Evolution in schools; legal trap

http://www.swlaw.edu/pdfs/lr/37_1mccreary.pdf-Teaching evolution without mentioning God is a form of religion as non-religion

Post reply

6055 views

http://www.swlaw.edu/pdfs/lr/37_1mccreary.pdf
> 
> Teaching evolution without mentioning God is a form of religion as non-religion-No its not, because science asserts only methodological materialism. Asserting God in any sense takes us beyond materialism, beyond the perview of science.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Post reply

6032 views

http://www.swlaw.edu/pdfs/lr/37_1mccreary.pdf
> > 
> > Teaching evolution without mentioning God is a form of religion as non-religion
> 
> No its not, because science asserts only methodological materialism. Asserting God in any sense takes us beyond materialism, beyond the perview of science.-Read the considered legal article from southwest law school

Post reply

6034 views

http://www.swlaw.edu/pdfs/lr/37_1mccreary.pdf
> > > 
> > > Teaching evolution without mentioning God is a form of religion as non-religion
> > 
> > No its not, because science asserts only methodological materialism. Asserting God in any sense takes us beyond materialism, beyond the perview of science.
> 
> Read the considered legal article from southwest law school-I took some time and read about half of it before I gave up, and I still disagree. Methodological materialism is universally agreed upon by anyone who practices science. This goes for Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Hindus alike. -The line I particularly object to: "If 
we restrict ourselves to a narrow interpretation of sharing with students 
only that information that is readily testable and observable, we limit the 
breadth of what we can share with our children"-But science IS exactly "information that is readily testable and observable"-The argument basically says, that by not allowing (religious, therefore not materialistic by defnition) arguments into a materialistic discussion, it therefore supports out and out materialism and only materialism. It doesn't. In fact, that Anti-Defamation League has repeatedly supported the idea that science should be science alone... which is defined as the study of the material world, and that the discussions pertaining to the ethereal are left to... -The home and the Synagogue. -The courts support, in (and only in) the setting of a science classroom, what science says. Which is conservative, and minimally, that all life has a common ancestor. Interpretations are left to the individual. -We've had this talk before--science ceases to work without assertions of materialism. Discussions about the underpinnings of science is the job for philosophy, and alternative theories to evolution can certainly be discussed in a comparative religions class. -^^^Personally I wouldn't have a problem teaching alternative theories because it would give a chance to say, go to the Bible, and categorically demonstrate what material claims it makes are false, therefore making direct attacks on biblical literalism. But in THAT case I also believe that would mean that I'm pushing my views onto kids, and I think that's wrong. You'd agree that most of the people involved in the debate aren't exactly on MY level of ethics. -The battle over "what gets taught in the schools" is an old artifact of the "war" between secular humanism and its religious opponents. By pushing the fight out to the parents, teachers can... *gasp* teach, disallowed from bringing up religion, which really, truly, shouldn't be a topic in a science class. EVER. (Remember, I fully agree and endorse their coexistence! What I'm saying here likely seems otherwise.) The short end of that is, I want my kids learning religion from me, not from school. -I agree with the lawyer and author of the book "Bleached Faith" that discussing "alternative theories" in the classroom in that way does nothing more than relegate God to a second-class engineer, and completely detracts from the fact that God is supposed to be a spiritual focal point for your own moral guidance and personal development.

Post reply

6034 views

Matt objects to the line: "If we restrict ourselves to a narrow interpretation of sharing with students only that information that is readily testable and observable, we limit the breadth of what we can share with our children." In itself I find this acceptable when linked to your later comment: "...science ceases to work without assertions of materialism. Discussion about the underpinnings of science is the job for philosophy, and alternative theories to evolution can certainly be discussed in a comparative religions class."-Evolution is, of course, only one aspect of this, but what you have written makes perfect sense to me: "science should be science alone" ... i.e. it should be taught as the study of the material world, and it should not impose philosophical conclusions on its findings. Comparative religion should be taught within the framework of philosophy, and if it is in conflict with science, this too should be made clear. In ALL lessons, however, including science, students should be constantly reminded of the distinction between absolute truth, knowledge and belief. In my view, teachers should never attempt to impose one particular faith (including the atheist faith in materialism) on students. Their task is to present current forms of knowledge and belief. -Incidentally, one problem is that when sceptics dismiss the design argument as "unscientific", the word itself is given totally negative associations. If it ain't scientific, it can't be true, it's fairytale nonsense, pie in the sky. That is pure prejudice, since science has so far proved incapable of solving profound mysteries such as the origin of life and the nature of consciousness. We simply do not know whether materialism holds all the answers, and belief that it does is a matter of faith, not science.-I do have problems with your final paragraph, though: "discussing alternative theories in the classroom [..] does nothing more than relegate God to a second-class engineer, and completely detracts from the fact that God is supposed to be a spiritual focal point for your own moral guidance and personal development." -Firstly, the theory of evolution is perfectly acceptable to many theists, but no matter which theory you embrace, God can hardly be called a second-class engineer, since even the greatest of human engineers have failed to come anywhere near emulating his creative genius. But more importantly, one of the most vehement objections many of us have to the established religions is the damage they have done over the centuries through their bigotry. The bloody wars between religions (Christianity / Islam v. everyone else) and religious sects (Catholics v. Protestants, Sunnis v. Shias) continue in full force even today, all in the name of "God". This is not to ignore the enormous good they have done by their charitable works and by the support they give to individuals, but moral guidance and personal development can go in different directions, and those directions often depend upon the people who do the teaching. In my view, all theories should be taught ... scientific ones in science classes, philosophical ones in philosophy classes ... but God should NOT be used in the classroom as a spiritual focal point for moral guidance and personal development. For you and me, God is a theory, and his nature and will ... if he exists ... are a matter of human interpretation. Morality and personal development are fundamentally social matters ... i.e. how we relate to our fellow creatures. Unquestionably many religions offer sound advice on the subject, and if we cut out all the dogma, it boils down to "do as you would be done by". This can and in my view should be taught and implemented quite independently of any version of God.

Post reply

5976 views

Matt objects to the line: "If we restrict ourselves to a narrow interpretation of sharing with students only that information that is readily testable and observable, we limit the breadth of what we can share with our children." In itself I find this acceptable when linked to your later comment: "...science ceases to work without assertions of materialism. Discussion about the underpinnings of science is the job for philosophy, and alternative theories to evolution can certainly be discussed in a comparative religions class."
> 
> Evolution is, of course, only one aspect of this, but what you have written makes perfect sense to me: "science should be science alone" ... i.e. it should be taught as the study of the material world, and it should not impose philosophical conclusions on its findings. Comparative religion should be taught within the framework of philosophy, and if it is in conflict with science, this too should be made clear. In ALL lessons, however, including science, students should be constantly reminded of the distinction between absolute truth, knowledge and belief. In my view, teachers should never attempt to impose one particular faith (including the atheist faith in materialism) on students. Their task is to present current forms of knowledge and belief. 
> 
> Incidentally, one problem is that when sceptics dismiss the design argument as "unscientific", the word itself is given totally negative associations. If it ain't scientific, it can't be true, it's fairytale nonsense, pie in the sky. That is pure prejudice, since science has so far proved incapable of solving profound mysteries such as the origin of life and the nature of consciousness. We simply do not know whether materialism holds all the answers, and belief that it does is a matter of faith, not science.
> -I agree with you here. I think children should be taught to question what they read, and, at least in MY house... will be allowed to follow any path they wish. -> I do have problems with your final paragraph, though: "discussing alternative theories in the classroom [..] does nothing more than relegate God to a second-class engineer, and completely detracts from the fact that God is supposed to be a spiritual focal point for your own moral guidance and personal development." 
> 
> Firstly, the theory of evolution is perfectly acceptable to many theists, but no matter which theory you embrace, God can hardly be called a second-class engineer, since even the greatest of human engineers have failed to come anywhere near emulating his creative genius. But more importantly, one of the most vehement objections many of us have to the established religions is the damage they have done over the centuries through their bigotry. The bloody wars between religions (Christianity / Islam v. everyone else) and religious sects (Catholics v. Protestants, Sunnis v. Shias) continue in full force even today, all in the name of "God". This is not to ignore the enormous good they have done by their charitable works and by the support they give to individuals, but moral guidance and personal development can go in different directions, and those directions often depend upon the people who do the teaching. In my view, all theories should be taught ... scientific ones in science classes, philosophical ones in philosophy classes ... but God should NOT be used in the classroom as a spiritual focal point for moral guidance and personal development. For you and me, God is a theory, and his nature and will ... if he exists ... are a matter of human interpretation. Morality and personal development are fundamentally social matters ... i.e. how we relate to our fellow creatures. Unquestionably many religions offer sound advice on the subject, and if we cut out all the dogma, it boils down to "do as you would be done by". This can and in my view should be taught and implemented quite independently of any version of God.-I'm really puzzled how you thought... I was insinuating that God should be taught in schools as a moral center...-The book I referenced, "Bleached Faith" argues directly that God is the center of our *spiritual* life and that anything pertaining to the material world is wholly separate. If I didn't make that clear... I apologize!!!!-The other part of what you write here... in the US... 95% of the opposition to the teaching of evolution in our schools really comes ONLY from ~28% of our population that are biblical literalists... David is a striking exception, as was Adler (RIP). -Unfortunately, honest ID proponents (such as David) are in the minority... and as I've pointed out, the majority of attacks on "the institution of evolution" are made by an evangelical Lutheran organization funded by a downright nut, with the ultimate goal of making Jesus Christ the center of *the entire nation.* -So if my views seem skewed... that's why.

