Finding God with biocomplexity

EurekAlert ^ | Apr 25, 2008 | Grady Semmens

[Between the Lines]

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,”

In simpler words- Science is incapable of explaining everything.

[Soliton]

“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.”

In other words, God is andother name for evolution

[Matchett-PI]

"In simpler words- Science is incapable of explaining everything."

Only those who engage in Scientism attempt to use science to explain everything.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

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.

[stuartcr]

Science requires proof, this stuff requires belief.

[LiteKeeper]

What tremendous faith!

[Matchett-PI]

“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

[Soliton]

This guy is just using the old ID dodge of criticising evolution without offering positive evidence for ID. There is a college experiment that breaks up the class into a design team and an evolution team. They each attempt to create an airplain out of a drinking straw and two pieces of paper. The design team has access to all of the aeronautical engineering literature available at the school along with calculators and computers. The evolution team just has multiple lengths of straws and dozens of different wings to select from. The evolution team rolls a die and and tests the wing formation indicated randomely. Over a very short period of time the evolution team has found the optimum configuration. This is because form follows function, so physics determines the wing shape, not some random event. Randomness is simply part of providing the alternative formations from which evolution can select. The design team usually comes up with very nearly the same configuration for the same reason, form follows function. The purpose of the experiment is not to prove evolution, but to demonstrate that evolutionary processes mimic design.

[Soliton]

I was just pointing out that that is what the author implies in the bolded statement.

[Soliton]

airplane Sheesh

[Matchett-PI]

"This guy is just using the old ID dodge of criticising evolution without offering positive evidence for ID."

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. :)

[RightWhale]

This guy is just using the old ID dodge of criticising evolution without offering positive evidence for ID

Probably not. This seems to be neither.

[RightWhale]

This guy is just using the old ID dodge of criticising evolution without offering positive evidence for ID

Probably not. This seems to be neither.

[MEGoody]

Is that because science is not sufficiently advanced to tackle such problems

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.

[MEGoody]

In other words, God is and other name for evolution

Well, it has been said more than once that evolution is a religion. ;)

[MEGoody]

The purpose of the experiment is not to prove evolution, but to demonstrate that evolutionary processes mimic design.

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.

[Soliton]

You understand neither science in general or experimental design.

[MEGoody]

You understand neither science in general or experimental design.

So specifically, how am I wrong?

[allmendream]

Absolutely. Science is incapable of explaining everything. However that doesn't support the leap in logic of “cdesign proponentists” that therefore we must change the fundamental nature of Scientific inquiry based upon empiricism.

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?

[Soliton]

So specifically, how am I wrong?

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.