Posted on 04/25/2008 12:27:33 PM PDT by Between the Lines
After centuries of trying to uncover the fundamental laws of the universe, science is still no closer to answering some of humanity’s biggest questions about the meaning of life, the existence of God and the evolution of the human mind and societies. Is that because science is not sufficiently advanced to tackle such problems" Or is it because the traditional approach to science is incapable of answering humanity’s deepest wonders"
It is the latter, according to University of Calgary physicist, biologist and philosopher Stuart Kauffman, who argues in his forthcoming book that nature’s infinite creativity should become the basis for a new worldview and a global spiritual awakening.
“We are at the point where we are realizing that there are some things we are never going to fully understand because there are no natural laws that can fully explain the evolution of a species, the biosphere or the human economy,” says Kauffman, a pioneer of complexity theory and founder of the U of C’s Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics. “This means that reason alone is an insufficient guide for living our lives. I believe we can reinvent what we hold sacred as a view of God that is not a supernatural Creator, but the ceaseless and unforeseeable creativity of the universe that surrounds us.”
Kauffman’s newest book Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion (Basic Books, New York) will be released in Canada on May 19. “Radical,” “brilliant,” and “comprehensive,” are words being used by colleagues and reviewers to describe the book, which Kauffman hopes will provide a middle-ground between the destructive tendencies of religious fundamentalism and the anti-spiritual attitudes presented recently in popular books such as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion “ and journalist Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great.
“Words like ‘God’ and ‘sacred’ are scary to many of us who live in modern, secular society because they have been used to start wars and kill millions of people, and we just don’t need any more of that,” Kauffman says. “What we do need is for humanity to become reunited under a common global ethic based on the idea that we are all part of nature, and we will never be the master of it because it is not entirely knowable.”
Reinventing the Sacred argues that Reductionism – the philosophy based on the work of Galileo, Descartes, Newton and their followers that everything can ultimately be understood by reducing it to laws of chemistry and physics – has been the basis of our scientific worldview for nearly 400 years and is the foundation of modern secular society. Using arguments grounded in complexity theory, he argues that it is time to break this “Galilean spell,” since the reductionist approach is inadequate to explain the infinite possibilities of evolution and human history. Instead, Kauffman argues that the highest levels of organization are the result of the unpredictable process of emergence.
“It’s not that we lack sufficient knowledge or wisdom to predict the future evolution of the biosphere or human culture. It’s that these things are inherently unpredictable because we can never prestate what all the possibilities might be,” he says. “Can a couple walking in love along the banks of the Siene really be reduced to the interactions of fundamental particles" No, they cannot.”
The book then argues that the process of emergence can provide the platform for reinventing what humankind considers most sacred. It also discusses why arguments for intelligent design fail in the scientific realm and how complexity theory can build a bridge between the traditionally opposed views of science and religion.
“God is the most powerful symbol we have and it has always been up to us to choose what we deem to be sacred,” Kauffman said. “To me, the idea that we are the product of 3.8 billion years of unpredictable evolution is more awe-inspiring than the idea than the idea that everything was created in six days by an all-knowing Creator.”
An essay outlining Kauffman’s Reinventing the Sacred thesis is contained in a new series of 13 essays by distinguished thinkers on the topic “Does science make belief in God obsolete"” currently published on the John Templeton Foundation website at: http://templeton.org/belief/. The preface and first chapter of the book are currently published as an essay titled “Breaking the Galilean Spell” on Edge.org at: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman08/kauffman08_index.html
An essay by Kauffman titled “Reinventing the Sacred” is also scheduled to be published in the May 10 issue of New Scientist magazine.
“It’s not that we lack sufficient knowledge or wisdom to predict the future evolution of the biosphere or human culture. It’s that these things are inherently unpredictable because we can never prestate what all the possibilities might be,”
In simpler words- Science is incapable of explaining everything.
In other words, God is andother name for evolution
Only those who engage in Scientism attempt to use science to explain everything.
Yet another godless god and just as satisfying to the soul. The secularists will keep trying with new visions of the natural world that we should stand in awe of and yield to as ‘sacred’. Humbug.
Science requires proof, this stuff requires belief.
What tremendous faith!
“In other words, God is andother name for evolution” ~ Soliton
Not quite.