Post reply

6039 views

David is a striking exception, as was Adler (RIP). 
> 
> Unfortunately, honest ID proponents (such as David) are in the minority... and as I've pointed out, the majority of attacks on "the institution of evolution" are made by an evangelical Lutheran organization funded by a downright nut, with the ultimate goal of making Jesus Christ the center of *the entire nation.* 
> 
> So if my views seem skewed... that's why.-Yes, you are skewed, and I am the exception because I'm not pushing religion, which is the cause of lots of the confusion and the nastiness. No religion is the true religion, if only the religious nuts can get that thru their heads. Believe what you want, don't demand that we follow your lead, including our latest visitor, Thomas Kelly. Thomas Kelly, your religion is fine and I am truly glad you have a strong belief. You cannot try to impose it on others. And I am the guy here who believes in God. And I think my belief system is as good as your belief system, just different.

Post reply

5990 views

David is a striking exception, as was Adler (RIP). 
> > 
> > Unfortunately, honest ID proponents (such as David) are in the minority... and as I've pointed out, the majority of attacks on "the institution of evolution" are made by an evangelical Lutheran organization funded by a downright nut, with the ultimate goal of making Jesus Christ the center of *the entire nation.* 
> > 
> > So if my views seem skewed... that's why.
> 
> Yes, you are skewed, and I am the exception because I'm not pushing religion, which is the cause of lots of the confusion and the nastiness. No religion is the true religion, if only the religious nuts can get that thru their heads. Believe what you want, don't demand that we follow your lead, including our latest visitor, Thomas Kelly. Thomas Kelly, your religion is fine and I am truly glad you have a strong belief. You cannot try to impose it on others. And I am the guy here who believes in God. And I think my belief system is as good as your belief system, just different.-I wish we could have gotten my friend Kent on your bandwidth... alas he viewed both you and dhw as "too old to teach..."-Fuck him.

Post reply

6042 views

MATT: I'm really puzzled how you thought...I was insinuating that God should be taught in schools as a moral center...-Obviously a misunderstanding. You agreed with the author of "Bleached Faith" that discussing alternative theories in the classroom " detracts from the fact that God is supposed to be a spiritual focal point for your own moral guidance and personal development." I assumed this meant that God should be presented in the classroom as a moral guide, as opposed to an alternative 'scientific' theory ... but your meaning is clear to me now. I reciprocate the apologies!-As for your friend Kent, I also regret his departure, as he had a lot of interesting ideas. However, the fact that he views David and me as "too old to teach" brings out the worst in me. His arguments were riddled with blatant contradictions, and he made the most extraordinary comment when I kept pointing them out. I have therefore done precisely what he accused me of doing, and have "sifted" through his posts and found the passage, which I reproduce for your entertainment:-FRANK: One thing I've noticed is that you're extremely fond of sifting through past posts of mine and quoting what I've said verbatum [sic], diligently looking for contradictions. This requires a lot of thought and a high degree of intelligence. At my senile old age, I'm no longer good at thinking and am no longer very intelligent. Therefore, frankly, I'm not in the least bit interested in what I wrote ten minutes ago let alone yesterday for heaven's sake.-It's therefore hardly surprising that he found David and me difficult to teach, though I'll leave it to you to gauge whether the difficulty was caused by our age or by his!

Post reply

6010 views

Here's one person's view of the Dover trial
well worth the 117 minutes.-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Post reply

6029 views

Here's one person's view of the Dover trial
> well worth the 117 minutes.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg-As I have stated about Susan Blackmore: her book is filled with misinformation. Ken Miller isn't so bad. His book has some misinformation. Intelligent design makes some important points in criticism of Darwin. Considering what we know today I think Darwin, himself, would agree.

Post reply

5967 views

Here's one person's view of the Dover trial
> > well worth the 117 minutes.
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
> 
> As I have stated about Susan Blackmore: her book is filled with misinformation. Ken Miller isn't so bad. His book has some misinformation. Intelligent design makes some important points in criticism of Darwin. Considering what we know today I think Darwin, himself, would agree.-The problem David that Intelligent Design is really creationism. And what ever these two concepts are they are not science. Unless you agree with Behe that we should have a much broader definition of science as to include astrology, alchemy, the occult and other fringe subjects.

Post reply

6039 views


> The problem David that Intelligent Design is really creationism. And what ever these two concepts are they are not science. Unless you agree with Behe that we should have a much broader definition of science as to include astrology, alchemy, the occult and other fringe subjects.-For the ID people yes. But I look at some of their reaasoning and it fits what I see as I study evolution. I have come to believe in theistic evolution, certainly not young earth creationism. As you know I believe in a universal intelligence, and I believe that DNA was programed to reach humans through evolution. A chance purposeless cannot do that. Life reeks of teleology.

Post reply

5976 views

ROMANSH: The problem David [is] that Intelligent Design is really creationism. And whatever these two concepts are they are not science...-DAVID: I look at some of their reasoning and it fits what I see as I study evolution.-As I see it, these two statements cover two major areas of misunderstanding. Firstly, science is supposed to be neutral. The moment a scientist uses science to support a belief of any kind, whether theistic or atheistic, he leaves the realm of science behind. Nobody knows the "first cause" ... it may be David's Universal Intelligence, it may be the impersonal, unconscious force of Nature ... and all science can do is attempt to unravel how the material universe works. The rest is a matter of faith ... but at least David acknowledges this, whereas atheists like Dawkins seem blissfully unaware of the part faith plays in their advocacy of an impersonal, unconscious force.-Secondly, the fact that something is not science does not mean it is to be dismissed. (I'm not saying you dismiss it, Romansh ... this is a general observation.) Science has so far proved incapable of solving the deepest mysteries of our existence (e.g. the origin of life, the source of consciousness with all its astonishing manifestations), and if the material world as we know it really isn't "all that is", science never will give us the answers. And so until such time as the mysteries are solved, "unscientific" should not be used dismissively ... although I personally would argue against any belief (such as Young Earth Creationism) that categorically contradicted the generally recognized findings of science. ----

Post reply

5994 views

ROMANSH: The problem David [is] that Intelligent Design is really creationism. And whatever these two concepts are they are not science...
> 
> DAVID: I look at some of their reasoning and it fits what I see as I study evolution.
> 
> As I see it, these two statements cover two major areas of misunderstanding. Firstly, science is supposed to be neutral. The moment a scientist uses science to support a belief of any kind, whether theistic or atheistic, he leaves the realm of science behind. -An example of ID work, this time philosophy. Abiogenesis cannot spontaneously happen:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-impossibility-of-abiogenesis/-Try and pick apart the reasoning.

Post reply

5990 views

DAVID: An example of ID work, this time philosophy. Abiogenesis cannot spontaneously happen:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-impossibility-of-abiogenesis/-Try and pick apart the reasoning.-It's the same reasoning as Hoyle's Boeing 747, monkeys writing Shakespeare on a typewriter, and a million other analogies. Frankly, you don't even need all this turgid scientific verbiage, since no-one would believe that even a Tesco shopping bag had assembled itself by chance. You yourself, David, have offered us the same argument in far less portentous terms (for which I thank you). Pick apart the reasoning? Of course I can't. Until we get to the conclusion:-"If biological cells contain computers and computers cannot be created by C&N, then the origin of such biological systems is not natural and implies the intervention of that which is able to work out symbolic linguistic information processing namely, intelligence. Such transcendent intelligence, whose hardware and software designs are before our eyes, may be called the Great Designer."-This is where the reasoning always falls apart. If you cannot believe in a self-generating biological intelligence, how can you believe in an invisible super-intelligence that has generated itself or has simply been around forever? "First cause" is no argument, since it still boils down to the same old choice between two unbelievable hypotheses: an undesigned material intelligence and an undesigned non-material super-intelligence. But don't take any notice of me, because one way or another I'm wrong!

Post reply

5984 views

dhw: "First cause" is no argument, since it still boils down to the same old choice between two unbelievable hypotheses: an undesigned material intelligence and an undesigned non-material super-intelligence. But don't take any notice of me, because one way or another I'm wrong!-Yes, First Cause. We are here because nothing invented us. Nothing started everything. This universe came from nothing. Something cannot come from nothing.

Post reply

5965 views

Yes, First Cause. We are here because nothing invented us. Nothing started everything. This universe came from nothing. Something cannot come from nothing.-Ultimately it is an argument from ignorance - I don't understand, therefore god did it.

Post reply

5972 views

Yes, First Cause. We are here because nothing invented us. Nothing started everything. This universe came from nothing. Something cannot come from nothing.
> 
> Ultimately it is an argument from ignorance - I don't understand, therefore god did it.-It is hard to get around Aristotle's reasoning. If there isn't a first cause, why is there anything? Doesn't everything you know and recognize have a cause? You cannot have an infinite regresson to nothing.

Post reply

6003 views

DAVID: Yes, First Cause. We are here because nothing invented us. Nothing started everything. This universe came from nothing. Something cannot come from nothing.-ROMANSH: Ultimately it is an argument from ignorance - I don't understand, therefore god did it.-DAVID: It is hard to get around Aristotle's reasoning. If there isn't a first cause, why is there anything? Doesn't everything you know and recognize have a cause? You cannot have an infinite regression to nothing.-We have never disagreed on this, David, which is why I repeatedly quote my old buddy King Lear: "Nothing will come of nothing." Last time we discussed it, you and I agreed that the first cause was energy, which eternally transmutes itself into matter. (Romansh, you may have missed it.) I really like this idea, as it fits in perfectly with both theism and atheism. The question, of course, is whether this eternal energy is conscious of itself or not. You say yes, the atheist says no, and I say I don't know. Neat.

Post reply

6035 views

David: You cannot have an infinite regression to nothing.[/i]
> 
> dhw: We have never disagreed on this, David, which is why I repeatedly quote my old buddy King Lear: "Nothing will come of nothing." Last time we discussed it, you and I agreed that the first cause was energy, which eternally transmutes itself into matter. (Romansh, you may have missed it.) I really like this idea, as it fits in perfectly with both theism and atheism. The question, of course, is whether this eternal energy is conscious of itself or not. You say yes, the atheist says no, and I say I don't know. Neat.-Neat to agree. The First Cause is energy, because it HAS to be. Since we are organized energy, first cause was also organized. To paraphrase LEAR: no organization will come of no organization. First cause is organized energy. The emergent property of organization is progressive evolution. First evolve a universe and then evolve us. All contingent events. Simple.

Post reply

5989 views

DAVID: The First Cause is energy, because it HAS to be. Since we are organized energy, first cause was also organized. To paraphrase LEAR: no organization will come of no organization. First cause is organized energy. The emergent property of organization is progressive evolution. First evolve a universe and then evolve us. All contingent events. Simple.-Clever, but it ain't necessarily so. Yes, we are organized, but that does NOT mean the first cause was organized. The whole debate centres on whether order can or can't generate itself out of disorder, and it proves nothing simply to state that it can't. We just don't know. Given an eternity and infinity of energy, we have an eternity and infinity of possible forms and combinations of the matter it may produce. So it's either eternal, conscious, self-organizing energy (God), or it's eternal unconscious energy which self-organizes at some point (or maybe even at many points) in an eternity of the higgledy-piggledy. Not so simple.

Post reply

5996 views

I kind of like the idea of a God who took a few billion years to get his head together. Sounds like me in the morning :P

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

5955 views

DAVID: The First Cause is energy, because it HAS to be. Since we are organized energy, first cause was also organized. To paraphrase LEAR: no organization will come of no organization. First cause is organized energy. The emergent property of organization is progressive evolution. First evolve a universe and then evolve us. All contingent events. Simple.
> 
> Clever, but it ain't necessarily so. Yes, we are organized, but that does NOT mean the first cause was organized. The whole debate centres on whether order can or can't generate itself out of disorder, and it proves nothing simply to state that it can't. We just don't know. Given an eternity and infinity of energy, we have an eternity and infinity of possible forms and combinations of the matter it may produce. So it's either eternal, conscious, self-organizing energy (God), or it's eternal unconscious energy which self-organizes at some point (or maybe even at many points) in an eternity of the higgledy-piggledy. Not so simple.-I'm piggybacking on dhw here to also bring about a solid point from Giorbran:-Our concepts of "order" and "disorder" as David is using it is completely wrong. There are two kids of order: grouping, and symmetry. Entropy is the transformation of one kind of order to another.-Grouping order would be how our cells combine, and symmetry order would be how a drop of food coloring disperses evenly in a glass. -Chaos--what we "perceive" as disorder is the process we observe as one state shifts to another. This is what chaos theory describes.-So it is incorrect to state "order comes from disorder." There is ONLY order. Disorder in the sense we use it in common parlance, is a lie.

Post reply

5996 views

Our concepts of "order" and "disorder" as David is using it is completely wrong. There are two kids of order: grouping, and symmetry. Entropy is the transformation of one kind of order to another.-I'd be careful here Matt, 
I don't think currently entropy is thought of as order (or decrease in order) here is an opening quote:
>>This is written for you quickly to understand the second law and entropy. All but a few general chemistry texts have discarded "entropy is disorder" and adopted my approach. However, if your text and instructor describe things differently, don't argue with or correct her/him! Just memorize what you read in the text and hear in class so that you can give the expected answers on exams. Grades are important at this time in your life but the understanding that you will get here will last a lifetime.
from
http://entropysite.oxy.edu/students_approach.html
This I think is a great summary for entropy and the second law.-Somewhere in the text the author asks what are the units of disorder?-Clearly the dimensions of disorder are not energy/temperature.-and here is a short essay on randomness in numbers, ultimately I think it applies to the physical world as well.
http://www.random.org/randomness/

Post reply

5972 views

Our concepts of "order" and "disorder" as David is using it is completely wrong. There are two kids of order: grouping, and symmetry. Entropy is the transformation of one kind of order to another.
> 
> I'd be careful here Matt, 
> I don't think currently entropy is thought of as order (or decrease in order) here is an opening quote:-No, but David and even myself learned an "order/disorder" version of entropy, and I just wanted to point out that this thinking is, at best, illusory. The direction of order in the universe is pointing to symmetry order. David was discussing things in terms of "disorder" in regards to entropy, hence the impetus of my post.-> >>This is written for you quickly to understand the second law and entropy. All but a few general chemistry texts have discarded "entropy is disorder" and adopted my approach. However, if your text and instructor describe things differently, don't argue with or correct her/him! Just memorize what you read in the text and hear in class so that you can give the expected answers on exams. Grades are important at this time in your life but the understanding that you will get here will last a lifetime.
> from
> http://entropysite.oxy.edu/students_approach.html
> This I think is a great summary to entropy and the second law.
> 
> Somewhere in the text the author asks what are the units of disorder?
> 
> Clearly the dimensions of disorder are not energy/temperature.
> -Disorder shouldn't even be used here. That link you posted says the same thing I did with different wording.- " Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered from doing so."-I admit to not being a stellar communicator, but if you detect an error in my thinking, please be more explicit. -> and here is a short essay on randomness in numbers, ultimately I think it applies to the physical world as well.
> http://www.random.org/randomness/-
That's a good site--but wasted on myself. (Secure systems developer... I had a year of number theory and cryptology in college, including some quantum crypto.)

Post reply

5916 views

I admit to not being a stellar communicator, but if you detect an error in my thinking, please be more explicit. 
>-The thing about communication it requires a transmitter and a receiver.

