Posted on 02/12/2005 4:24:09 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
It reflects the nature of creationists and IDers. They can put up no science to support a scientific argument.
Do you have any science that refutes evolution?
What?! The last thing Citizens Bank Park in Philly needs is more home runs! It's the sea level version of Coors Field. Ban the DH.
You couldn't have that. There would be designed plays that would involve intentional wild pitches in order to get around pitching to a difficult batter. It would be no different than an intentional walk with the only difference being having an opportunity to throw the man out a first. It should remain as it is, with the batter only allowed to run after the third strike - at least in that instance the pitcher was forced to pitch and play the game, and did his job by getting three strikes. A batter is not like a runner on base. He's trying to get on base, as he is not counted as a man left on base when an inning ends.
No, I don't. I have no expertise in this. But I do wish the Darwinists would lighten up just a bit and be more civil and less know-it-all.
One of the great influences on Darwin's thinking was Whewell's notion of the consilience of inductions, the attempt to relay all knowledge obtained by the scientific method under a simple set of explanatory propositions. All subsequent work in biology has continued this Whewellian programme of Darwin's.
We have a bit of both types of regulation. But happily, because of people like Hayek, Friedman, Rand, & Reagan, the idea of regulating outcomes is intellecutally discredited, and only survives on inertia & because it's more likely to help well-defined interest groups. (And because of all the tenured leftists still in academia who still believe in economic "intelligent design".)
Well, the batter wouldn't be obligated to run to 1st. Some batters would be at a disadvantage, but others would be happy to exploit the opportunity. Ichiro's at the plate, and the ball gets by Ivan Rodriguez. I'd love to see that one. :-)
It’s late now and I’m ready to turn in, but I wanted to make a few notes for the conversation in the event it is still active tomorrow:
In relativity, an effect belongs to the future lightcone of its cause on an observer’s worldline in four dimensions. But in quantum field theory, that is not the case:
Splitting a single photon of well-defined energy into a pair of photons with initially undefined energies, and sending each photon through a fiber-optic network to detectors 10 km apart, researchers in Switzerland ... showed that determining the energy for one photon by measuring it had instantaneously determined the energy of its neighbor 10 km away
We perceive the physical realm as four dimensions – 3 of space and 1 of time. But string theory suggests that there may be a number of additional dimensions. In Kaluza-Klein theory they are compacted, but in some other theories they are not. In f-Theory, there is an additional time dimension, therefore the time dimension we sense as a line – an arrow of time – under f-Theory is a plane. Therefore, cause/effect could also be effect/cause and past, present, future all are perceptible from the other time dimension.
This is the single biggest objection to the theory because science “wants” to rely on physical causation as suggested by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Non-locality, however, as well as superposition and various other phenomena would make more sense with the extra temporal dimension. Who knows - as with the early objections to inflationary theory trying to preserve a steady state universe, these objections may also disappear.
The Designer in Intelligent Design arguments
Of course most of us would immediately aver that the Designer is God, but as others here have noted the designer could also be alien life in the cosmos (panspermia, astrobiology, cosmic ancestry) or even “collective consciousness” of the universe itself.
Causally-Closed Hypothesis
There is also great resistance in some of the sciences (notably neither mathematics nor physics) - to that which is non-corporeal, i.e. does not exist in space/time. Some correspondents here have the same difficulty: universals, mathematical structures, geometries, physical laws, information, qualia (likes/dislikes, pain/pleasure), complexity, semiosis, the will to live, consciousness, spirit.
It is challenging to discuss evolution with someone who believes that "all that there is" is “all that exists in nature” – but it is particularly difficult when they also dismiss all non-corporeals.
Okay, so you don't understand the difference between the scientific use of the word "theory" and the common use of that word. Why did I expect anything different?
I don't believe that you are nuetral in this battle.
That's kinda off-topic for this thread--private reply coming.
You are exactly right, human memory is just new neuron synapses! Oh rue the day that I ever thought otherwise. Oh wise linker, I humble and prostrate myself before the great edifice of an MRI machine which actually sees memories! They even record dreams on DVD! Surely that must be so according to the scientitific theory you so honestly, caringly and thoughtfully espouse!
We would all love to see just one of your dreams or memories available on their videos, oh wise linker! Please let us know when they are available!
First of all, evolution is not equivalent to saying that there is no design. Evolution is simply the theory that the variation over time of allele frequencies in populations of organisms is sufficient to give rise to all the diversity of modern life. It says nothing about design or lack thereof, because, as I stated earlier, questions of design are not falsifiable and hence not scientific. Please don't confuse the science with the scientists, many of whom I will admit push an agenda that seeks to eliminate the possibility of design. Many scientists and others do indeed use evolution to argue that design is not possible WRT life, but that's not what the theory of evolution actually says.
If you restrict the question to just what the theory of evolution actually says, then it is indeed falsifiable and hence is a scientific theory. There are all kinds of observations that would either completely falsify evolution or lead to major modifications in the theory. Just a few examples: find a new species of life which doesn't utilize polynucleotides as its genetic material, find a fossil of a modern mammal that can be reliably dated to an age of 1 billion years or find a fossil that is a transitional species having characteristics of birds and mammals (both of which all other evidence indicates are branched off from reptiles.)
snarks and cornelis, it seems you read my statement that Plato and Aristotle "weren't working the same problems" as intending something much stronger than I meant to say. As Voegelin noted (and I don't have the source before me to quote from it, so this goes by memory), Aristotle's supposed "disagreement" with Plato was actually a shift of attention to problems that were not in the forefront of Plato's attention. Aristotle remained a lifelong "student" of Plato all the same, an idea captured in Whitehead's remark.
I mentioned this because it has become fashionable (thanks to Ayn Rand and Dr. Piekoff) to believe that the two men had a falling out of some kind, and that Aristotle "corrected" the failings of Platonic thought (which they feel leads to socialism, etc., among other pernicious things). And I was writing to a person who apparently is in the grip of this view.
Thanks for writing!
Stop! You're making me blush.
Sorry, can't resist this quote from a Keith Laumer novel:
"I didn't know you read Kant."
"Kan't read, you mean."
Cheers!
This makes no sense. Central planning doesn't regulate, it dictates. Laissez-faire economic theory eschews regulation of any type. American capitalism embraces neither theory and works pretty well even with too much regulation and taxation.
But happily, because of people like Hayek, Friedman, Rand, & Reagan, the idea of regulating outcomes is intellecutally discredited, and only survives on inertia & because it's more likely to help well-defined interest groups.
OK, so why should I read Hayek? I take your statement to mean that you find regulation a not inherently undesirable feature so long as it doesn't direct outcomes. So why don't you give me some examples of regulation that you find acceptable.
(And because of all the tenured leftists still in academia who still believe in economic "intelligent design".)
The market place incorporates design and selection. You deny that?
How faddish a word! So heavy a burden you import to it, you should melt it down and cast it into scuba-belt weights. That entrepreneurial idea, friend, is as silly as the usage you make of it.
Ummm, yeah.
Some of the articles further within the page look pretty explicitly anti-Christian, reminiscent of say, The Passover Plot or whatever it was called from the mid-1970's.
Careful who you direct there, or they will use the page as ammunition that all evolutionists are atheistic etc. (TM) Patent Pending (copyright) etc.
Cheers!
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.