Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Finding God with biocomplexity
EurekAlert ^ | Apr 25, 2008 | Grady Semmens

Posted on 04/25/2008 12:27:33 PM PDT by Between the Lines

After centuries of trying to uncover the fundamental laws of the universe, science is still no closer to answering some of humanity’s biggest questions about the meaning of life, the existence of God and the evolution of the human mind and societies. Is that because science is not sufficiently advanced to tackle such problems" Or is it because the traditional approach to science is incapable of answering humanity’s deepest wonders"

It is the latter, according to University of Calgary physicist, biologist and philosopher Stuart Kauffman, who argues in his forthcoming book that nature’s infinite creativity should become the basis for a new worldview and a global spiritual awakening.

“We are at the point where we are realizing that there are some things we are never going to fully understand because there are no natural laws that can fully explain the evolution of a species, the biosphere or the human economy,” says Kauffman, a pioneer of complexity theory and founder of the U of C’s Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics. “This means that reason alone is an insufficient guide for living our lives. I believe we can reinvent what we hold sacred as a view of God that is not a supernatural Creator, but the ceaseless and unforeseeable creativity of the universe that surrounds us.”

Kauffman’s newest book Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion (Basic Books, New York) will be released in Canada on May 19. “Radical,” “brilliant,” and “comprehensive,” are words being used by colleagues and reviewers to describe the book, which Kauffman hopes will provide a middle-ground between the destructive tendencies of religious fundamentalism and the anti-spiritual attitudes presented recently in popular books such as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion “ and journalist Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great.

“Words like ‘God’ and ‘sacred’ are scary to many of us who live in modern, secular society because they have been used to start wars and kill millions of people, and we just don’t need any more of that,” Kauffman says. “What we do need is for humanity to become reunited under a common global ethic based on the idea that we are all part of nature, and we will never be the master of it because it is not entirely knowable.”

Reinventing the Sacred argues that Reductionism – the philosophy based on the work of Galileo, Descartes, Newton and their followers that everything can ultimately be understood by reducing it to laws of chemistry and physics – has been the basis of our scientific worldview for nearly 400 years and is the foundation of modern secular society. Using arguments grounded in complexity theory, he argues that it is time to break this “Galilean spell,” since the reductionist approach is inadequate to explain the infinite possibilities of evolution and human history. Instead, Kauffman argues that the highest levels of organization are the result of the unpredictable process of emergence.

“It’s not that we lack sufficient knowledge or wisdom to predict the future evolution of the biosphere or human culture. It’s that these things are inherently unpredictable because we can never prestate what all the possibilities might be,” he says. “Can a couple walking in love along the banks of the Siene really be reduced to the interactions of fundamental particles" No, they cannot.”

The book then argues that the process of emergence can provide the platform for reinventing what humankind considers most sacred. It also discusses why arguments for intelligent design fail in the scientific realm and how complexity theory can build a bridge between the traditionally opposed views of science and religion.

“God is the most powerful symbol we have and it has always been up to us to choose what we deem to be sacred,” Kauffman said. “To me, the idea that we are the product of 3.8 billion years of unpredictable evolution is more awe-inspiring than the idea than the idea that everything was created in six days by an all-knowing Creator.”

An essay outlining Kauffman’s Reinventing the Sacred thesis is contained in a new series of 13 essays by distinguished thinkers on the topic “Does science make belief in God obsolete"” currently published on the John Templeton Foundation website at: http://templeton.org/belief/. The preface and first chapter of the book are currently published as an essay titled “Breaking the Galilean Spell” on Edge.org at: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman08/kauffman08_index.html

An essay by Kauffman titled “Reinventing the Sacred” is also scheduled to be published in the May 10 issue of New Scientist magazine.


TOPICS: Current Events; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: christianity; creation; darwin; evolution; intelligentdesign; religion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last
To: Soliton
The purpose of the experiment is not to prove evolution, but to demonstrate that evolutionary processes mimic design. Chesterton once said that God writes straight with crooked lines.
21 posted on 04/25/2008 3:58:17 PM PDT by RobbyS (Ecce homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

You are talking about events occuring within certain parameters. IAC, the first definition of design is not a plan but of action with an end in mind and taking place on a kind of “playing field” and in accordance with certain rules. Sort of like a football game.


22 posted on 04/25/2008 4:07:23 PM PDT by RobbyS (Ecce homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

Find the beginning, find the end.


23 posted on 04/25/2008 4:22:20 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
You stated,"In simpler word's Science is incapable of explaining everything."

The original definition of the word Science is to know knowledge.

Science is not an entity, it is nothing more than knowledge.