Post reply

5997 views

MATT: I'm piggybacking on dhw here to also bring about a solid point from Giorbran:
Our concept of "order" and "disorder" as David is using it is completely wrong. There are two kids of order [ugh, naughty ones and well-behaved ones? Sorry!]: grouping, and symmetry. Entropy is the transformation of one kind of order to another. [...]
Chaos--what we "perceive" as disorder is the process we observe as one state shifts to another. This is what chaos theory describes.
So it is incorrect to state "order comes from disorder." There is ONLY order. Disorder in the sense we use it in common parlance, is a lie. -ROMANSH: I'd be careful here Matt, I don't think currently entropy is thought of as order (or decrease in order)...-I think I was the one who used "order" and David used "organization", but both of us were certainly thinking of a very particular kind of order, relating to the evolution of the universe and ultimately ourselves. The term "entropy" did not enter into our discussion, which concerns David's intelligent, conscious First Cause. In this context it makes little difference whether you argue that the universe is a new order emerging from old orders or order emerging from disorder. The question is whether our universe and our intelligence (i.e. this particular order) could have arisen by chance or not.
 
Having said that, I thoroughly endorse Romansh's more cautious approach. "Completely wrong", "a lie"...I don't know who you think lays down the law as to the correct or incorrect use of these terms, but common parlance is good enough for me. If some scientists are now saying that entropy is not disorder, that does not mean we can't use disorder in the conventional way. A jigsaw puzzle is initially a set of pieces scattered in disorderly fashion, and the object of the game is to put them in a certain order. You can take that as an analogy for the work of David's UI, who put all the pieces in an order enabling life. Atheists on the other hand believe that the disorderly pieces put themselves in this particular order by chance. You can insist if you like that there is no such thing as disorder, and the jigsaw pieces were already in order, but that will lead to confusion and not to understanding. Language is simply a tool for communication, and "common parlance" is an essential part of the process. Without the "common" element, you can't communicate.
 
MATT: I admit to not being a stellar communicator.-Ecce signum. But you do a great job keeping us all on our toes!

Post reply

5940 views

A good article as applied to this topic. Remarkably, it does not simply pander to creationist propaganda, and manages to encapsulate the argument of most anti-evolutionists in a very clear and reasonable manner.-http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i12f.htm

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

5940 views

A good article as applied to this topic. Remarkably, it does not simply pander to creationist propaganda, and manages to encapsulate the argument of most anti-evolutionists in a very clear and reasonable manner.
> 
> http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i12f.htm-Excellent summary of the OOL problems. 60 years of research have only told us what will not work.

Post reply

5890 views

A good article as applied to this topic. Remarkably, it does not simply pander to creationist propaganda, and manages to encapsulate the argument of most anti-evolutionists in a very clear and reasonable manner.
> 
> http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i12f.htm-That site was rather surprising. I've always agreed that a GOOD definition of life has been lacking, for precisely the reasons this one mentions. -But I'm nothing if not an habitual critic. I have to do it or my reputation would be at stake.-Here goes...-I take issue with this statement:-" Therefore, a living thing must be at least as complicated as the simplest computer."-The simplest computer--no joke--is a light switch. This also means that the orbit of a planet could be considered a "computation" and fire is also a computer.-I think that the masses are just now starting to understand enough about computers, to see them in everything. A cell as a computer is a *useful abstraction* but a misleading one as well. -Next issue: 6. Cell, Heal Thyself-This section has one "imperative."- "6. Self-monitor and repair its constantly deteriorating physical matrix of bioinstruction retention/transmission, and of architecture"-This is where I start to see an unnecessary bias towards cellullar life... -What about Virii and prions? Virii work by taking over a cellular host, by directly altering some physical structure. This process require energy... and meets all the other criterion of life.-Further, there is nothing I've read to counter the idea that virii didn't evolve from a more complex form... meaning that under this definition life can become animate nonlife--creating a category we've never dealt with.

Post reply

5928 views


> " Therefore, a living thing must be at least as complicated as the simplest computer."
> 
> The simplest computer--no joke--is a light switch. This also means that the orbit of a planet could be considered a "computation" and fire is also a computer.
> -IMHO A light switch is not a computer. It is a circuit, but it does not compute anything. It can not accept an input, and produce a variable output without the outside interference of a higher form of logic(i.e. someone playing with the dimmer switch). Arguments might be made that based on varying degrees of power input the bulb produces varying quantities of light, but to my mind that does not constitute a calculation. Fire is also not a computer in that it is not performing any form of information management. The idea that life has to be at least as complex as the simplest computer is because life has to take input from its environment and formulate a valid response to that input, contain a programmatic set of instructions that can be carried out in real time repeatedly, and the ability to transmit instructions to its offspring. -> This section has one "imperative."
> 
> "6. Self-monitor and repair its constantly deteriorating physical matrix of bioinstruction retention/transmission, and of architecture"
> 
> This is where I start to see an unnecessary bias towards cellullar life... 
> -> What about Virii and prions? Virii work by taking over a cellular host, by directly altering some physical structure. This process require energy... and meets all the other criterion of life.
> -Yes, there is a bias against Virii because Virii are not 'alive'. The do not do anything at all in the absence of living organisms aside from simply existing. They do not consume, reproduce, die, or ANY of the other biological functions unless, and only unless, they have been introduced into an existing living biological structure.-> Further, there is nothing I've read to counter the idea that virii didn't evolve from a more complex form... meaning that under this definition life can become animate nonlife--creating a category we've never dealt with.-Evolve or Devolve?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

5894 views


> > " Therefore, a living thing must be at least as complicated as the simplest computer."
> > 
> > The simplest computer--no joke--is a light switch. This also means that the orbit of a planet could be considered a "computation" and fire is also a computer.
> > 
> 
> IMHO A light switch is not a computer. It is a circuit, but it does not compute anything. It can not accept an input, and produce a variable output without the outside interference of a higher form of logic(i.e. someone playing with the dimmer switch). Arguments might be made that based on varying degrees of power input the bulb produces varying quantities of light, but to my mind that does not constitute a calculation. Fire is also not a computer in that it is not performing any form of information management. The idea that life has to be at least as complex as the simplest computer is because life has to take input from its environment and formulate a valid response to that input, contain a programmatic set of instructions that can be carried out in real time repeatedly, and the ability to transmit instructions to its offspring. 
> -This is where our difference in training is a chasm. -A computer IS a circuit. So far, so good.-The simplest computer is 1 bit. It only computes two values, 0, or 1--(On or off.)-In the case of a light switch, if the input is "up" the value is "1" or "on." In the case of "0" the value is "0" or down.-You can argue what a "computer" is, but you'll be arguing with ME--a computer scientist. What I just described is the de facto standard for the simplest computer possible. Pre Von Neumann a "computation" was some poor fellow plugging pegs into holes, or moving beads on an abacus. What the input and output are--is irrelevant. It requires a mind to interpret why the input makes sense in regards to the output. This isn't the same in chemistry or biology at all.-Because we found a way to shift electricity around on silicon doesn't mean we gain some "magical" ability. A computer is a light switch, and little else. Don't mistake the forest for the trees--movie special effects are "on and off" interpreted in a way that makes sense to US. -
> > This section has one "imperative."
> > 
> > "6. Self-monitor and repair its constantly deteriorating physical matrix of bioinstruction retention/transmission, and of architecture"
> > 
> > This is where I start to see an unnecessary bias towards cellullar life... 
> > 
> 
> > What about Virii and prions? Virii work by taking over a cellular host, by directly altering some physical structure. This process require energy... and meets all the other criterion of life.
> > 
> 
> Yes, there is a bias against Virii because Virii are not 'alive'. The do not do anything at all in the absence of living organisms aside from simply existing. They do not consume, reproduce, die, or ANY of the other biological functions unless, and only unless, they have been introduced into an existing living biological structure.
> -Virii consume energy by virtue of what their reprogramming does. They reproduce by coopting the machinery of something else. They don't NEED to do anything else, because their hosts do that for them. There is no consensus on virii for exactly these reasons.-> > Further, there is nothing I've read to counter the idea that virii didn't evolve from a more complex form... meaning that under this definition life can become animate nonlife--creating a category we've never dealt with.
> 
> Evolve or Devolve?-Evolution has never been an accretion-only process. It means travel in any direction of survival. (There is no goal, save survival.)

Post reply

5910 views


> This is where our difference in training is a chasm. 
> 
> A computer IS a circuit. So far, so good.
> 
> The simplest computer is 1 bit. It only computes two values, 0, or 1--(On or off.)
> 
> In the case of a light switch, if the input is "up" the value is "1" or "on." In the case of "0" the value is "0" or down.
> 
> You can argue what a "computer" is, but you'll be arguing with ME--a computer scientist. What I just described is the de facto standard for the simplest computer possible. Pre Von Neumann a "computation" was some poor fellow plugging pegs into holes, or moving beads on an abacus. What the input and output are--is irrelevant. It requires a mind to interpret why the input makes sense in regards to the output. This isn't the same in chemistry or biology at all.
> -
Matt, -I am very familiar with the progression of computers. I've worked/studied in IT/High Tech departments for a long time (All total about 25 years(I was learning to program games at 5 and oracle databases at 7 via my mom who was the lead programmer for the State Attorney's Office)) and even got quite a ways into a computer science degree before I decided that the school and the degree program were not for me. So, while I respect your opinion as a highly intelligent individual and have no doubt that your knowledge of computers and programming far surpasses my own, don't throw your shoulder out patting yourself on the back.-To compute means to calculate or reckon, and a computer is something that calculates or reckons. In the case of a light switch, a single binary circuit, nothing, and I do mean nothing, is being computed or reckoned. Neither does the abacus 'compute' anything, no more than your pencil or paper computes the answers for you when you do math on paper.-0 or 1 is meaningless without context. It doesn't mean on or off, open or closed, up or down, black or white, or anything else without context. That is why, and we can argue about this all week, a single isolated circuit is not a computer. Yes, I am well aware that at the hardware level a computer is a bunch of binary circuits. The difference is that it is a bunch of binary circuits in a system that function together to receive input and reckon/compute a meaningful response. -This difference in opinion may be a result of the difference in paradigms between your field of study and mine though, and I willing to admit that. My specialty focuses on the design of systems, and realizes that any single component, existing in isolation, does not a system make. My field also recognizes the fact that something must process the data, whether a machine or a person. In a light switch circuit, the person flipping the switch on and off acts as both control and the processor. If you include that person/entity in the equation, then that could indeed be counted as a computer, but not without it, literature be damned.-> Because we found a way to shift electricity around on silicon doesn't mean we gain some "magical" ability. A computer is a light switch, and little else. Don't mistake the forest for the trees--movie special effects are "on and off" interpreted in a way that makes sense to US. 
> 
> 
> > > This section has one "imperative."
> > > 
> > > "6. Self-monitor and repair its constantly deteriorating physical matrix of bioinstruction retention/transmission, and of architecture"
> > > 
> > > This is where I start to see an unnecessary bias towards cellullar life... 
> > > 
> > 
> > > What about Virii and prions? Virii work by taking over a cellular host, by directly altering some physical structure. This process require energy... and meets all the other criterion of life.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, there is a bias against Virii because Virii are not 'alive'. The do not do anything at all in the absence of living organisms aside from simply existing. They do not consume, reproduce, die, or ANY of the other biological functions unless, and only unless, they have been introduced into an existing living biological structure.
> > 
> 
> Virii consume energy by virtue of what their reprogramming does. They reproduce by coopting the machinery of something else. They don't NEED to do anything else, because their hosts do that for them. There is no consensus on virii for exactly these reasons.-The virus itself doesn't actually consume. It doesn't internalize any outside energy. It hijacks the processes of the cell, true, but that strand of DNA does not possess he capability to metabolize, and therefore is incapable of consumption. Their reprogramming does not actually consume anything either, not in the biological sense at least. It may interject, overwrite, or copy, but that is not the same function at all.-> 
> > > Further, there is nothing I've read to counter the idea that virii didn't evolve from a more complex form... meaning that under this definition life can become animate nonlife--creating a category we've never dealt with.
> > 
> > Evolve or Devolve?
> 
> Evolution has never been an accretion-only process. It means travel in any direction of survival. (There is no goal, save survival.)-Oi

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

5991 views


> > This is where our difference in training is a chasm. 
> > 
 In the case of "0" the value is "0" or down.
> > 
> > You can argue what a "computer" is, but you'll be arguing with ME--a computer scientist. What I just described is the de facto standard for the simplest computer possible. Pre Von Neumann a "computation" was some poor fellow plugging pegs into holes, or moving beads on an abacus. What the input and output are--is irrelevant. It requires a mind to interpret why the input makes sense in regards to the output. This isn't the same in chemistry or biology at all.
> > 
> 
> 
> Matt, 
> 
> I am very familiar with the progression of computers. I've worked/studied in IT/High Tech departments for a long time (All total about 25 years(I was learning to program games at 5 and oracle databases at 7 via my mom who was the lead programmer for the State Attorney's Office)) and even got quite a ways into a computer science degree before I decided that the school and the degree program were not for me. So, while I respect your opinion as a highly intelligent individual and have no doubt that your knowledge of computers and programming far surpasses my own, don't throw your shoulder out patting yourself on the back.
> -
After re-reading this post, I realized that it sounded a touch hostile, which was certainly not my intent. So let me put it another way. I post on this forum and debate on with you gentlemen because I already have a high degree of respect for your intelligence and opinion. Self-aggrandizing statements like "You can argue what a "computer" is, but you'll be arguing with ME--a computer scientist" tend to set my teeth on edge because it comes across as "I studied this in school so I know more than you and I am right no matter what rational arguments you may present". Instead of pride it comes across as arrogance.-Also your statement came on the back of a debate with my biology professor where his personal arrogance had already set my teeth on edge. So, if I cam across as rude or confrontational, I apologize.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

5895 views

It is precisely a difference in paradigms. My track thus far has been at the interface of hardware and software. I'm studying at the level of instruction sets and lower, with the goal of applying those insights higher. I've built an 8b machine from scratch. There's insights you get on the inner workings you gain no other way.-The definition you're using for a computer is highly abstracted and represents the trend over the last 50 years to remove the machine from the mind of the user. -I'll expand on my definition a little later...

Post reply

5906 views

The big difference in terms of training is simply that I understand from a schematic level how a computer works.-In fact, I think we're so close to being on the same page, but you don't realize it. We need to strip an electronic computer down to its barest parts, by tracing its path through history.-The earliest computers such as an abacus or adding machines took input in regards to a human punching keys or flipping beads, and whose output was the result of manual manipulation. In the case of an abacus, the memory is the beads themselves, the CPU is the human mind, and the ALU together. The human mind was also the primary source of long-term storage, maybe in the form of writing it down--or just plain old fashioned memory!-I don't know what you know, so I'll define those last two abbrevations:-ALU = Arithmetic Logic Unit --> performs the activities of addition, subtraction, and optionally logical tests. CPU = Central Processing Unit --> carries out user's instructions to control the ALU for some computational goal.-The adding machine moved the Arithmetic part of the ALU into the machine, but still relied on the human being for CPU, and maybe added a tape for explicit long-term memory.-So far however, these computers--and they're still computers--served the purpose of automating certain kinds of calculations for a human.-Before we move to the electronic era, it's important to note the importance of Allfather Turing. He's the one that demonstrated ( in purely theoretical fashion) what general computer should look like.-I pause here in the history lesson to point out, that at this point, both an abacus and an adding machine BOTH have the nature that the computer doesn't know anything at all about *what to do.* (As a matter of fact, neither do most non-graphing calculators--which are still considered computers.) In fact, at no point does a computer *know* what its doing. It just does this:-1. get next instruction 2. get data for operands 3. execute instruction 4. store result 5. goto 1-The earliest electronic computers had no more memory than something called *registers.* These are no more than circuits that hold 0 and 1 values. By moving plugs around on a plugboard, a user would "program" their adding machine--the people were called computers--to manipulate 0s and 1s through the registers, and display the results of computations--using punch cards, naturally. This was the first computer that put the ALU and CPU together into a single unit... but it required dozens of people to operate.-I just described the ENIAC. Remember however, a user is still required to determine the meaning of input/output, and to verify the machine's validity. It wasn't until the 1950s where adding machines started taking the title "computer" away from humans.-So in conclusion... a computer is no less complex than the human mind, because a computer (at present) can do nothing at all without a mind to interpret and evaluate results. A computer doesn't act in a vacuum. And a computer only outsources functions we already do in our own heads... meaning that a light switch, where a human mind maps "ooh" to "on," and "awww" to "off" is the simplest computer possible. Which is the same thing as a one-bead abacus.

Post reply

5885 views

I just described the ENIAC. Remember however, a user is still required to determine the meaning of input/output, and to verify the machine's validity. It wasn't until the 1950s where adding machines started taking the title "computer" away from humans.
> 
> So in conclusion... a computer is no less complex than the human mind, because a computer (at present) can do nothing at all without a mind to interpret and evaluate results. A computer doesn't act in a vacuum. And a computer only outsources functions we already do in our own heads... meaning that a light switch, where a human mind maps "ooh" to "on," and "awww" to "off" is the simplest computer possible. Which is the same thing as a one-bead abacus.-Ok, then we are on the same page, as long as you are accounting for the human mind in the simpler single circuit versions then we can agree. I actually read an article on ENIAC not too long back. It was the inspiration for Spacewars!, one of the first video games ;)

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

5891 views

I just described the ENIAC. Remember however, a user is still required to determine the meaning of input/output, and to verify the machine's validity. It wasn't until the 1950s where adding machines started taking the title "computer" away from humans.
> > 
> > So in conclusion... a computer is no less complex than the human mind, because a computer (at present) can do nothing at all without a mind to interpret and evaluate results. A computer doesn't act in a vacuum. And a computer only outsources functions we already do in our own heads... meaning that a light switch, where a human mind maps "ooh" to "on," and "awww" to "off" is the simplest computer possible. Which is the same thing as a one-bead abacus.
> 
> Ok, then we are on the same page, as long as you are accounting for the human mind in the simpler single circuit versions then we can agree. I actually read an article on ENIAC not too long back. It was the inspiration for Spacewars!, one of the first video games ;)-You will also appreciate that games were around at the time of the ENIAC! -It used to be such an illicit activity...

Post reply

5920 views

What about Virii and prions? Virii work by taking over a cellular host, by directly altering some physical structure. This process require energy... and meets all the other criterion of life.
> 
> Further, there is nothing I've read to counter the idea that virii didn't evolve from a more complex form... meaning that under this definition life can become animate nonlife--creating a category we've never dealt with.-Virii are parasitic, alive but not independent at any time. Other living parasites were initially independent. As such I would classify virii as not complete life under proper definition.

Post reply

5911 views

What about Virii and prions? Virii work by taking over a cellular host, by directly altering some physical structure. This process require energy... and meets all the other criterion of life.
> > 
> > Further, there is nothing I've read to counter the idea that virii didn't evolve from a more complex form... meaning that under this definition life can become animate nonlife--creating a category we've never dealt with hI.
> 
> Virii are parasitic, alive but not independent at any time. Other living parasites were initially independent. As such I would classify virii as not complete life under proper definition.-Well, if there was a "proper" definition, Tony's site wouldn't exist!

Post reply

5939 views

What about Virii and prions? Virii work by taking over a cellular host, by directly altering some physical structure. This process require energy... and meets all the other criterion of life.
> > > 
> > > Further, there is nothing I've read to counter the idea that virii didn't evolve from a more complex form... meaning that under this definition life can become animate nonlife--creating a category we've never dealt with hI.
> > 
> > Virii are parasitic, alive but not independent at any time. Other living parasites were initially independent. As such I would classify virii as not complete life under proper definition.
> 
> Well, if there was a "proper" definition, Tony's site wouldn't exist!-You are right. I couldn't think of another way of putting it. Life is still not properly defined, but I consider independence part of the definition

Post reply

5945 views

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0321tennessee.shtml-This article does a great job articulating my beef with mainstream science. The best part, it was written by scientist.-
On 26 March, the Tennessee House of Representatives voted 72-23 to approve a version of the bill that was passed by the state Senate on 19 March. House Bill 368 would encourage teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of issues that "may cause debate and disputation," including evolution and climate change. The bill now goes to Haslam, who has 10 days to veto the bill or it will become law.-The response:-
"It is discouraging to see legislation that encourages teachers to help students 'critique' the 'scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses' of what are in fact well-established theories." --Why should science be afraid that children might be taught the controversies and weaknesses of a scientific theory? Note, this was not a bill to allow the teaching of religion or creation in school, only to teach the weaknesses in the theories.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

5894 views

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0321tennessee.shtml
> 
> This article does a great job articulating my beef with mainstream science. The best part, it was written by scientist.
> 
> 
> On 26 March, the Tennessee House of Representatives voted 72-23 to approve a version of the bill that was passed by the state Senate on 19 March. House Bill 368 would encourage teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of issues that "may cause debate and disputation," including evolution and climate change. The bill now goes to Haslam, who has 10 days to veto the bill or it will become law.
> 
> The response:
> 
> 
> "It is discouraging to see legislation that encourages teachers to help students 'critique' the 'scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses' of what are in fact well-established theories." 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should science be afraid that children might be taught the controversies and weaknesses of a scientific theory? Note, this was not a bill to allow the teaching of religion or creation in school, only to teach the weaknesses in the theories.-Because a long time ago, school became about producing "model citizens" instead of educated ones. -Not a problem exclusive to science or religion, but a direct consequence of a politicized system. I'm leaning towards the Libertarian model where all schools are private.

Post reply

5929 views


> Not a problem exclusive to science or religion, but a direct consequence of a politicized system. I'm leaning towards the Libertarian model where all schools are private.-Agreed in part. All school districts should be local control only. No state departments of ed and certainly no federal dept of ed. School choice mandatory.

Post reply

5904 views


> > Not a problem exclusive to science or religion, but a direct consequence of a politicized system. I'm leaning towards the Libertarian model where all schools are private.
> 
> Agreed in part. All school districts should be local control only. No state departments of ed and certainly no federal dept of ed. School choice mandatory.-At the same time... the question arises of funding for small rural school districts... -How else to supply that without federal grants?

Post reply

5900 views


> > > Not a problem exclusive to science or religion, but a direct consequence of a politicized system. I'm leaning towards the Libertarian model where all schools are private.
> > 
> > Agreed in part. All school districts should be local control only. No state departments of ed and certainly no federal dept of ed. School choice mandatory.
> 
> At the same time... the question arises of funding for small rural school districts... 
> 
> How else to supply that without federal grants?-Federal grands make a long round trip and cost a lot to administer. Work it out on a county level. In Texas property taxes are at county level as are school taxes.

Post reply

5896 views

TONY: A good article as applied to this topic. Remarkably, it does not simply pander to creationist propaganda, and manages to encapsulate the argument of most anti-evolutionists in a very clear and reasonable manner.- http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i12f.htm-Bearing in mind the fact that the author is NOT claiming the million dollar prize, I thought initially that this was an excellent article. I was especially pleased with the distinction it draws between macro and microevolution, and the emphasis laid on our inability to pinpoint the source of innovation. This is something several of us have been trying to hammer home over and over again.-However, then I got to the final sentence: "The more we learn about life, the clearer it becomes that science is against evolution." This is exactly the same sort of silly, blanket generalization as Dawkins' "Natural selection explains...the whole of life". It makes us neutrals despair. Evolution is not one theory ... it is many theories rolled into one, and each of them is subject to scrutiny. The foundation stone is common descent ... i.e. that all living creatures are descended from other living creatures. Unless I've missed something, there is nothing in the article that argues otherwise. Microevolution is the process whereby small advantageous changes may be perpetuated (e.g. the beaks of Darwin's finches), because Nature will automatically select those specimens best adapted to the environment. The article agrees that this is scientifically sound. Where Darwin comes under attack is over his insistence on gradualism, and over the problem of innovation ... which he attributes to random mutations. Punctuated equilibrium is a possible counter to gradualism, and epigenetics may yet come up with a solution to the problem of innovation. We don't know, but the gaps in our understanding do not mean that evolution never took place, or that science is AGAINST evolution. We can say for sure that with our current knowledge ... and that is all we can judge by ... the belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old does run contrary to science. If it were true, it would certainly be a killer blow to The Theory of Evolution in general, but so far there is no scientific evidence for it, and the article doesn't even touch on it. The design v. chance debate does not in any way undermine evolution - vast numbers of theists accept that it happened, but argue that the mechanisms are too complex to have arisen by chance. The author's conclusion is a complete non sequitur. -As for defining life, no-one has managed it yet, and I doubt if anyone ever will, but one of my many dictionaries (Collins) makes a bold stab at it: "the state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones and from inorganic matter, characterized chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ability to reproduce and respond to stimuli." Worth $100,000?-In passing, what the heck are "virii"? Is this computerspeak? The plural of virus is viruses. If someone is trying to create a learned Latin plural, it would have to be viri, but that is the plural of vir meaning man. Virii would be the plural of virius, which as far as I know doesn't exist. Can't we stick to what Matt has called "common parlance"?

Post reply

5921 views


> In passing, what the heck are "virii"? Is this computerspeak? The plural of virus is viruses. If someone is trying to create a learned Latin plural, it would have to be viri, but that is the plural of vir meaning man. Virii would be the plural of virius, which as far as I know doesn't exist. Can't we stick to what Matt has called "common parlance"?-I think Matt started it, and I repeated it so as not to offend. I'd never seen the usage before.

Post reply

5882 views

TONY: A good article as applied to this topic. Remarkably, it does not simply pander to creationist propaganda, and manages to encapsulate the argument of most anti-evolutionists in a very clear and reasonable manner.
> 
> http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i12f.htm
> 
> Bearing in mind the fact that the author is NOT claiming the million dollar prize, I thought initially that this was an excellent article. I was especially pleased with the distinction it draws between macro and microevolution, and the emphasis laid on our inability to pinpoint the source of innovation. This is something several of us have been trying to hammer home over and over again.
> 
> However, then I got to the final sentence: "The more we learn about life, the clearer it becomes that science is against evolution." This is exactly the same sort of silly, blanket generalization as Dawkins' "Natural selection explains...the whole of life". It makes us neutrals despair. Evolution is not one theory ... it is many theories rolled into one, and each of them is subject to scrutiny. The foundation stone is common descent ... i.e. that all living creatures are descended from other living creatures. Unless I've missed something, there is nothing in the article that argues otherwise. Microevolution is the process whereby small advantageous changes may be perpetuated (e.g. the beaks of Darwin's finches), because Nature will automatically select those specimens best adapted to the environment. The article agrees that this is scientifically sound. Where Darwin comes under attack is over his insistence on gradualism, and over the problem of innovation ... which he attributes to random mutations. Punctuated equilibrium is a possible counter to gradualism, and epigenetics may yet come up with a solution to the problem of innovation. We don't know, but the gaps in our understanding do not mean that evolution never took place, or that science is AGAINST evolution. We can say for sure that with our current knowledge ... and that is all we can judge by ... the belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old does run contrary to science. If it were true, it would certainly be a killer blow to The Theory of Evolution in general, but so far there is no scientific evidence for it, and the article doesn't even touch on it. The design v. chance debate does not in any way undermine evolution - vast numbers of theists accept that it happened, but argue that the mechanisms are too complex to have arisen by chance. The author's conclusion is a complete non sequitur. 
> -Read this before you judge too harshly. It is from the same website:-http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v12i6f.htm

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

5907 views

That page's biggest argument is that (paraph) "We've tried for 50 years to create life--and failed."-The problem is that abiogenesis itself suffers from a massve case of neglect... hardly anyone works on it, and by Shapiro's own discussion, most of that research was being done by the "crackpots" of his day. (My words, not his.)-Very few genuine people seem to be tackling the problem nowadays--mainly because you can't monetize it, and it's not a question deemed important to society. (We'd rather pay for medical treatments.)-In short, it's not respected, even among biologists and chemists.

Post reply

5911 views

That page's biggest argument is that (paraph) "We've tried for 50 years to create life--and failed."
> 
> The problem is that abiogenesis itself suffers from a massve case of neglect... hardly anyone works on it, and by Shapiro's own discussion, most of that research was being done by the "crackpots" of his day. (My words, not his.)
> 
> Very few genuine people seem to be tackling the problem nowadays--mainly because you can't monetize it, and it's not a question deemed important to society. (We'd rather pay for medical treatments.)
> 
> In short, it's not respected, even among biologists and chemists.-Not true. I follow the research and it is active. It just doesn't go anywhere. Recent article tried to show that the ribosome could only have developed if RNA and certain types of ribosome-like proteins developed side by side. Never said how that could happen. I can find the article again, but it was so weird I didn't save a link to it.-Look at this link. Lot s of cash available:-http://www.originlife.org/

Post reply

5900 views

http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx-That's just nih. -Of all those tax dollars, how much for the Origin of life?-
Like I said. No one cares. (No money or fame in it.)

Post reply

5887 views

http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx
> 
> That's just nih. 
> 
> Of all those tax dollars, how much for the Origin of life?
> 
> 
> Like I said. No one cares. (No money or fame in it.)-Lots of folks care:-
http://www.uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/earths-early-atmosphere-impossible-to-recreate/

Post reply

5895 views

David...-that's one guy's blog discussing a few others...-You admonished me to "follow the money" in climate change.-Well.-Follow the money. Our society doesn't care about this problem.

Post reply

5880 views

I seriously thought I had posted this link with my original response:-Follow the money!-And that's ONLY the nih... Push me and I'll get data from NIST and other sources to demonstrate exactly HOW valuable we find the origin of life in the United States... followed closely after by PRIVATE R&D dollars. -$2M is a TINY drop in the bucket.

Post reply

5873 views

I seriously thought I had posted this link with my original response:
> 
> Follow the money!
> 
> And that's ONLY the nih... Push me and I'll get data from NIST and other sources to demonstrate exactly HOW valuable we find the origin of life in the United States... followed closely after by PRIVATE R&D dollars. 
> 
> $2M is a TINY drop in the bucket.-To Drive that home... since 2009 we've spent ~$2M PER YEAR on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulvodynia-I'm not trying to belittle the pain of some women, but we spend more money per year on genital pain than that man has spent on the origin of life problem.

Post reply

5896 views

I seriously thought I had posted this link with my original response:
> > 
> > Follow the money!
> > 
> > And that's ONLY the nih... Push me and I'll get data from NIST and other sources to demonstrate exactly HOW valuable we find the origin of life in the United States... followed closely after by PRIVATE R&D dollars. 
> > 
> > $2M is a TINY drop in the bucket.
> 
> To Drive that home... since 2009 we've spent ~$2M PER YEAR on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulvodynia
> 
> I'm not trying to belittle the pain of some women, but we spend more money per year on genital pain than that man has spent on the origin of life problem. -I don't care about your statistics. I keep finding weird OOL studies, lots of them.

Post reply

5886 views

I seriously thought I had posted this link with my original response:
> > > 
> > > Follow the money!
> > > 
> > > And that's ONLY the nih... Push me and I'll get data from NIST and other sources to demonstrate exactly HOW valuable we find the origin of life in the United States... followed closely after by PRIVATE R&D dollars. 
> > > 
> > > $2M is a TINY drop in the bucket.
> > 
> > To Drive that home... since 2009 we've spent ~$2M PER YEAR on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulvodynia
> > 
> > I'm not trying to belittle the pain of some women, but we spend more money per year on genital pain than that man has spent on the origin of life problem. 
> 
> I don't care about your statistics. I keep finding weird OOL studies, lots of them.-In insurance, we have a word for people who ignore statistical outcomes:-cash cows.

Post reply

5894 views

TONY: Read this before you judge too harshly. It is from the same website:-http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v12i6f.htm-As usual, we have a mixture of good sense and downright distortion. I don't know what is taught in your schools, but any website that purports to be educational should at least get its facts right. The Theory of Evolution does not set out to describe the origin of life (introduction). It does not depend on abiogenesis as its starting point (16), and if the theory of abiogenesis is false, that does not mean that the theory of evolution is false (17). The whole process of evolution describes what happens once there IS life. "How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated." (Difficulties on Theory, p. 211 Origin). Abiogenesis (which I don't believe in either) is a totally separate theory. The fact that some atheists deliberately associate it with evolution does not invalidate evolution.
 
"If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation" (43). As I said in my earlier post, evolution comprises several theories, and this one is vulnerable, especially as we don't know the extent of the role played by environmental factors. That does not invalidate the rest. "Acquired characteristics are not inherited..." (60). We don't know that either ... it's the subject of ongoing research. No-one is claiming to have understood the mechanisms that drive innovation, but either they are built into living creatures or...we'll consider the alternative in a moment. It's difficult to see how science can come up with "experimental confirmation" of how apelike creatures evolved into humans (61). What sort of experiment does the author envisage? The speculations are based on the fact that different kinds of ape-like hominids have been discovered, and no living being has ever been observed emerging from anything except another living being. The conclusion that humans have descended from creatures similar to themselves which are known to have existed is eminently reasonable. -Dating techniques: we discussed this in an earlier post, and as a layman I can only rely on scientific consensus. Has any scientific study come up with any evidence that the Earth is 6000 years old? I am myself sceptical when science gives us precise figures like 3.7 billion years, but the difference here is colossal.
 
If evolution did not take place, the alternative has to be separate creation. Instead of every characteristic of every living thing being the result of changes from one generation of organisms to another, it must be the result of an unknown designer creating it from scratch. Does the creationist author demand "experimental confirmation" of this ... if so, how does he expect to conduct his experiment? Has he ever observed God creating the different organs and species? Of course he hasn't. What evidence of any kind is there that every characteristic and every species has appeared independently of earlier living creatures? Creationists quote a book written many centuries ago by unknown human authors with little of the scientific knowledge that we have today. Even if I were a believer, I would still embrace evolution as a vastly more reasonable and hence more credible scenario than separate creation, and there are many believers who do precisely that, with the argument that whatever the mechanisms may be, they are far too complex to have arisen by chance. Darwin himself repeatedly said that his theory was perfectly compatible with religion. Your author has joined Dawkins in equating evolution with atheism for the sake of a personal agenda, and in both cases this is as inaccurate as it is dishonest.
 
"Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true." Agreed. Schools should teach evolution as part of their science curriculum, and I agree too that the weaknesses as well as the strengths should be part of the lesson. I am also in favour of teaching comparative religion at school. But neither scientific nor religious speculations should be taught "as if they were true". Facts should be separated from opinions and speculative conclusions. That, of course, is the agnostic approach.

Post reply

5898 views

Throughout the guys website he critiques creationist and evolutionist alike, and considers the traditional fundamentalist creation model to be just as silly as the evolutionary theory. A standpoint that I agree with wholeheartedly.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

5848 views

TONY: Throughout the guys website he critiques creationist and evolutionist alike, and considers the traditional fundamentalist creation model to be just as silly as the evolutionary theory. A standpoint that I agree with wholeheartedly.-I am getting confused. The two articles you have linked us to come under "scienceagainstevolution", offering us a woeful distortion of the theory of evolution, which the author clearly thinks incorporates abiogenesis. It does not. Since you agree with him, let's forget about his website and concentrate on what you believe! If you reject the notion that all living organisms are descended from earlier living organisms (whether through chance processes or by means of a designed mechanism, perhaps with occasional interference from the designer), and you regard as silly the idea that God created every organ and species separately, what alternative hypothesis can you offer us?

Post reply

5920 views


> I am getting confused. The two articles you have linked us to come under "scienceagainstevolution", offering us a woeful distortion of the theory of evolution, which the author clearly thinks incorporates abiogenesis. It does not. Since you agree with him, let's forget about his website and concentrate on what you believe! If you reject the notion that all living organisms are descended from earlier living organisms (whether through chance processes or by means of a designed mechanism, perhaps with occasional interference from the designer), and you regard as silly the idea that God created every organ and species separately, what alternative hypothesis can you offer us?-The idea that God created everything in 6 days and that the world is only 6k years old IS silly, just as silly as claiming that will all our complexity we were able to go from a single cell (ignoring abiogenesis for the moment) to the complex organisms we are today by pure chance. -A few weeks ago I was talking with a friend of mine and made the rather obvious statement that, at least in the areas where they overlap, science and religion must agree, other wise one or the other are wrong.-While I do not profess to any one religion, I have never made any bones about my theism, nor about my extreme interest in the life sciences. I do not see them as opposites or even opponents. In my world view, theism analyzes the nature of a UI from the religious/philosophical standpoint, its personality for lack of a better word, while science studies its actions and the results of its actions. In my world view, one can, in some ways, be used to analyze and critique the other, but not in the destructive manner that exists between atheist and religious fundamentalist. -I have no issue with evolution as adaptation within a given family of creatures. I also have no issue with the creationist belief of 'God created them according to their kind'. One describes variation, which is a well known and well observed fact. The other describes the physiological differences that can not be explained by random chance, mutation, or epigenics. In other words, there was no reason for a UI to create a Jersey, a buffalo, and a ox. Creating a single breedable bovine species with the ability to adapt would have been sufficient. The question for me is, why does it have to be one way or the other?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

5875 views

Tony,
> A few weeks ago I was talking with a friend of mine and made the rather obvious statement that, at least in the areas where they overlap, science and religion must agree, other wise one or the other are wrong.
> -I completely disagree. NOMA. -Science and religion are "Non-Overlapping MagisteriA." -The direct problem at hand, is that if you do a direct comparison of world traditions involving the birth of the universe--and of ourselves--you are left with a myriad of stunning possibilities, and no *real* way to wade through them. -Stephen J Gould coined the NOMA term, and it is in fact under THAT premise that David (knowingly or unknowingly) makes his case that science and religion CAN coexist peacefully. -David has ultimately rejected ALL mythological interpretation of how man began, and simply looks at all the evidence and asks "Why?" -Religion's Magisteria is that intrinsically human, self-guiding discussion--it's about morals. But as I've asked in the past--(Why not--Maltheism?, or the post dedicated to THIS song.) What method is there to determine WHICH religion is correct? -None. I'm just as likely to join Draconian Setianism as I am Christianity. (Or even the "Order of Set.") -> While I do not profess to any one religion, I have never made any bones about my theism, nor about my extreme interest in the life sciences. I do not see them as opposites or even opponents. In my world view, theism analyzes the nature of a UI from the religious/philosophical standpoint, its personality for lack of a better word, while science studies its actions and the results of its actions. In my world view, one can, in some ways, be used to analyze and critique the other, but not in the destructive manner that exists between atheist and religious fundamentalist. 
> -That's fine, but within this distinction, you've already agreed that science and religion don't even study the same things!-In the areas where they intersect, religion has always been wrong unless it reverts back to allegory or metaphor--as you did valiantly in our discussion of the world flood years ago. This observation is the ROOT of NOMA... religion and science are asymptotic... they come close to touching, but never can--and never will. (You will like the movie Prometheus btw...)--> I have no issue with evolution as adaptation within a given family of creatures. I also have no issue with the creationist belief of 'God created them according to their kind'. One describes variation, which is a well known and well observed fact. The other describes the physiological differences that can not be explained by random chance, mutation, or epigenics. In other words, there was no reason for a UI to create a Jersey, a buffalo, and a ox. Creating a single breedable bovine species with the ability to adapt would have been sufficient. The question for me is, why does it have to be one way or the other?-You're being apologetic to your roots. The only way you can interpret the creationist position as "correct" is if you discard--entirely--the notion of evolution. -The best you can do is something like David's position--humble admittance that all world religions probably got the creation idea wrong EXCEPT for the God part. You can't have both YEC and evolution in the same belief system.

Post reply

5942 views

I will respond to this in its own thread, as it directly relates to a new book that I am reading.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

5900 views

David has ultimately rejected ALL mythological interpretation of how man began, and simply looks at all the evidence and asks "Why?"
 
> The best you can do is something like David's position--humble admittance that all world religions probably got the creation idea wrong EXCEPT for the God part. You can't have both YEC and evolution in the same belief system.-Yes you can, in a way. I think the answer is theistic evolution. IT is when you have old Earth creationism and feel God designed and guided evolution.

Post reply

5898 views

Even the more fundamentalist religion that I was raised in does not subscribe to YEC. As David points out, they accept Old Earth Creationism and the subset of evolution dealing with adaptation without speciation. Personally, I don't think any one religion has the right of it, which is why I study them all.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

5893 views

Even the more fundamentalist religion that I was raised in does not subscribe to YEC. As David points out, they accept Old Earth Creationism and the subset of evolution dealing with adaptation without speciation. Personally, I don't think any one religion has the right of it, which is why I study them all.-I call bull. -I mentioned it briefly in a different post, but I don't see many people approaching the creation of life from the view of Maltheism or Draconian Setianism. -This is because human ego is predilected towards those theories that place us in a special, or gifted category, because we WANT to seem bigger, more special... -worth more than the air we breathe...-Arrogant monkey shite, is what that is...

Post reply

5850 views

David has ultimately rejected ALL mythological interpretation of how man began, and simply looks at all the evidence and asks "Why?"
> 
> > The best you can do is something like David's position--humble admittance that all world religions probably got the creation idea wrong EXCEPT for the God part. You can't have both YEC and evolution in the same belief system.
> 
> Yes you can, in a way. I think the answer is theistic evolution. IT is when you have old Earth creationism and feel God designed and guided evolution.-Um...-No. YEC is not equivalent to "Old Earth Creationism."-One negates the other.

Post reply

5898 views


> > Yes you can, in a way. I think the answer is theistic evolution. IT is when you have old Earth creationism and feel God designed and guided evolution.
> 
> Um...
> 
> No. YEC is not equivalent to "Old Earth Creationism."
> 
> One negates the other. -One disagrees with the other about the age of things, but they both believe in creation by fiat from God. And some of those OEC's think like I do.

Post reply

5911 views

In passing, what the heck are "virii"? Is this computerspeak? The plural of virus is viruses. If someone is trying to create a learned Latin plural, it would have to be viri, but that is the plural of vir meaning man. Virii would be the plural of virius, which as far as I know doesn't exist. Can't we stick to what Matt has called "common parlance"?-Heh. Yep. It IS computer speak. Don't know when it arose, but for "us" the plural of viruses is virii... we do that to differentiate the biological from the electrical...-Forgive me...

Post reply

5883 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Evolution in schools; legal trap (Introduction)