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,”
In simpler words- Science is incapable of explaining everything.
To: Between the Lines
“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.”In other words, God is andother name for evolution
2 posted on
04/25/2008 12:42:07 PM PDT by
Soliton
(McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
To: Between the Lines
"In simpler words- Science is incapable of explaining everything." Only those who engage in Scientism attempt to use science to explain everything.
3 posted on
04/25/2008 12:43:29 PM PDT by
Matchett-PI
(Driving an Operation Chaos Hybrid that burns both gas AND rubber.)
To: Between the Lines
Yet another godless god and just as satisfying to the soul. The secularists will keep trying with new visions of the natural world that we should stand in awe of and yield to as ‘sacred’. Humbug.
To: Between the Lines
Science requires proof, this stuff requires belief.
5 posted on
04/25/2008 12:51:36 PM PDT by
stuartcr
(Election year.....Who we gonna hate, in '08?)
To: Between the Lines
Is that because science is not sufficiently advanced to tackle such problemsIt has nothing to do with the level of advancement in science. Science is the study of the matter and energy. It simply isn't the realm in which certain questions can be answered.
14 posted on
04/25/2008 1:40:11 PM PDT by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
To: Between the Lines
Absolutely. Science is incapable of explaining everything. However that doesn't support the leap in logic of “cdesign proponentists” that therefore we must change the fundamental nature of Scientific inquiry based upon empiricism.
Its not “perfect” so lets scrap the whole thing and start from the assumption that “magic” and “Astrology” are Science.
Why mess with the most productive means for gaining usable information about the universe ever proposed by humanity?
19 posted on
04/25/2008 2:36:22 PM PDT by
allmendream
(Life begins at the moment of contraception. ;))
To: Between the Lines
Find the beginning, find the end.
23 posted on
04/25/2008 4:22:20 PM PDT by
onedoug
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.
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.
To: Between the Lines
28 posted on
04/27/2008 12:03:11 PM PDT by
VOA
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
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson