a problem."

That's pretty weak, but so is the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP)and that has become so accepted that most people don't even remember that there used to be a Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP). The WAP being that the universe looks designed for life because only a universe with that complement of physical laws could generate life to observe it [necessitating an infinite number of universes model so that you can conceive the belief that it is possible to get one like ours randomly] while the SAP says that the universe looks designed for life because it is.

You can bet that they are working on a more acceptable way to explain-away that little consciousness problem. James may have it with his little 'not quantizable' argument. Anything that gives them enough wiggle room to 'conceive the belief' that evolution can accomodate the inconsistent evidence.

12 posted on 05/16/2007 5:12:33 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Your philosophical analysis of the question of evolution are interesting. I would like to see you apply this same analysis to the scientific factors as well as the philosophical.
13 posted on 05/16/2007 5:20:49 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon ("An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last." Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
[.. Well, I don't know where all this leaves us. ..]

Me either.. How can you have life sciences when nobody knows what life even "IS"...
When a body dies what left the scene?..

People getting all pissy faced(i.e. real serious) over what life "is or isn't".. is silly..
What is life?.. Does anybody know?.. Is life mechanical or eternal?..
What is eternity?.. Are humans just apes that spend lots of money on religious clubs?..
And design religious clothing?..

14 posted on 05/16/2007 5:24:34 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
And my lawnmower doesn't cook breakfast, so its incomplete?

Coyoteman, we don't ask our lawnmowers to provide an account of the evolution of life (er, species is the standard reductionist term).

Specific things for specific purposes. The theory of evolution (not "Darwinism") deals with change in the genome.


If something "evolves," it must be evolving from something, and probably towards something. My conjecture is, that "something" contains (at its origin) the specification of evolutionary potentialities and the context of their development (materials and laws).

Wrong. There is no "toward." There is more likely to be an "away from" than a "toward." For any given condition, some individuals in a population are better adapted, some more poorly adapted. Those in a population who are better adapted will, in the long run, tend to have more offspring, while those who are more poorly adapted have relatively fewer offspring. The end result is the genome which is, overall, better adapted to the multiplicity of conditions in their environment will be passed on more successfully.


Just the word "evolve" implies a rational, not a haphazard process. For something to be "rational," it must have a "limit" somewhere. It can't be pure chaos and be "rational": Our universe appears to be lawfully ordered. But a chaos cannot order itself.

You just stepped off the deep end. While the natural world operates within given parameters, it is reactionary, not "rational" There is no planning which adaptations will work better; those which don't work as well are weeded out. As for "a chaos cannot order itself" you're back to that metaphysical philosophical mumbo-jumbo. That phrase simply has no meaning beyond opinion.


Many Darwinists I know seem to think a doctrine can be understood as "equivalent" to natural processes. If you have the right doctrine, you can just squeeze all of nature into it, and it will make perfect sense.

Back to "Darwinists" again. Otherwise this paragraph makes no sense to me.


Metaphysics, which as James suggests is about "thinking clearly," enables us to see that we are dealing, however, with two completely different categories in such a situation: articulations in language and articulations in the natural world -- they are not equivalent; no "A = A" obtains here.

If "thinking clearly" is what I often see in your posts, I will stick to science. The fog of words you weave around a subject generally leaves me none the wiser, and often slightly confused, for having groped my way through it.


This might seem like perfect psychobabble to you. If so, I'm really sorry for that.

Hallelujah! We agree on something!


(Mainly I'm just recapitulating Aristotle here.) It seems to me, the character of evolutionary development may very well depend in some way on the conditions of its origin. It seems to me a "life science" cannot forever dodge this problem.

What difference would you have in evolution if life started 1) naturally, 2) seeded from outer space, or 3) by some divine intervention? Please specify where the theory of evolution would have to be different for any of these three possibilities.


Darwin's theory is not a theory about the origin of life (or consciousness). I accept that. Though you'd think biology in general would want to come to grips with origins at some point.

Yes, I know its a theory. I have posted the definition of a theory dozens of times trying to educate others here on what a theory really is.

Biology does want to come to grip with origins. The theory of evolution is not the method it uses. There are hypotheses which are exploring origins, but none has yet gained sufficient support to be classified as a theory. (A biology book will contain hundreds of hypotheses and theories, along with the theory of evolution. Only creationists seem to think one theory has to, just HAS TO, deal with all of these diverse subjects.)


At the same time, I notice many people these days making Darwinist evolution theory the linchpin of an entire cosmology that does speculate about the origins of life.... On my view FWIW this is an illegitimate translation from science into fields where it is not appropriate.

Look closer. There may be more than one theory or hypothesis being addressed. Perhaps your disdain for evolution has led you to miss the dividing lines between separate lines of research?


Be that as it may, to say that I do not regard Darwin's theory as "complete" should hardly be objectionable. It is the job of science to constantly prepare to find itself in a situation where its "best" theory is overcome by new insights and developments.

And that is the case. However, with regard to the theory of evolution, there is currently no competing theory.


There have been two earth-shattering revolutions in the physical sciences within the past 100 years; but Darwinism just goes along "unevolved" as it were, as if none of the new physical discoveries are relevant to it.

Really? What revolutions are you considering? The theory of evolution has dealt well with the discovery of DNA, and has emerged stronger for it.


Don't forget, Darwinist theory is just that: a theory. It is not a law of nature. So it seems to me it is perfectly appropriate to question perceived shortcomings, if only to make our understanding of the relevant problems better and stronger. Especially since as science, Darwinist theory is a tad peculiar in that it is not premised on direct observation and replicable experiments. It is historical in its approach to nature, and is largely intuitive in form.

The theory of evolution (which you erroneously call "Darwinism" so as to demonize and "ism-ize" it) is a theory. And the details of that theory are being worked out in a hundred or more technical journals. The fact that it is in part an historical science makes no difference. The scientific method works just as well on historical sciences.


Well, I don't know where all this leaves us. But I'm so very glad to hear from you, Coyoteman!

It leaves me still advocating for science and the scientific method. (But its getting pretty lonely in these here parts lately!)

15 posted on 05/16/2007 6:36:24 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Pesky questions.


16 posted on 05/16/2007 8:19:08 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

It seems to me that this guy essentially believes in ID, and what he is protesting is the evolutionist caricature of it. What is not clear from the interview is whether he understands that what he rejects about ID is in fact nothing more than a caricature or straw man.


17 posted on 05/16/2007 9:19:12 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so very much for your excellent essay-post!

Our universe appears to be lawfully ordered. But a chaos cannot order itself.

Indeed, order cannot rise out chaos in an unguided physical system. Period. There are always guides to the system. In cosmology those guides would include space, time, physical causation and physical laws.

At the same time, I notice many people these days making Darwinist evolution theory the linchpin of an entire cosmology that does speculate about the origins of life.... On my view FWIW this is an illegitimate translation from science into fields where it is not appropriate.

So very true. And every cosmology must address the origin of the guides to the system, e.g. space, time, physical laws and physical causation itself.

As you say, Darwin's theory of evolution is incomplete. To me it is akin to Newton's classical physics which although useful, fails at the large scales (relativity) and the small scales (quantum mechanics.)

It is also not metaphysics, philosophy or theology and every attempt to appropriate the theory for such purposes reflects poorly on all the related disciplines of science.

18 posted on 05/16/2007 10:15:37 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
It is also not metaphysics, philosophy or theology and every attempt to appropriate the theory for such purposes reflects poorly on all the related disciplines of science.

Are you admitting that the theory of evolution is "not metaphysics, philosophy or theology?"

I agree.

But then you say, "every attempt to appropriate the theory for such purposes reflects poorly on all the related disciplines of science."

I disagree.

Rather, it reflects poorly on metaphysics, philosophy and theology, not on science.

Real science parted from "metaphysics, philosophy and theology" a couple of centuries ago, although the latter are still crying, "Listen to us! We were here first!"

19 posted on 05/16/2007 10:27:11 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“Real science parted from “metaphysics, philosophy and theology” a couple of centuries ago, although the latter are still crying, “Listen to us! We were here first!””


Sorry, but that’s just not true, and it reflects on your fundamental lack of understanding of science, philosophy, and knowledge itself.

First of all, science was originally called “natural philosophy.” Although we have a shorter name for it now, we could just as well still call it by that name.

Secondly, philosophy itself is what defines “science.” To put it another way, what you and I call “science” is defined, either implicitly or explicitly, by a “philosophy of science.” Your “philosophy of science” is apparently somewhat different than mine, but it is a philosophy nonetheless.

The main difference between you and me on this matter is that I recognize that I have my own “philosophy of science,” whereas you don’t even recognize that science is defined by philosophy. You think that science somehow stands above philosophy, which is profoundly wrong. And that is why so much of what you write on these threads in also profoundly wrong.


