Posted on 02/12/2005 4:24:09 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
Very good. Some points either way might be argued, but a fairly cohesive argument wrapped in an excellent presentation.
strawman.
id says whether or not we know how it happened, we know what design is and it does not arise from disorder.
why do you believe id has anything to do with God?? id can have panspermiasts or worse..
There they go confuting physical and material! Causality is a relation in time. Time as a dimension cannot be considered separately from the other dimensions, the manifold applies in totality or not at all. Non-locality doesn't deny causality. Are the physical laws material? No, but they are real. Is there a cause to physical laws? Yes, we are the cause.
Design! No need for "intelligence" for the very word "design" implies intelligence. By working within a meta-science, philosophical, framing science is liberated, free to become once again vibrant and shining.
I didn't write that 'all' of them do, I wrote that 'many' of them do.
But, once again, by falsely representing what I wrote, you have earned your place among the 'many'. I've seldom encountered anyone who has such difficulties with the plain and simple truth as you.
Even more so, it makes sense to you to attack and impugn all Christians, especially ones who are concerned about how origins of man are taught to little kids.
Just adding this additional quote to emphasize your mendacity.
That is the question I bet you can relate to RWP. I bet you'll never guess how I answered it. I bet you don't even care.
Not really, except that given your record, the answer was unlikely to be truthful.
Excellent insights, xzins! I'm not sure I agree, however, with the above italics. My disagreement stems from my skepticism that an "organizing principle" is something that could have arisen from purely natural (physical in the causally-closed hypothesis), random causes within 3+1D spacetime. If an organizing principle was loaded into the initial conditions of the universe and effectuated by the Big Bang (the "before" of which is something unknown and perhaps utterly incomprehensible, but in which we suspect that no matter or energy existed, or even the physical laws as far as we can tell), then it is something that is prior to universal evolution, and "outside" of it. That is to say, my suspicion that the reason ID is so detested in certain scientific circles is precisely because it is recognized that it asserts a non-physical cause -- which violates the "causally-closed hypothesis" on its face.
Let's hope you're not a prosecution lawyer.
And excludes itself and thereby includes itself.
its worse than i thought..the article's dna and protein conclusions assume ONLY heredity causes 2 organisms to have similar ubiquitous sequences..
don't they observe themselves when they DESIGN a protein to be identical to another protein?? i know they haven't observed themselves making cells yet except in their own fantasies.
please don't dismiss this as simplistic..even if only heredity can copy a sequence, only design can initiate the sequence, which they still have no answer for.
Excellent argument overall. I'll concede my training is not as great as others around here, but I'll take a stab at a couple of things.
First, you have no references included. For example, the speed of light decay situation. That item alone has vast consequences if it turns out to be fully accepted by 'science'.
Also: "It is well known that no pseudorandom generator can produce a wholly orderless output, so order must also be theoretically recapturable from even the outputs of the more complex generators of lifeforms."
I didn't know this. A reference or basic FAQs link about random generators would be good.
AG provides a lot of info theory stuff here, and a good bit of your post dovetails around that subject. I would add cross links between the two.
Philosphically, you make great points, and indeed the worship by scientists is a real event. But, I would argue this: they worship themselves, specifically their 'creativity'.
All in all, a great article.
They assume no such thing. In comparing the sequences of hundreds of organisms, they observe the sequences have a tree-like strcuture, such that two organisms which share a common ancestor have sequences that appear to have diverged from a common ancestor.
If it were design, why do whales and birds have more similar sequences than whales and whale-sharks?
"Therefore, we suspect both constituents of the physical world [i.e., initial/boundary conditions and the physical laws themselves] are actually open towards non-physical causes. In this case, we should ask the telling question: Is the causal structure of the actual world exclusively physical or not?"
What a great question.
Time is the matrix in which the universe and everything in it develops and evolves. But time itself is neither physical nor material. I agree that time as a dimension cannot be separated from the other dimensions, which refer to space. (I have even considered whether space and time may be "Lorentz transformable" in some fashion. But the jury's still out on that one.) The space-time continuum obviously seems to constitute a universal manifold which, by definition, applies as one single totality to the furthest reaches of our (expanding) universe. Non-locality does not necessarily violate causality, for it can be accounted for by, say, the existence of a fifth ("timelike") dimension, which, as Alamo-Girl has pointed out, would view the entire space-time block as a plane, and not a linear progession in time. Or by some other explanation yet unknown to me.
RightWhale, to say that the physical laws are not material, but that they are "real" all the same, is precisely to beg the question: What we are looking for is evidences of things that are real but non-material and non-physical. And it seems that the physical laws fit the description. To say that "we" are the "cause" of the physical laws strikes me as being a theological statement; i.e., one which is incapable of falsification on its face. :^) But whether "we" are the "cause" of the physical laws or not, either way they would still be non-physical and non-material. Or so it seems to me.
Thanks so much for writing, RW!
I thought so, too, gobucks! It seems to be the "$60,000 question" these days....
Thyanks for writing!
One possibility could be some version of what was suggested (and rejected) by Behe in the op-ed:
Scientists skeptical of Darwinian claims include many who have no truck with ideas of intelligent design, like those who advocate an idea called complexity theory, which envisions life self-organizing in roughly the same way that a hurricane does, and ones who think organisms in some sense can design themselves.
Another is the "seeding" idea of either Hoyle or assistant, whose name I forget. The idea was that this earth shows intelligent design because life was seeded here by life that began elsewhere. That doesn't solve the discussion, and simply removes it to another area of the universe, the location of which we don't know, but it could also be an area where the life issue could be answered because that would be the location where life originally came about.
Another thought....what if the necessary evidence requires better access to a dimension that we have little access to at this point.
I don't follow you here, RightWhale. Not because i refuse to keep you company (I do enjoy your company!), but because I haven't got a clue what you mean. :^) Are we doing set theory here?
Want to tackle that for me one more time?
As I read through all these EV/ID threads, one thought keeps itself at the forefront of my mind: I took the read pill.
I enter into the "real world" every time I get on my knees...
This debate can be a fun diversion however. Then again, I STILL cannot prove that 32.4 medium sized angels can dance on the head of a normal pin.
Er, precisely because it is the New York Times. Presumably Behe accurately pegged them as the sort of incompetent journalists who would find his twaddle worthy of publication.
From your Platonic viewpoint, I understand what you are saying. But from the Aristotelean viewpoint, the behavior of things is inherent in their natures, and they can't help behaving as such things always do. If you find something "out there," external to the material world, which is responsible for such behavior, then you will have undone Aristotle. A worthy goal, but (I suggest) one that is going to be difficult to achieve.
And ... anyone? Nope. Strike 3.
Looks like it is going to be a long time before I find the 'GOP Evolutionists for Bush' website which describes how traditional Christians' adherence to creationism is so bad for the GOP. Looks like this band of ToE brothers is the only outpost of 'reason' about how the GOP needs to be saved.
Not really, except that given your record, the answer was unlikely to be truthful.
"Except"? Now you are revealing your concern that bible lessons are taught truthfully! Good for you. Like I said, there is hope for you.
(By the way, I told them it was likely Eve had a belly button, though common sense would dictate otherwise. What was definitely interesting to me was that in the ensuing discussion, not one person observed that Adam too had a belly button problem.).
The liar in your life, whoever it was ... you need to forgive him RWP. For if you insist on looking for liars everywhere as a result of that betrayal, to validate your belief system, all you'll ever do is spend your life around .... liars.
And you know the old saying about the company you keep...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.