Posted on 12/07/2009 8:33:19 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
"Camp 3": Proponents of the ego/anthro/geocentric drivel of Bishop Ussher -- who confine and constrain the majesty of the truths told in Genesis 1-3 and John 1-5 and struggle to PROVE they can cram them into the infantile prison fashioned by Ussher's medieval mind-barfs.
Guilty. Great call, TXnMA!!!
Thanks for setting the record straight — we do need to consider/include Camp 3.
I see your side. I see Darwin's side. I see from the outside and the inside. I see from our species' perspective, and I see from the viewpoint of the Galactic Center.
Oh. Okay. I get it: You are suggesting that your thinking is totally unhinged, and you like it that way. :^)
Good grief, that's not something I'd brag about....
The word "dogmatic" was used to make the distinction that some people are using Darwin's theory as a license to trespass beyond the domain of science. To the extent of the disconnect from the scientific method, such findings must be classified as [philosophical] "dogmas." Especially to the degree in which they are held as "sacrosanct" — i.e., NO challenge to them can be allowed in principle — such findings are not science.
As for the rest of your piece, you were mainly arguing with George Gilder, not me. Good luck! :^)
You wrote:
Far be it from me to infer that life is one and not the other, in any manner of describing it. Life is clearly both. It is information processing through bio-chemical means.Well sure, I think we can agree on that.
But where we would continue to disagree would be about this: To you, there is no real distinction to be made between the biochemistry and the message it bears. [Whatever "message" is there, it boils down to the known laws of physics and nothing else.]
While I see "biochemistry" and "message" as two different orders of reality altogether. Which just happen to be "designed" to work together in synergy....
You give your basic operating method as follows:
I will play this game; that a mind can examine information dispassionately, rejecting erroneous conclusions presented as facts, yet building from one step of logic to the next, until a world view can be presented, which will constitute a wider view.And thus I conclude that you believe the complete description of reality is to be achieved, composed, and described part-by-part, step-by-step, from the ground up in a process that has no evident "rule" to it from your perspective. It just "happens." What to make of it???? If it's the result of a blind or random process, what sense could possibly be made of it in the first place?
By the way, I don't want to write my cell phone into my DNA, nor vice versa. I don't even want a cell phone!!!
Quite true, and immediately after the publication of Darwin's book, such speculation became quite rampant. So widespread, in fact, that many hypotheses were fostered, and investigated. Having a structural backbone to deal with, biologists were able to flesh out the theory in immense detail.
"While that’s interesting thinking and worth pursuing in genetics,"
It's interesting that you phrase this expression in this manner. What you really mean to say is "While that’s interesting thinking and worth pursuing in evolutionary studies," but you just can't bring yourself to say that, can you? Behold the existence of the blinders you use to constrain your vision and your imagination.
"... *may*’s and *could*’s are not a real substantial supports for the ToE"
This also is correct. In my colloquy, I was rambling on with mental exercises designed to illustrate how such thinking might originate and be pursued.
The substantial supports of actually investigating these suggestions have been carried out by independent researchers, and the conjectures proven rewarding, especially following the development of the ability to actually read changes in the genomes of various animals.
It can be shown that various species have developed an ability, and then diverged biologically, or they have diverged first, and then developed parallel abilities completely independently. It's a fascinating field of study.
No, genetics is what gives us the nuts and bolts to apply to technology.
Genetics can be studied using the scientific method and thereby qualifies as science.
The ToE is based on some observations in real life, but more along the lines of forensics. It may utilize some science in its investigation, but is not science in and of itself.
The conclusions and interpretations are philosophical in nature.
" Oh. Okay. I get it: You are suggesting that your thinking is totally unhinged, and you like it that way. :^)
Good grief, that's not something I'd brag about.... "
Speaker for rocks, and sand, apples and shadows, rainbows and butterflies. It's a fine madness.
"The word "dogmatic" was used to make the distinction that some people are using Darwin's theory as a license to trespass beyond the domain of science. To the extent of the disconnect from the scientific method, such findings must be classified as [philosophical] "dogmas." Especially to the degree in which they are held as "sacrosanct" — i.e., NO challenge to them can be allowed in principle — such findings are not science."
Nice strawman. That's why I rejected the premise.
"To you, there is no real distinction to be made between the biochemistry and the message it bears. [Whatever "message" is there, it boils down to the known laws of physics and nothing else.]"
From a scientific viewpoint, one can have no other opinion.
As a poet, I can also see that there is an image, like the images that are made by making collages of thousands of pictures, each becoming a picture element of the larger image, that is imposed upon the whole of humanity. An image not visible within just one individual, but hinted at in that individual's unlimited potential.
"... thus I conclude that you believe the complete description of reality is to be achieved, composed, and described part-by-part, step-by-step, from the ground up in a process that has no evident "rule" to it from your perspective."
Yes, one can describe reality that way. One must describe reality that way.
"It just "happens." What to make of it???? If it's the result of a blind or random process, what sense could possibly be made of it in the first place?"
This is a diversion from science into something other than science. I can follow along. But remember, this thread was posted contingent on the contention that Creationism is equal to science, and it is clearly a different subject entirely.
Well, I do believe that life happens. When I consider the immense scope of all of Creation, I cannot accept that life could exist only here on this tiny mudball.
There must be other mansions. What life is like there, I have no idea. But I am confident that if they are also God's creatures, they will be curious.
"The conclusions and interpretations are philosophical in nature."
Madam, your conclusions and interpretations are philosophical in nature. If you were not pretending that they were otherwise, we would not be having this discussion.
I know that.
Everyone has a philosophical worldview by which they interpret the world around them.
Some just can’t bring themselves to acknowledge it.
Hopefully, it's a madness that is not easily communicable. :^)
You classified one of my remarks as "a strawman argument." But you never explained why it was a "strawman." We have no information aqbout how you define "strawman," nor any inkling about what kind of evidence it would take to substantiate your finding. Indeed, if your thinking is "unhinged," that must mean that you have no principle, no criterion, by means of which judgments of fact of this kind can be adjudicated. And that would mean you have no way to verify the existence of a strawman in the first place.
You wrote: "But remember, this thread was posted contingent on the contention that Creationism is equal to science, and it is clearly a different subject entirely."
I don't recall any claim on this thread that Creationism is "equal" to science. But neither do they live in a condition of complete divorce.
Or so it seems to me, FWIW.
Straighten out your foundational premises, dear NicknamedBob; and then maybe then you can stop trying to make sense of an "unhinged" universe, so to recognize that the universe is very "hinged," indeed.
And we are its "parts" and "participants."
Had you followed the link to “a fine madness”, you would have found this:
“Synopsis: Sixties vintage madman-against-a-mad-society comedy with Connery appealing as a rowdy, rebellious poet with a chip on his shoulder and an eye for the ladies.”
One of the earliest movies in which I saw Sean Connery. I linked it because in the movie, he played the part of a poet.
And so, this is your self-description?
And this bears on our common problem — how???
We have a problem in common? I would not have thought that you would speak so of this thread's creator.
LOL!!!! ..and I thought I was unique in my "blasphemy"... '-)
When I retired, I also retired my Daytimer, cell phone and wristwatch. My professional life had been so dominated by structured time, far-flung and closely-timed appointments -- and "having my chain yanked" via cell phone -- that I simply rebelled.
"Free" life is wonderful -- except I do tend to forget what day it is out here in the boondocks...
...and some times that ain't so bad... '-}
I wasn't speaking of this thread's creator. I was speaking of you.
Moi?
I fail to see how you might consider me a problem. I am an unwavering advocate of logic and clear thinking.
I support investigating phenomena to discover the truth, no matter whose ox may get gored.
I endeavor to seek truth and to speak truth against the purveyors of false truths and delusions.
I ...
Oh, wait a minute.
...
I see what you mean.
Thank you so very much for writing! BTW, great post....
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.