Blinded by Science

Discovery Institute ^ | 6/2/03 | Wesley J. Smith

[Doctor Stochastic]

Fine. Of course, there are laws governing the behavior of such things.

[unspun]

It teaches us that in the presence of an energy gradient, complexity can increase. We find, for example, complex organic compounds in meteorites and in the gasses between stars.

Thank you. While not answering my question, it provides information about the scale of available data which a big-e Evolutionist could use to support his ideas scientifically, if there were only enough.

[unspun]

Many predictions of evolutionary theory are testable. For example, the lack of human fossils in pre-Cambrian strata and the tree structures arising from almost any cladistic analysis of morphological or genetic data. (And that these structures are generally all consistend with other.) Historical sciences (such as forensics and geology) are well-understood. Complaining of a lack of an observer is akin to playing Defence Attorney. (Neither O.J. Simpson nor Scott Peterson were "observed.")

Thank you. This provides information about the scale of available data which a big-e Evolutionist could use to support his ideas scientifically, if there were only enough.

[js1138]

Perhap you would care to clarify and expand on your question. If you are searching for some evolutionary equivalent of a purpose or goal, you won't find one. That would be like searching for a purpose in the specific arrangement of the stars and planets. There might be on in God's eye, but we are still looking through that glass darkly, remember. If evolution is leading in a direction, we mortals are not likely to be able to perceive it. We can, however, perceive the process.

[tortoise]

Yet everything else is the product of chance, of a "stochastic event."

Just because we model something as stochastic does not mean that the event is intrinsically stochastic. It is a very real possibility that our ability is limited to stochastic measurements of a deterministic process.

This is a not often talked about issue. The amount of information in a system and the amount of information we can measure in a system are not the same thing, and it has been suggested that in the case of QM this is exactly what we are dealing with. This idea is old (there are references to Fisher information and physics going way back), but the concept of deterministic processes behind QM has been gaining a lot of traction lately, mostly because it both makes a lot of sense if done correctly and really cleans up the theoretical landscape. This doesn't mean that this is correct, but one can destochastify (new word -- Woohoo!) QM in a clean and theoretically reasonable fashion.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Did someone notify the moderators that another crevo thread has been started? They must just cringe. I'd hate to be refereeing these.

[unspun]

I like your observations (thought the same material that speaks of the dark glass speaks clearly of some of God's purposees).

But the question was about how much actual scientifically demonstrable evidence there is out there in the universe for either stasis, or on the one hand, changes toward ever increasing complexity, or on the other hand, changes towrard degradation.

This is important of course, if one attemptes as betty boop, cornelis, etc. pointed out, to extend (overextend) what we know of any evolutionary processes into being universal explanations of our existence.

(Alas, Rachy seems to be out of FR space.)

[unspun]

This is a not often talked about issue.

And that in itself, is revelatory.

[js1138]

I don't think biological evolution speaks to the condition of the universe. There are physicists and biochemists (and information theorists) that worry about cosmological constants and such, and whether the laws of physics and chemistry are purposefully tuned to allow evolution to happen.

These are independent lines of inquiry and do not directly affect research in biology, except that it is possible for discoveries in chemistry or physics to falsify biological evolution by depriving it of sufficient time to operate. Should this happen, someone will get a Nobel prize and a lot of textbook manufacturers will get rich printing corrections.

This brings to mind a famous scene fron "the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in which a computer is programmed to calculate the answer to life, the universe, and everything. At first the (unionized) philosophers and pundits are horrified by the prospect of their jobs being automated. But when it is explained to them that the answer will not be revealed for several million years, they are content to go on making their living predicting the outcome.

If some new theory replaces traditional concepts of evolution, it will first have to explain all the existing data. This in itself will take decades to catalog and verify. No one will be out of a job. Second, it will open up vast new lines of research. No one will be unemployed. In fact, science writers and pundits will get rich attempting to describe the new ideas to the public.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your great posts and questions!

I was trying to get a handle on which way you were going with your question, i.e. inflationary model or second law of thermodynamics.

I gather from js1138's reply it is second.

The theory of evolution requires autonomy, self-organizing complexity and symbolization from the inception, and that IMHO is the biggest "hang up" because to have all of this speaks against randomness.

[unspun]

Appreciate your observations, js.

