Let's Have No More Monkey Trials - To teach faith as science is to undermine both

Time Magazine ^ | Monday, Aug. 01, 2005 | CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

[b_sharp]

"(Think the competition will come out with the "New FORD Virus!")"

You mean it hasn't yet? News to me.

[b_sharp]

"The Prius will result in the NEW Ford Viron! "

Making me laugh this early in the morning is probably a good thing. :)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

The 'problem' is not with things which are non-physical, but rather with things which are non-testable. What sort of "scientific method" could provide a means to empirically test that which is supernatural or non-physical? If it is testable, at least in principle, then it is within the scope of 'science'. If not, then it isn't.

Everything which I have mentioned is either testable or observable - either directly or indirectly.

For instance, Strominger/Vafa used string theory to calculate the Bekenstein/Hawking black hole entropy. Another example was Einstein's pulling Riemannian geometry off the shelf to describe general relativity. Communications and computer technology is proof of Shannon's Mathematical Theory of Communications. And there are many other such examples…

Well, I'm not a Platonist. ;o) Depending upon your definition of "physical", I'd dispute the notion that physicists are dealing with the non-physical.

You might want to consider the field of geometric physics including string theory.

In fact, the whole issue of matter itself is quite “up in the air” in physics. The Standard Model requires the Higgs which has neither been made nor observed. Even if CERN finds it, it would still be only 5% of the critical density of the universe. Hence all the work on supersymmetry because higher mass particles are necessary to explain dark matter (25%) which is the non-radiating form around which galaxies rotate and dark energy (70%) which is dissipated throughout the universe and acts a counter to gravity.

The mainstream of physics is looking to dimensionality (geometry) for explanations of matter.

What would a non-physical answer look like? How would the question be framed? And how would one go about determining the truth of such a hypothesis?

It would look like Shannon’s mathematical theory of communications, Einstein’s special and general relativity models, Hilbert space, Godel’s incompleteness theorem and so on.

[b_sharp]

"Is a sperm cell alive? Is it human? "
"Is an unfertilized egg cell alive? Is is human?"

More good questions, unfortunately not questions I can answer. However I do not believe there is some 'essential' difference between prelife and life. I do believe that there is a difference between abiogenic prelife and death.

[Analog Artist]

The only thing I hate more than fundamentalists are DIGITAL guys.. all they do is keep droning out the same stupid things.. Analog is natural, elegant and beautiful, digital is zombified and brain dead.

[b_sharp]

"What is it? Do you know?"

You are making an unfounded assumption that there is indeed 'stuff'.

[Analog Artist]

Come up with your own eye-catching phrase... for a change ;)

[Analog Artist]

Ohh, you gotta scientist "hit list" now ? befits you'll quite well.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your replies!

xzins: The most intriguing is "live rabbit versus dead rabbit." What is missing from one to the other that makes it no longer living? Great question.

RWP: I find it amusing you both are so entertained by a point originally raised by Richard Dawkins.

Indeed, this from Dawkins:

If you want to understand life, don’t think about vibrant, throbbing gels and oozes, think about information technology
. — Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1986.

Since Dawkins is a rabid atheist, IMHO, this business of inviting mathematicians to the table was a death wish on his part.

The thing which is missing when a live rabbit becomes a dead rabbit is information (successful communication).

For Lurkers: Information (successful communication) is the reduction of Shannon entropy (uncertainty) in a receiver (or molecular machine) going from a before state to an after state.

There is no known source for information in the universe at this time. The areas available to science to look relate to the geometry: harmonics, fields, etc. Beyond that it is a question for theology and philosophy.

Moreover, when one investigates the Shannon theory applied to biological life – there are several ways in which a communication may be initiated within the molecular machinery. Among these are:

interrupt – such as presence of food, light, temperature, etc.

cycle – rhythm or timing

will – either involuntary (“will to live” “struggle to survive” “fecundity principle”) – or voluntary (choosing to move a finger, to fly away, to raid or defend, select a mate, etc.)

[b_sharp]

Thanks for responding. As I've said before, I'm loaded with .22s and you're loaded with .45s. Let me increase my caliber before I join in this discussion.

[b_sharp]

"I have a computer in the next room that won't boot. What's the vital spark that's missing?

Send it to me and I'll fix it for you.

[xzins]

"Stuff" is for want of presuming the answer to the definition.

I'm sure you'll agree that the dead rabbit and live rabbit are different, and that "something" is no longer with the dead rabbit that was with it prior to its death.

AG, I'm not a student at all of Shannon (who, what, when, etc.) and what she has written/done. Can you give the nutshell version? Thanks. Z

[b_sharp]

"I'm sure you'll agree that the dead rabbit and live rabbit are different, and that "something" is no longer with the dead rabbit that was with it prior to its death. "

Nope. I believe it is more like something is turned off.

>"AG, I'm not a student at all of Shannon (who, what, when, etc.) and what she has written/done. Can you give the nutshell version? Thanks. Z"

I'll let A-G field that question. The only basis in Shannon I have is in relation to computer network communication.

[Dimensio]

Demented knucklehead established... DEMENTED LOOSES.

Geez, you've totally lost it, haven't you?

[Dimensio]

You remind me of the leftists trying to compare Bush to Hitler.

The difference being that neither Bush nor his aides have ever invited Nazis to speak on their behalf.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so very much for your replies!

Claude Shannon is the father of "information theory" which is part of the discipline we call "mathematics".

Here is a biography on Shannon from Mathworld

His original theory, written back in the 1940's is available here: A Mathematical Theory of Communications.

His theory has been applied for many years to "molecular biology" in both cancer research and pharmaceuticals. For an introduction: Introduction and Overview

Obviously this is one of my favorite subjects - but I must leave soon to go help with some construction projects and thus won't be able to respond until late this evening. But I am looking forward to reading your comments!!!

[Right Wing Professor]

Send it to me and I'll fix it for you.

Thanks for the offer, but I think I can manage :-)

[Right Wing Professor]

Since Dawkins is a rabid atheist, IMHO, this business of inviting mathematicians to the table was a death wish on his part.

Oh, given he's an Oxford professor and probably interacts with mathematicians on a daily basis - in fact, given that he was one of the first biologists to apply game theoretical insights to evolution - I doubt he's much intimidated by mathematicians.

BTW, if he's a rabid atheist, are you a rabid Christian?

[Right Wing Professor]

Pi has been around even longer than you have

Oh, for sure. And the Bible says its value is 3.

It is a theory a theorem.

Is English your first language?

[Right Wing Professor]

But what's that stuff that's missing for a dead human that it had just moments before as a live human?

Depends on the cause of death. Often, it's a few quarts of blood.