Posted on 04/21/2008 7:23:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Your post 191
The film was not to present theories of ID
Apparently it didn't. It did present scientific theory.
The film features Raelians, does it?
Indeed. It presented pamspermia as a theory of the established scientific community, not ID. That’s what I said in the first place.
Go see the film. Then you might gain some credibility.
I’ll take that as a “No.”
What do you think panspermia is, Neo-Darwinism? But again, you asked if you mischaracterized the film when you did not answer whether you had seen it or not. The film was not to present theories of ID. The film was to discuss a "non-controversy" controversy.
Well, the suceeded in not presenting the theories of ID. "Non-controversy" controversy sounds like some politician trying to appear to say something without really doing it.
Well, since you need explanation, the Darwinists think there is no controversy since ID is religion, yet there is a controversy since NCSE attacks the movie for discussing a "non-controversy". Plus there are examples of "unfair" treatment of individuals who so much as mention "ID". This was explicitly admitted to, for one case, by someone representing Iowa State University. So there is a controversy.
Well then we have more, if you count the “non-controvery” between ID and pamspermia, versus the perception of ID that people seem to be leaving the movie with.
I would say I am refraining from such a leap by sticking to what I know - that matter and radiation behave according to the same laws in every observation that we make, without exception.
Entropy as we know isn't just limited mechanical systems. It is alive and well in the transmission of information which is why evolution is simply not possible.
This statement of yours is entirely unwarranted. The connection of entropy to information originated with Shannon when he introduced the term by analogy with thermodynamic entropy. It is not a property of information per se, but of a communication channel. Higher entropy means a greater information carrying capacity as defined by the log of the number of equally probable outcomes of a received message.
In this definition it has no direct connection to thermodynamic entropy. I know many have tried to make the connection. I have a book entitled Entropy, Information, and Evolution which I bought some years ago, but I never felt it contributed much.
Certainly, it is possible to calculate the thermodynamic entropy of organized versus unorganized systems of molecules ( entropy of mixing ) but one finds in this case that the decrease in entropy required by organization is much smaller than the entropy associated with small temperature changes.
In the earth environment with its constant bath of solar radiation, the 2nd Law presents no barrier whatsoever to self-organization. It's true that our grasp on the possible pathways for self-organization is tenuous, and we see little success in theories of life origin. Nevertheless, there are no grounds for declaring that a correct theory is impossible, even if we despair of ever arriving at it ( which I do not. )
Dr Lew,
According to your way of thinking, Venus and Mercury should have far more advanced life than here on Earth.
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate
Well maybe, but panspermia is not the "dogma" and does not "control" things so as to treat people who mention "ID" unfairly.
There is nothing new under the sun.- Solomon
There are practical reasons why trying to put ID on "equal footing" with ToE in the context of science and scientific research. The proponents of ID seem determined that those reasons either don't exist, or don't have anything to do with the situation. They're getting a little to good at playing the victim for me to have a lot of sympathy for them at this point.
I made that point in a previous post.
You don't "play" the victim when you are the victim. I'm sure that the simple mention of ID is not equal footing with current dogma, but that is what is attacked. NCSE exists solely for this "non-controversy".
There are always "practical" reasons for actions. They are "practical" to the practitioners.
“Current dogma” is that scientific theories need to be testable in order to be able to do research on them. Maybe that’s not fair, but that’s how it is.
Bull, science begins with observation(research), followed by hypothesis then theory. Surely, Darwin's boat trip was research and considered science. The hypothesis stage of ID is not allowed by current dogma.
BTW, Dawkins gave evidence that ID as a "theory" was testable.
Would you mind explaining how you do research on a theory that there is no way to ever determine whether it is correct or not? If it’s testable, what is the test?
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.