But then why do so many choose to embrace Evolution as the guiding force of all that is and use it to attempt to obviate any or all of the following?:

- God's existence
- God's mastery
- God's creation
- God's immanence in his creation
- God's control, as he chooses
- God's constant involvement in the lives of man
- God's judgement of sinners

[tpaine]

But then why do so many choose to embrace Evolution as the guiding force of all that is and use it to attempt to obviate any or all of the following?:

- God's existence
- God's mastery
- God's creation
- God's immanence in his creation
- God's control, as he chooses
- God's constant involvement in the lives of man
- God's judgement of sinners
211 -Spin-


It is your delusion that -- "so many choose to embrace Evolution as the guiding force of all that is and use it to attempt to obviate any or all of the following".
-- Ranting on and on, over & over that this imaginary opinion is true, does not make it true, in fact..
-- But by all means, continue to do so, if it makes you 'feel' better.

[forsnax5]

"The self awareness [mirror] test."

Is there a link that discusses a scientific study on this test?

There's an article from Johns-Hopkins about dolphins here.

[unspun]

tpaine, tell me:

How did life come to exist?

Are you accountable to anyone for your life?
-- Why or why not?

[unspun]

BTW, here's just a bit about what I posted:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/evolutio.htm#In%20Modern%20Philosopy

[Heartlander]

Pretty much - natural selection is a mindless process, with no more purpose or goal than gravity has.

The Theory of Common Descent uses natural selection as a mechanism for the vast diversity of life we now observe. Now, by calling this process 'mindless' and 'without purpose or goal' you have created two options in regard to a Prime Cause (or God):

1. there is no God (i.e. atheism, materialism)
2. if there is a God He never intervened in life's history (i.e. practical atheism, naturalism)

Note: I do not state any specific Prime Cause (or God). Moreover, if someone would like to bring a belief of the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, etc. into this discussion - make sure you attribute them with the qualities of creating the universe, giving intelligence to life, and giving you consciousness.

A 'mindless' process 'without purpose or goal' that is responsible for all life is a philosophy or a religious belief. This form of science is not religiously neutral. Ref Post#55

But let's look at Natural Selection

A pack of wolves have a set order and an alpha male. The set order, regardless of how it came about, is a 'set order'. The alpha male is not necessarily due to size alone, skill and intelligence factor into the equation. Now consider the 'set order' in the pack as well as the 'skill and intelligence' of the alpha male. Is this a mindless process without purpose or goal?

What is currently happening in China in regard to the amount of children that are allowed… Is this mindless and without purpose or goal?

My wife and I 'decided' to have a child. Is this mindless and without purpose or goal?… OK, I set myself up here so let me instead ask how does it compare to gravity?

[tpaine]

But then why do so many choose to embrace Evolution as the guiding force of all that is and use it to attempt to obviate any or all of the following?:
- God's existence
- God's mastery
- God's creation
- God's immanence in his creation
- God's control, as he chooses
- God's constant involvement in the lives of man
- God's judgement of sinners
211 -Spin-



It is your delusion that -- "so many choose to embrace Evolution as the guiding force of all that is and use it to attempt to obviate any or all of the following".

-- Ranting on and on, over & over that this imaginary opinion is true, does not make it true, in fact..
-- But by all means, continue to do so, if it makes you 'feel' better.
212 -tpaine-

tpaine, tell me:
How did life come to exist?
Are you accountable to anyone for your life?
-- Why or why not?
-unspun-


Sorry kid, but imo, no one knows how life originated. - Yet.
-- Thus, I can hold no gratitude to a supposed 'Creator'.

-- Now, what does my statement have to do with your erroneous beliefs about those who "embace evolution"?

[unspun]

The link I gave you should tell you about how feasible paramaters of evolution have been abused.

And speaking of abuse, why are you being so ad hominem?

[cornelis]

without affecting the fact of its existence a whit..

This might be true of that rare impeccable breed of disinterested knowers called Aristotelian. Nowadays the deeper answers are floating visibly at the top as homo sapiens engage the imagination to increase, interrupt, or otherwise disturb gravity in order to render its status as "natural" irrelevant.

[tpaine]

The link I gave you should tell you about how feasible paramaters of evolution have been abused.

No, I doubt that it will. You claim abuse, make your case. Preferably, show me some abuse from people here at FR.. Name some names of those banned..

And speaking of abuse, why are you being so ad hominem?

Again, -- it is ~your~ imagination that I'm being 'abusive'. You don't like what I'm saying, - so now you intend to attack the way I'm saying it, rather than the issue itself.

-- The issue is, -- who on FR is abusing these "feasible paramaters of evolution"?

As I noted at #163:
The 'blind bias' is being shown by Creationists, not scientists.. ~You~ people imagine that separating "science and spirit into mutually exclusive categories" is somehow someones goal..
-- Lighten up. No one here has that agenda, to my knowlege.
163 -tpaine-