Man who is fallible can not explain everything is the true statement.
24 posted on 04/26/2008 7:21:09 AM PDT by 1Truthseeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
“Words like ‘God’ and ‘sacred’ are scary to many of us who live in modern, secular society because they have been used to start wars and kill millions of people, and we just don’t need any more of that,” Kauffman says. “What we do need is for humanity to become reunited under a common global ethic based on the idea that we are all part of nature, and we will never be the master of it because it is not entirely knowable.”

The whole article is against God. This paragraph is a half truth that those who are on the fence and those who do not believe at all will use to justify their reason for not believing at all.

What god and what sacred is spoken of here, all ah the koran, buddha, cows, monkeys ect.

The Bible is clear we are to learn for ourselves of what it says and Jesus does not say go out and make war.

Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, ect. killed millions more than the so called holy wars.



It is unfortunate that many will read this and say yes that is what we need a one world government and religion, which by the way is Bible prophecy and is coming to a town near you.


25 posted on 04/26/2008 7:21:10 AM PDT by 1Truthseeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1Truthseeker
Man who is fallible can not explain everything is the true statement.

Man can not explain everything through science is equally true.

This contradicts what I have been told here in this forum.

26 posted on 04/26/2008 9:17:32 AM PDT by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
True true.

Secular man requires a naturalist view of how it all came to be, to remove God which is Jesus from the equation of creation. This same removal also allows them to believe that our actions in the world do not effect others as long as we keep them in our own back yard, this is a lie that the devil has perpetrated upon man kind.

To many God did it is not enough or maybe to much for them as if God did it he may have rules to live by and these rules do not include the life styles that Holly-weird portray. Like the degradation of the family unit, putting down of the father figure and husband, fornication, drugs and alcohol ECT.
27 posted on 04/27/2008 11:58:42 AM PDT by 1Truthseeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

bump


28 posted on 04/27/2008 12:03:11 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

And guess what, chum? That experiment showed that the optimum airplane was created by Intelligent Design, not random selection. Thanks for adding it.


29 posted on 04/27/2008 12:09:54 PM PDT by Robwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Robwin
And guess what, chum? That experiment showed that the optimum airplane was created by Intelligent Design, not random selection. Thanks for adding it.

The experiment has been conducted hundreds of times and has never supported intelligent design. If you have any scientific evidence FOR ID please offer it or be quiet and let the adults talk.

30 posted on 04/27/2008 1:02:09 PM PDT by Soliton (McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Yeah, gee, I wonder if the adults noticed that: (1)no documentation for any of this was presented (no proof, just a claim, is typically evo);(2)the design teams were composed of intelligent beings with an envisioned purpose; and the optimum design reulted from, in your own words, “...so physics determines the wing shape, not some random event.” Yes, not some “random event”, but rather purposeful intent.


31 posted on 04/27/2008 5:40:03 PM PDT by Robwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
First evolution theory isn't about origins

I never claimed it was. I said the theory claims that all life evolved from the first single-celled life form.

natural selection picks from variations in the output or "phenotype' of EXISTING genes.

Unless you are trying to claim natural selection has intelligence, it is nothing more, in theory, than random mutations that turn out to be successful in helping the species survive. Limiting the choices of natural selection to wings and popsicle sticks is as joke as we both know that there are hundreds of millions of instructions in a single cell. Adding random mutation to that mix and you have an almost unlimited number of variables.

In this case, the die is used to randomely select a phenotype of a wing, long, short, thick, wide etc.

That assumes 'natural selection' has decided that a wing is the most valuable way for the species to survive, has 'selected out' all other options, and has limited the possible designs for the wing. Sorry, but unless you are claiming some intelligence in 'natural selection' that doesn't wash.

32 posted on 04/28/2008 8:58:52 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
Leviticus 11:19 uses the Hebrew word "tuf nun shin mem tuf" - "Tinshemet" - to refer to a "bird", then uses the same word in 11:30 to refer to a "reptile".

'Seems interesting to me.

33 posted on 04/28/2008 10:32:34 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
The evolution team just has multiple lengths of straws and dozens of different wings to select from.
I would personally like to know how the evolution team came up with the different straws and the wings to start with...
34 posted on 05/13/2008 12:02:01 PM PDT by redtetrahedron ("Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee" - Jer 1:5 | RIP Fred'08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: redtetrahedron
I would personally like to know how the evolution team came up with the different straws and the wings to start with...

No you wouldn't. That would imply intellectual curiosity. As a primitive thinker who believes in ghosts, no rational explanation or mountain of evidence would suffice to convince you.

35 posted on 05/14/2008 4:15:13 PM PDT by Soliton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson