Posted on 10/07/2005 7:48:04 PM PDT by Heartlander
It's like the presumption of a relationship between Christians and intelligent design.
Correlation is not causation.
In most cases, that's true.
Unfortunately, causation between ID and a branch of Christianity is not in dispute. It has been proven by the "Wedge Document" that is the subject of this thread - ID is a stealth attempt to insert certain religious dogma into science, the disgarded "creation science" in a new form designed to pass Constitutional muster.
Why would you muddy things up with images of cats giving birth to dogs or snakes to lizards? That's just silly. No offspring can ever be a different species, not even a hundred generations removed. Even PunkEek would consider a thousand generations pretty fast.
Wouldn't it be great if science had a "truth in labeling" ethic such that it would distinguish its own pronouncements as being either episteme or doxa?
Would you be willing to apply this same ethic to philosophy and theology?
Also they have lost sight of the classical perception that truth (Logos) is not approximate or relative, i.e., some kind of sliding scale of value that allows us to say that something is "more true" or "less true"; but is actually realized in the forms and natures of existent entities, and inheres in them...indeed, the Cosmos itself is the reification of Truth; and man, the microcosmos, fully participates in it at all levels of his being.
Sorry, but to me this reads like a bunch of meaningless metaphysical hoo-hah. :o)
I'm all in favor of reading the Greek philosophers, but I don't look to them for answers or "truth". Philosophy is much better at coming up with questions than with answers. Which is why philosophy qua philosophy is no closer to answering its questions today than it was 2,500 years ago. On the other hand, the branch of philosophy which evolved into modern science has proven remarkably adept at asking answerable questions, and answering them.
If you think that platonic forms have some sort of objective reality, then there is little likelihood of our finding common metaphysical ground.
And there are many levels -- inorganic, vegetative, animal, psychic ... I'm sure an idea like that strikes the modern ear as being very strange.
Don't forget the four elements -- fire, earth, water, air. And the four humours -- yellow bile, black bile, phlegm, blood. And the four temperaments -- choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic, sanguine.
I'm sure these also strike the modern ear as very strange. But if we only redefined science to include the myths and metaphysics of the Greek philosophers, think how much more advanced our chemistry, medicine and psychology would be. :o)
To which malakhi responded:
That is not a testable hypothesis. ;o)
You said:
LOLOLOL! It's not a hypothesis.
To which I said:
Disprove it!
You replied by saying:
Even the thought of a pursuit to disprove God is anathema to me.
You have in one breath succinctly demonstrated the difference between scientific learning and religious faith. Thank you.
Exactly.. like the first three chapters of Genesis seem to be metaphorical.. One mid east language scholar I know translates the word "creation" as "re-creation" or remodeling.. implying but not specifying a possible pre-earth(as we know it) civilization, at least a pre-earth, civilization or not.. Be that as it may the Genesis rendition could be much more than a "creation". i.e. what happened to the earth that would require a re-creation.., like that..
My unpublished book, "The Universal Canvass" goes into that possiblity as an opener.. Fiction true.. but maybe not completely.. LoL.. If the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is not a metaphor (and a good and deep metaphor) I would be extremely surpised.. same with the other metaphorical images outlined in the single best seller of them all, the Bible..
If ID is ever taught in science class, the people who pushed for it will ber horrified.
First of all, the methodology of science will still be taught, exposing the claims of religion to scrutiny.
Second, if we assume that all living things were designed, that would include diseases and parasites. The (not God, of course) designer will be held responsibile for what looks like the work of a psychopathic sadist.
Under the Platonist paradigm the geometry exists and the geometer comes along and discovers it, 4D space/time consists of four dimensions one of which is time, a tree falling in the forest makes a sound even if noone is around to hear it.
Under the Aristotlean paradigm the geometer creates the geometry to describe what he observes, space/time is three spatial dimensions evolving over time, and a tree falling in the forest makes no sound if noone is around to hear it.
Evidence for my worldview includes relativity (both special and general) and that Einstein was able to pull Reimannian geometry off the shelf to describe space/time under general relativity.
There are many other such evidences I could use and other examples of the difference in worldview - but you are absolutely correct. As Tegmark put it, the Aristotlean sees the world from the eyes of a frog - the Platonist sees the world from the eyes of a bird.
IMHO, the frog is at a disadvantage because to him the bird does not exist. The bird, OTOH, sees the frog.
He pointed out that science needed that bar because theories were being valued entirely by their "explanatory power" alone rather than whether the theory was true. He used Freudian psychology and Marxism as examples - people would read Freud or Marx into every article in the newspaper. IOW, it became dogma.
I'd suggest doing some reading on basic cosmology.
you: Either an unsupported assertion, or a tautology.
Lurkers: if you are interested in meditating on the above, you may find post 237 helpful.
It's pretty much demonstrated by this thread, where science has been asked to make just one teenie-weenie adjustment -- give up empiricism.
And there are ongoing events without causes.
Sure, just give up what makes science "science."
The intelligent design hypothesis is that "certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.".
The intelligent design hypothesis is not creationism for the following reasons:
I. The "intelligent cause" is not stipulated.
II. There are two types of intelligent cause
B. Creationism refers to “all features” not just “certain features”
C. Creationism has many variations of doctrine concerning the involvement of God in the creating process:
b. Young earth creationism stipulates that God specially created everything – the universe and every species.
c. Old earth creationism recognizes a mix of theistic evolution and special creation.
2) Some Christian doctrine is that Adam was specially created (ensouled) but doesn’t speak to any of the mechanisms other than that.
E. The intelligent design hypothesis does not substitute for the theory of evolution because:
V. Any “intelligent cause” which is determined to be the best explanation for “certain features” will vindicate the hypothesis, for instance:
B. Phenomenon: That molecular machinery chooses to cooperate to the survival of the whole organism.
C. Phenomenon: That collectives of organisms (swarms, etc.) make decisions the component organism cannot, which gives the species a survival advantage.
D. Agent or Phenomenon: That there exists a universal will to live – a life principle, fecundity principle, or evolution of one – which is the primary inception of information (successful communication) in biological systems.
E. Agent: That the complexity of “certain features” cannot be explained by natural mechanisms given the age of the universe.
F. Agent: That order cannot rise of chaos in an unguided physical (as compared to mathematical) system.
I have, but I don't value fiction or fact in that sense.. I see them both as possiblies.. in the cosmological sense..
US; Frogs receiveing photons in a well and makeing assertions.. whether the frog is arrogant or not is irrelevant to me.. He and me are still frogs.. relying on photons that move in slow motion(universally speaking..) to understand cosmological things..
Are these extra dimensions postulated to be a part of our own universe, or something outside?
I'm not sure exactly where Lisa Randall's inter-dimensional theory is in being tested
Nowhere yet, but it is to be tested when the large hadron collider is completed. As I understand her theory, it deals with a different way of looking at gravity involving an extra dimension of our spacetime.
It has everything to do with one's worldview regardless of the subject. Here's a research thread on the forum: Freeper Investigation
Indeed, looking at the original language in the mechanical, literal and poetic aspects - the theme of Genesis 1 is order rising out of chaos.
If you are interested in my musings on the subject: Scriptures and Origins
you: The only possible uncaused cause is God.
me: Either an unsupported assertion, or a tautology.
you: Again, there is no physical causation prior to a beginning of space/time regarless of cosmology and dimensionality (inflationary, multiverse, multiworld, ekpyrotic, cyclic, chaotic inflation, imaginary time, etc.).
So the answer is "tautology", then.
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.