20 posted on 05/16/2007 11:25:06 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RussP

Let me elaborate a bit on my previous post.

The reason you do not understand that you have a “philosophy of science” is probably that your philosophy is essentially the following: Intelligent Design is not and cannot be science because it implies a Designer, and science cannot possibly study the Designer. In other words, you and many of the other pro-evolution participants on these threads simply reject ID a priori because you do not like the religious *implications.*

In other words, the reason you do not recognize that science is defined by philosophy is that your own philosopy of science is in essence nothing more than an arbitrary assertion backed by nothing more than a personal bias. To put it more colloquially, it’s baloney. But that particular baloney is very popular these days, and you mistakenly think that popularity justifies it.


21 posted on 05/16/2007 11:43:07 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; betty boop
The bottom line is that many statements made by theologians, philosophers and metaphysicians cannot be subjected to the scientific method, e.g. falsified by empirical tests and observations made by microscope or telescope.

Conversely, many statements made by science cannot be received as objective truth, i.e. methodological naturalism is the reduced boundary of the scientific method.

The epistemic divide must be respected from both sides, or if it isn't then "methodological naturalism" must be trashcanned.

Scientists like Dawkins, Singer, Pinker, Lewontin and Monod do not respect the epistemic divide when they posit the theory of evolution as objective truth which by definition cannot be subjected to the scientific method (observer problem.) When they do this, these scientists reflect poorly on other scientists.

22 posted on 05/17/2007 9:49:58 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Jeff Gordon; Coyoteman; hosepipe
As you say, Darwin's theory of evolution is incomplete. To me it is akin to Newton's classical physics which although useful, fails at the large scales (relativity) and the small scales (quantum mechanics.)

This is a great analogy, Alamo-Girl! Classical physics is thought to be (certainly by Niels Bohr) a special, "limited case" of a more general, comprehensive theory, quantum theory. Newtonian mechanics "works" perfectly well in our ordinary experience, which is confined to a certain range of scales and velocities that are . Yet we know that what appear as bodies in classical physics at the quantum level are not simple "bodies" as all. Also classical physics is predicated on a certain notion of determinism, which the quantum theory shows is not the actual case at all, that uncertainty is built into the very base of the system (so to speak).

Not to say that classical mechanics has at all been obviated by quantum theory: It is eminently valuable in making descriptions/predictions within the range of "normal" scales where the effects of the quantum of action are too small to notice, and where velocities do not approach the level where relativistic effects begin to kick in. Still the "Newtonian universe" fits into a wider, more comprehensive descriptive framework that includes both quantum and relativistic effects.

Thank you so much for your excellent observations!

23 posted on 05/18/2007 9:28:18 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so very much for your encouragements, dearest sister in Christ! And thank you for expanding so beautifully on that analogy!
24 posted on 05/18/2007 12:08:26 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one.

Nails it.

25 posted on 05/18/2007 12:21:58 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Sorry, but that’s just not true, and it reflects on your fundamental lack of understanding of science, philosophy, and knowledge itself.

First of all, science was originally called “natural philosophy.” Although we have a shorter name for it now, we could just as well still call it by that name.

Secondly, philosophy itself is what defines “science.” To put it another way, what you and I call “science” is defined, either implicitly or explicitly, by a “philosophy of science.” Your “philosophy of science” is apparently somewhat different than mine, but it is a philosophy nonetheless.

The main difference between you and me on this matter is that I recognize that I have my own “philosophy of science,” whereas you don’t even recognize that science is defined by philosophy. You think that science somehow stands above philosophy, which is profoundly wrong. And that is why so much of what you write on these threads in also profoundly wrong.

I disagree.

What I have said any number of times on these threads is that philosophy has been left in the dust by science.

Philosophy can..., well, philosophize, all it wants, but unless it can link its methods and results to something real, it is all just a mental experiment, with every practitioner having his/her own opinion, most of which disagree with one another. But philosophy does not and can not bring concrete evidence (e.g., the natural world) into the discussion because such evidence is no longer a part of philosophy.

You say, "philosophy itself is what defines 'science.'” Sorry to have to break this to you, but most scientists pay no attention to the ramblings of philosophy. Philosophy has been saying this and that for millennia, to little effect, but the scientific revolution a couple of hundred years ago took place largely because folks started ignoring philosophy and a lot of the other fuzzy subjects and started relying on the rationality and scientific method. You might say that science defined itself as a vastly different field from philosophy, and that has made a world of difference.

But philosophy and philosophers always seem to be whining, "But, but... we were here first! Pay attention to us. Please. Pleeeeeeease! Just a little! (Sob!)"

26 posted on 05/18/2007 6:46:22 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

You have a very mistaken notion of what “philosophy” is. The post you just wrote is philosophy, for example. Bad philosophy, but philosophy nonetheless.

If scientists don’t pay any attention to philosophy, then they cannot possibly be good scientists. What we call the “scientific method” is itself a philosophy. If scientists don’t understand that, they are lost.

To say that science has passed up philosophy is a bit like saying that your shadow has passed you.

And as I said earlier, until you understand this, you have no hope in the world of understanding that your naturalistic premise is bad philosophy *and* bad science. Naturalism as a hypothesis is fine, but as a premise it is nothing more than a dogma.

Sorry, but dogma does not belong in science — whether it makes you feel good or not.


27 posted on 05/18/2007 10:53:01 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Thanks so much for your kind words, dear A-G! Unfortunately, there’s a “gap” in what I wrote, text missing probably because I messed up an HTML tag. LOL, but I can’t remember exactly what the missing text was! Jeepers.... But you “got it” anyway! Thanks.


28 posted on 05/19/2007 9:33:32 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

LOLOL! It all seemed to flow perfectly to me. I would have never guessed anything was missing.


29 posted on 05/19/2007 9:45:25 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
but how or why, no mortal may ever know."

Leibniz has the third take and was probably right, as Herder suggested. James was on that track a century later. Now, yet another century later, the consciousness seems to be lodged in the claustrum and chooses whether to go ahead with motion the body suggests. Usually it says 'not,' which makes free will more of 'free won't.' That is, the consciousness decides to not do or lets the motion proceed. Cartesian duality is out.

30 posted on 05/19/2007 9:54:17 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RussP
dogma does not belong in science

Sounds heuristic if not dogmatic itself. Kind of a logic loop going there.

31 posted on 05/19/2007 9:57:10 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RussP; Alamo-Girl
Naturalism as a hypothesis is fine, but as a premise it is nothing more than a dogma.

Excellent insight, RussP! IMHO You really hit the bull's-eye here....

Thank you so very much!

32 posted on 05/19/2007 10:03:27 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

If you cannot see that dogma does not belong in science, then you must be ... an evolutionist!

Simply asserting that something is true does not make it true. And that includes naturalism, whether you worship that cow or not.

That’s just common sense, which seems to be in short supply these days.


33 posted on 05/19/2007 10:56:04 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Don't see it? 'Dogma does not belong in science.' That's dogma!
34 posted on 05/19/2007 10:58:18 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Well, thanks. I certainly appreciate your insights too.

Most hard-core evolutionists don’t understand the difference between a hypothesis and a premise. Then they have the hubris to claim that “philosophy” is obsolete when if fact they simply fail to understand its most basic principles.


35 posted on 05/19/2007 11:02:29 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Alamo-Girl; Jeff Gordon; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; Quix
What difference would you have in evolution if life started 1) naturally, 2) seeded from outer space, or 3) by some divine intervention?

I don't know what you mean by saying "started naturally." What is the principle or cause that gives dumb matter a kick-start to get the evolutionary process going? Are you saying that atoms are "intelligent," and therefore "know" how to do such a thing?

It's much easier for me to understand (2) and (3).

(2) is an hypothesis that excites certain people, but not me. I surmise the "panspermia" theory of seeding by "space aliens" is advanced primarily for the reason that it would obviate the need of a divine creator-god. For that reason alone it would have irresistible attraction for certain people.

But you know, the panspermiasts really do not "obviate God" by taking this position. I mean, the space aliens had to come from somewhere, too. The panspermia theory does not moot the problem of a beginning of space and time out of nothing.

As for (3), what you refer to could not be a "divine intervention," for until the moment of the beginning, there was nothing to "intervene" in. God had to create "the whole ball of wax" first -- space, time, matter, laws; which is what I believe actually happened.

And there's nothing in science that falsifies this belief. Indeed, if anything, it is recent discoveries in science itself that appear to validate it (i.e., the big-bang/inflationary universe model, which is a science of ORIGINS. It stipulates a beginning of the universe in space and time; it does not identify the cause of this beginning. But that's not science's job to do. It is there to make physical descriptions of nature, not make metaphysical observations that cannot be supported by direct observation and replicable experiments.)

Coyoteman, you wrote: "It leaves me still advocating for science and the scientific method. (But its getting pretty lonely in these here parts lately!)" But all means, continue to do that, Coyoteman. But don't get yourself trapped in "silos" of thinking. FWIW, truly I miss many of the recently departed "evos" -- you must be feeling like the "Lone Ranger" around here lately. Some of those people are first-rate thinkers and they were wonderful "adversaries" in debate.

Thank you so much for writing, Coyoteman!

36 posted on 05/19/2007 11:08:39 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

My claim that dogma does not belong in science is not a scientific claim. It is a claim *about* science. It is a philosophical claim. Philosophical claims often cannot be proved. As the great mathematicial and philosopher Kurt Goedel said, “In any non-trivial axiomatic system, there are true theorems which cannot be proven.”

By the way, genius, are you saying that dogma *does* belong in science? Just what is your point?


37 posted on 05/19/2007 11:18:34 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; Coyoteman; Jeff Gordon
The WAP {"weak anthropic principle"} being that the universe looks designed for life because only a universe with that complement of physical laws could generate life to observe it [necessitating an infinite number of universes model so that you can conceive the belief that it is possible to get one like ours randomly] while the SAP says that the universe looks designed for life because it is.

Hi GourmetDan! Great post!

WRT to the above caption: To my way of thinking, the WAP is a cavil and a cop-out -- a rationalization to explain the universe without reference to a beginning in space and time, presumably caused by a divine creator. So we postulate multiworlds and infinite numbers of universes -- which is such a joke, because nobody has ever observed any of them nor is ever likely to, making the WAP completely impervious to actual scientific analysis.

So give me the SAP -- and give it to me full strength!!!! LOLOL!

Thanks so very much for your excellent essay/post!

38 posted on 05/19/2007 11:20:57 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
You missed the whole point of my question. I asked,

What difference would you have in evolution if life started 1) naturally, 2) seeded from outer space, or 3) by some divine intervention?

And this led you to debate the three choices.

The actual answer is that evolution could proceed as described with any of these three origins -- because evolution involves change, not origins.

FWIW, truly I miss many of the recently departed "evos" -- you must be feeling like the "Lone Ranger" around here lately. Some of those people are first-rate thinkers and they were wonderful "adversaries" in debate.

Its ironic that you miss some of the recently departed, as you and a number of others helped to run them off. You see mysticism and religious belief as equals with science; that might be acceptable in philosophy, but it doesn't cut it in science. But what was particularly galling was the number of times those supporting the theory of evolution were told by a few posters that they were going to hell, compared with Hitler and Stalin, or their years of study and research were denigrated on the basis of something quote mined from the web or lifted from some silly anti-science website like AnswersInGenesis. Then, a year or so ago when the admins and management started playing games and banning pro-science posters, many others took the hint and left. That is when Darwin Central was formed -- as a refuge.

Finally, I am certainly not feeling like the "Lone Ranger" (Hi Dave!). I have science on my side, so I have you outnumbered and outgunned! ;-)

39 posted on 05/19/2007 11:36:11 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; All
An excellent book that the Godwin recommends is Everyman Revived by Drusilla Scott about the philosophy of Michael Polanyi. It's good stuff. Polanyi was a highly respected chemist but also a religious man, and he wrestled around with the Religion/Science problem in much the same way as Robert Townes. The two sound very similar.

The thing that bugged Polanyi and that initially drove his intellectual work in this area was that his experience with scientific discovery was very different from the systematic kind of process that's conventionally held to be the way discoveries are made. He found making discoveries to be an art, that it was not systematic in the strict sense, that it involved more than just being reasonable but also being creative. You can't just follow a set of steps to a new discovery; there's a leap involved and reason and the scientific method aren't enough to span the gap.

Anyway, he took this seed and branched out from it and wound up arriving at some very interesting conclusions that have powerful implications in the area of science/religion and evolution/design -- and also politics (Polanyi was a classical liberal, strongly anti-communist). He has a novelty and an importance that reminds me of Godwin. He's one of those guys that more people ought to be aware of.

Highly recommended if you get the chance:

Everyman Revived

40 posted on 05/19/2007 11:43:03 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Goedel is it? Who is to say what belongs in a science and what does not? Philosophical claims often cannot be proved. There's a dogmatic statement with no purpose in philosophy.

dogma does not belong in science is itself dogmatic and does not need proof, and may be set off to the side and ignored. That doesn't mean it is part of a non-trivial axiomatic system.