Excerpt:
“..I do have an idea for their [the IDM] research program. Show how the evolutionary process is not random, not how it cannot happen. We can give them help here. This could be like the ‘95 Behe/Miller debate in reverse where Behe showed that Miller’s textbook claimed purposeless evolution and Miller knowing that evolution is not random in the popular sense fixed the error. It came back to bite him in the Dover trial where the old version was being used and Miller pointed to the new version. If the heart of the problem ID has is a random, purposeless, evolution, then we are here to help show how current, mainstream, evolutionary theory shows otherwise. It would require them to risk getting “expelled” by their YEC allies, though. ~ Rich Blinne - 04/24/2008 http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200804/0583.html
More “verrrry” interesting conversation may be found here: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200804/
bttt
I was just pointing out that that is what the author implies in the bolded statement.
airplane Sheesh
Not so. He doesn't believe it is possible to offer positive evidence for ID.
You didn't read the link to the thread (or to the other conversations).
You reeeeally might want to. :)
Probably not. This seems to be neither.
Probably not. This seems to be neither.
It has nothing to do with the level of advancement in science. Science is the study of the matter and energy. It simply isn't the realm in which certain questions can be answered.
Well, it has been said more than once that evolution is a religion. ;)
Indeed, since the designers of the experiment pulled together the elements required to make a plane, then provided sets of hands to put the elements together in varying combinations until something works.
For the experiment to truly mimic the theory of evolution (without a designer guiding it), they would just have to sit around and wait for an airplane to occur by itself.
You understand neither science in general or experimental design.
So specifically, how am I wrong?
Its not “perfect” so lets scrap the whole thing and start from the assumption that “magic” and “Astrology” are Science.
Why mess with the most productive means for gaining usable information about the universe ever proposed by humanity?
First evolution theory isn't about origins, it's about natural selection evolving new species from existing ones. to do this, natural selection picks from variations in the output or "phenotype' of EXISTING genes. In this case, the die is used to randomely select a phenotype of a wing, long, short, thick, wide etc. It is then tested to see how well it flies. This is the step that mimics design. The best available wing design is selected by random process, but they are "best" because they take advantage of the laws of physics which are not random, but very ordered. Nature itself produces something that looks like design, by eliminating the bad designs. This, by the way, is how Edison invented the light bulb. Trial and eror.
You are talking about events occuring within certain parameters. IAC, the first definition of design is not a plan but of action with an end in mind and taking place on a kind of “playing field” and in accordance with certain rules. Sort of like a football game.
Find the beginning, find the end.
Man can not explain everything through science is equally true.
This contradicts what I have been told here in this forum.
bump
And guess what, chum? That experiment showed that the optimum airplane was created by Intelligent Design, not random selection. Thanks for adding it.
The experiment has been conducted hundreds of times and has never supported intelligent design. If you have any scientific evidence FOR ID please offer it or be quiet and let the adults talk.
Yeah, gee, I wonder if the adults noticed that: (1)no documentation for any of this was presented (no proof, just a claim, is typically evo);(2)the design teams were composed of intelligent beings with an envisioned purpose; and the optimum design reulted from, in your own words, “...so physics determines the wing shape, not some random event.” Yes, not some “random event”, but rather purposeful intent.
I never claimed it was. I said the theory claims that all life evolved from the first single-celled life form.
natural selection picks from variations in the output or "phenotype' of EXISTING genes.
Unless you are trying to claim natural selection has intelligence, it is nothing more, in theory, than random mutations that turn out to be successful in helping the species survive. Limiting the choices of natural selection to wings and popsicle sticks is as joke as we both know that there are hundreds of millions of instructions in a single cell. Adding random mutation to that mix and you have an almost unlimited number of variables.
In this case, the die is used to randomely select a phenotype of a wing, long, short, thick, wide etc.
That assumes 'natural selection' has decided that a wing is the most valuable way for the species to survive, has 'selected out' all other options, and has limited the possible designs for the wing. Sorry, but unless you are claiming some intelligence in 'natural selection' that doesn't wash.
'Seems interesting to me.
The evolution team just has multiple lengths of straws and dozens of different wings to select from.I would personally like to know how the evolution team came up with the different straws and the wings to start with...
No you wouldn't. That would imply intellectual curiosity. As a primitive thinker who believes in ghosts, no rational explanation or mountain of evidence would suffice to convince you.
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.