Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Great points, and regrettably I'm in the logarithmic group myself! :(
Do you have any evidence that it does?
PS I left out the part where I said ID predicts and explains each step of the unbridgeable hierarchy perfectly :o)
If this were just a philosophical question then you would be correct. Aristotle's logic was impeccable. Logic is a tool that we use, not the final arbiter.
Logic, on my understanding, is not a "mechanism." It is that which constitutes the basic "rules of the game" by which "mechanisms" can be assessed and judged for their soundness.
Logic depends on assumptions. It is only as accurate as the underlying assumptions. If the underlying assumptions are wrong, properly applied logic is incorrect too. Science tests the underlying assumptions. Logic and assumptions have to conform to experimental results to be valid, not the other way around.
As to the "Mechanism' I was talking about, ID'ers simply need to show how ID theory fits the experimental data better. Science does not have a viable theory or even a good hypothesis that explains the origin of life. The best hypothesis that science has is that simple chemical interactions 'evolved' to more complex chemical interactions. No one likes that hypothesis.
Here is where religions (believers in an undefined intelligence) have their chance. Explain how life began. What is the mechanism by which life was created and controlled? What is a testable prediction? God should be able to answer those questions easily. Just saying God said so doesn't cut it : ) Allah's word doesn't carry much weight around thinking intelligent people.
The Theory of Evolution isn't perfect, but it is holding up pretty well. Advances in geology, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. have not falsified the original theory. Watson and Crick could have destroyed TOE, but the discovery of DNA only enhanced the theory. The same goes for the fossil hunters, chemists and physicists.
Now the creationists have even given up on their theory and switched to ID where in their mind evolution takes place, but it is guided by an intelligence. The only evidence that they seem to have supporting their theory is the lack of a good complexity theory from science. The Hound of the Baskervilles may make for a good novel but it is bad science.
I don't mind, as long as you're civil about it :).
He seems to agree that evolution did and does take place, guided evolution anyway.
My takeaway was only that he doesn't believe evolution theory provides a complete, universal, exhaustive description of what constitutes biological life.
That is my take too, which makes Williams attack on Evolution a strawman. TOE is not exhaustive, nor has it ever claimed to be.
Its time to recognize the obvious fact that what you are calling "copy errors" are in reality pre-programmed answers (or functions if you are so aligned) to environmental conditions. Sort of a genetic branching statement, much as the development of an embryo is guided by a series of genetic "do-loops."
I think I have kept up my end of the bargain, as have you. Kudos to us both!
PS Although, I have noticed it is harder to treat others with whom you disagree with respect, as opposed to resorting to the usual cut-downs and one-liners. There must be an important lesson in there somewhere.
If logic is to be defined, and I'm not absolutely convinced that it can be so reduced, that sounds like a good starting point.
Agreed.
PS Although, I have noticed it is harder to treat others with whom you disagree with respect, as opposed to resorting to the usual cut-downs and one-liners. There must be an important lesson in there somewhere.
I will add that we are in for trying times, and there will come times when these differences need to be set aside. These threads can be divisive, but as we have just witnessed, they don't have to be. The less they become so, the easier it will be to set those differences aside when the time comes.
Now this new construct completely flies in the face of what you've postulated before about replicable, repeatable and falsifiable...so since you've come to this conclusion for "what happens in nature", you'll no doubt continue to demand all this from ID at the same time no less...???
Funny how naturalistic science gets a free pass from all the shackles you insist for all other branches of science. Where did you learn this?
There are lots of things that can't happen in nature, putting an artificial heart in a human being...but we don't "control or design" the experiments leading up to this feat?
Agreed! For some reason you got me to thinking of hobbits, humans, elves, ents, dwarves, eagles, etc.
Double agreed!
You've tripped over your own tongue.
Division by zero is undefined, but multiplication by zero is well defined. That definition is the basis of the solution of all higher order equations. Without it basic algebra dies.
Works for me, as long as Sauron gets the ass kicking he’s due.
I think I have kept up my end of the bargain, as have you. Kudos to us both!
PS Although, I have noticed it is harder to treat others with whom you disagree with respect, as opposed to resorting to the usual cut-downs and one-liners. There must be an important lesson in there somewhere.
I did...no idea what’s up, but no problems now. Thanks!
You did just fine. Even when you leaned in for a body-slam, you seemed to pull back just in the nick of time :o)
I love that example, “uh-uh, make your own dirt!” and have used it more than once myself.
[[I thought that Williams’ resort to the language of “Polanyi impossibility” was a tad unfortunate.]]
I think that Williams devloped it ok- actually pretty good. IF it can be shown, and perhaps it has, that metainfo, the info about info, could not arise before info, and that it is impossible for chemicals to create the forward looking metainfo (by forward looking, I mean megainfo that has instrucitons to deal with practically anyhtign thrown at it so that species can survive despite constant assaults to it)
Perhaps htough Williams should have said it was a “Wallace impossibility” instead of intimating indirectly that Polanyi might agree- which obviously polanyi would not agree as polanyi feels that info can give rise to metainfo (Despite hte fact that there is nothign in biology to indicate this is hte case, infact, what biology indicates, is that metainfo already exists, and deals with new problems just hte way it was designed to
I think it’s the “Metainformation” that is really key here, that and the fact that simple chemicals simply don’t have this advanced information- no matter how they are combined. Evidence suggests the metainfo is already present, and must have always been already present per the heiarchal arguement
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.