41 posted on 05/19/2007 12:43:49 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
[.. What difference would you have in evolution if life started 1) naturally, 2) seeded from outer space, or 3) by some divine intervention? ..]

4) life didn't begin on this planet but was remodeled to include human creatures->> which are fleshly body suits inhabited by evil angels(as opposed to good ones) getting a second chance.. to restart previous errors made by them..

NOTE: Second chance = 2nd chance at harmony of divine resonance.. At one ment.. or the reality of the prodigal son metaphor of Judeo-Christian fame..

42 posted on 05/19/2007 1:10:52 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick

Thanks for the link:
http://www.amazon.com/Everyman-Revived-Common-Michael-Polanyi/dp/0802840795

I’ll check it out.


43 posted on 05/19/2007 1:14:52 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("Leftism is a coalition of the over and undereducated/immature and the stupid" ~Gagdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
truly I miss many of the recently departed "evos" -- you must be feeling like the "Lone Ranger" around here lately.

Well, this has become a fairly science-hostile site, and it gets depressing seeing a continuing parade of young-earth creationists and their brethren cycling through the same old set of half-baked untruths.

44 posted on 05/19/2007 1:23:11 PM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
"I assume that he meant that *matter* is "life minus Y", not that *life* is "life minus Y"? That would fit better with his previous statement about humans/animals."

Not if he's referring to the biblical definition of Life. Luke 9:59-62 ":...let the dead bury the dead...". God considers men to be "dead" unless they are regenerate (given "Life").

45 posted on 05/19/2007 1:37:53 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("Leftism is a coalition of the over and undereducated/immature and the stupid" ~Gagdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

The statement “dogma does not belong in science” is not a statement about the natural world, hence it is not a “scientific” statement. It is a philosophical statement *about* science and the “scientific method.”

On the other hand, the statement, “life arose by purely naturalistic mechanisms with no intelligent design whatsoever,” *is* a statement about the natural world. So is the statement, “Intelligent Design cannot be found in nature.” Those are *scientific* statements, and they are perfectly legitimate *hypotheses*, but they are often asserted as *premises* for science right here in FR.

As I said, many hard-core evolutionists (i.e., pure naturalists) do not understand the difference between a hypothesis and a premise. Worse yet, many of them do not understand the difference between a premise and a conclusion. Hence their rejection of ID is both their premise *and* their conclusion — like the verdict in a kangaroo court.


46 posted on 05/19/2007 2:06:31 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RussP
"On the other hand, the statement, “life arose by purely naturalistic mechanisms with no intelligent design whatsoever,” *is* a statement about the natural world. is the statement, “Intelligent Design cannot be found in nature.” Those are *scientific* statements, and they are perfectly legitimate *hypotheses*, but they are often asserted as *premises* for science right here in FR. "

They are 'fantastic postulates' as an attempt to explain the existence of life after assuming the philosophical axiom of naturalism.

'Science' is nothing more than the philosophical presumption of naturalism. Operating from an 'a priori' assumption of naturalism means that you are prevented from presenting anything other than a 'natural' solution. Not good if the universe and life were not 'naturally-derived'. You'll never recognize it.

47 posted on 05/19/2007 8:27:48 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"You missed the whole point of my question. I asked,

What difference would you have in evolution if life started 1) naturally, 2) seeded from outer space, or 3) by some divine intervention?

And this led you to debate the three choices.The actual answer is that evolution could proceed as described with any of these three origins -- because evolution involves change, not origins."

Which proves that 'evolution' means absolutely nothing at all. It's the old bait-and-switch routine played upon credulists. Nothing more.

48 posted on 05/19/2007 8:30:01 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you so much for sharing your wonderful insights! I also miss our correspondents.
49 posted on 05/19/2007 8:34:37 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
You missed the whole point of my question. I asked,

What difference would you have in evolution if life started 1) naturally, 2) seeded from outer space, or 3) by some divine intervention?

And this led you to debate the three choices. The actual answer is that evolution could proceed as described with any of these three origins -- because evolution involves change, not origins."

Which proves that 'evolution' means absolutely nothing at all. It's the old bait-and-switch routine played upon credulists. Nothing more.

You are wrong (again). You seem to have missed the entire meaning of my post. Please try again, and read for comprehension this time.

50 posted on 05/19/2007 8:35:18 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-655 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson