Posted on 06/13/2005 7:50:19 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
Read later..
you: Except the part where an *intelligent designer* makes everything. But that's not God, nope. Sure.
BTW, you might want to check out the "time before time" link for a comparison of cosmologies.
Indeed, Nicollo Dallaporta also observed (paraphrased) that there are no more "big thinkers" in science as in the days of Einstein and Godel. He attributes this to the growth of the field - they have to become so specialized, they don't have time to contemplate and thus accept too many things as "given".
Thank you so much for the suggested reading! It sounds very interesting.
Funny how many exceptions you make for evolutionists in your rule planning. LOL!
You write a lot but don't say anything. Don't accuse me of being narrow minded just because I don't accept your article. If you think this is going to resolve the issue of ID/evolution in the eyes of the average voter, good luck. Make 100,000 copies and hand it out at the next Democratic national convention. I'm sure it will make real inroads and bring people over to the GOP.
It is up to the writer to write in a clear, engaging, and interesting manner. You are all over the place. On the one hand you talk about every subject under the sun, yet on the other, you talk about nothing - tangential thinking to the extreme. Most importantly, science doesn't care about philosophy. Philosophy deals with science, but science doesn't concern itself with philosphy. It's not a two way street. One either accepts the scientific evidence or not.
All this talk of ID not being a creationist tactic reminds me of Muslims who keep saying that Islam is a religion of peace. If that assertion is true, it should be self evident. You shouldn't have to prove it.
Please, don't thank me for sharing my views and insight. I wish I didn't. This was a big waste of time. I don't like being rude, but come on.
For what it's worth, I subscribe to the Catholic point of view. If one just accepts that there are two spheres of knowledge, that of faith and reason, there is no problem reconciling this issue. You shouldn't even need to go through the intellectual gynastics that you do here.
The theories behind ID don't really get much exposure on my side of the Atlantic, so this is a useful resource for me! Thanks for all the hard work.
There are. Don't worry about that. There are several super-major problems in science, especially in the past couple of decades, that have arisen and that will fall to some one of the major thinkers when something clicks. It won't be a simple matter of putting two and two together--that is not genius. It will be classic, bank on it.
If you are a conservative, atheist scientist, as you write in your post to Vladiator, you should find it not only interesting but reassuring.
Thank you so much for sharing your insight! I am very concerned over the related First Amendment battles. The clause has morphed into a freedom "from" religion rather than a freedom "of" religion. The result may be a state religion, or in this case, official anti-religion.
Well, mine does at any rate. :-}
Have a good day.
Thanks for bumping by!
Thank you so very much for your encouragements, Da_Shrimp!
Science may care or not care but many scientists certainly care about philopsophy and let their philosophy influence their science.
Not that state-sanctioned religion is necessarily a bad thing, it is very popular around the world, but if that is what we are doing by the back door we ought to at least be conscious of what we do.
IMHO, the methological naturalism mindset is what causes tunnel-vision and prevents great leaps of progress.
The forces that "chop off" the Gaussian distribution are
"randomly" generated (i.e. cannot be predicted), and are
not the work of any intelligent agency...that is why
ultimately natural selection is "not directed"
But, my guess is that words get in the way of what we are
trying to say. For example, is the universe really random?
Just cause Heisenberg, and Schrodinger showed us that we
have to use mathematical formulae to estimate where particles
are, does that mean they conform exactly
to a mathematical model?
If labor statistics show that there is a depression, did
you have to lose your job?
Just because we don't know how things work, does that mean
they are random?
I would love to see an essay on whether there really is
such a thing as "randomness"....
As another example,, with nuclear decay, each radioactive atom decays supposedly
spontaneously and on a large level, in a group of them,
a certain amount, let's say 1/2 of them will decay over a
certain amount of time (half-life)...But what is it that
makes Atom A decay, but not Atom B? My guess, is that we
need to know more about matter to answer that question,
and no appeal to the "randomness" of the process appears
to be adequate. Could it be, that in an environment which
has lots of X-rays, neutrinos, fast neutrinos, free protons,
etc, the half life of some radioactive material could be
different? If that is so, then the "random" decay of these
elements could be brought into question. Any studies out
there?
You make valid input, but please, be a little more gracious of the message being presented here.
She thanked you for your input because she valued it. Telling her to not thank you is telling her to not value it.
You subscribe to Catholic beliefs. Act like it.
Oh, and BTW, Science is a philosophy. Science may or may not "concern itself with philosophy" but it sure as hell copncerns itself "within philosophy."
And if it was such a waste of time, why post twice?
Or could it be that in a moment of weakness, you realized that discussion of such a topic is a way to let others know whats going on? Dialectic thinking has its benefits?
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.