Posted on 08/24/2005 6:51:49 AM PDT by Quick1
"Again, your statement is a philosophical statement about science, not a statement of science. It is not itself an empirical construct."The first sentence refers to what can be studied by the scientific method. The second refers to convention. The APS, ACS, NAS, ect all agree to that convention. The convention is "NATURAL" entities and forces not SUPERNATURAL entities and forces." That's usually implied and most folks understand that. Scientist should definitely understand and follow that convention, because the supernatural is arbitrary claim only and is not subject to the scientific method.
The empirical constructs in science are the mathematical representations for any particular entity(ies) and representations for the interactions of those entities.
"on what basis do you imply that "the laws of physics govern the world"?
They govern all physical phenomina. The phenonina simply react according to their nature, always in the same consistent way. The laws are representations of that reality contained within conscious conception.
"if the laws of physics govern the world how can scientists act as objective observers unless they themselves transcend the laws of physics"
They don't transcend the laws of physics. Scientists are simply sentient machines. The physics provides the basis for the machine.
" how can they transcend the brute forces of physics if they are simply and nothing but a part of them?"
By being careful. Sometimes however, there's nothing one can do to avoid the inevitable.
Such behavior has long been the modus operandi of evols. . .that a attempts to berate those who don't agree with their views.
I concur - their tactics are very telling.
It's highly overrated. Hmmm...the Great Rottini. Where might I find him. Being close to supper time and all, maybe... he's hungry.
Cappellini & white clam sauce?
The ways of the FSM are mysterious.
You must be one of those Carbonarists ...
Most life forms on this planet are.
Stop making sense! You know damn well that calm, rational discourse is taboo on these threads!
There are only approaches allowed:
"Ladies and gentlemen! In this corner we have the religious whackjobs supporting ID (aka stealth Creationism); in that corner we have the apostate scientific doomed-to-perdition supporters of Evolution."
Unlike boxing matches, however, there's never a winner in theses bouts.
the only place kids are being prepared to learn crappy science it would seem are in parts of Kansas and PA. and other states and municipalities that require the paralell learing of ID and creationism....
I will have the linguini with calamari in a fra diavolo sauce myself...thank you very much....
The claim that irreducible complexity poses some unanswered questions regarding natural selection is scientifically valid. Asserting that the lack of a complete understanding of these things is evidence of ID is not. Your mistake is in assuming that testing the valid portion must be considered as a test of ID as well.
The scientific questions posed by Dr. Behe deserve scrutiny. To invite such examination and then use the act of testing itself to try to give credence to the unsubstantiated, unrelated claim that irreducible complexity is proof of ID is deliberate subterfuge.
Goo to you via the zoo (the Flying Spagetti Monster built the zoo)
I am a mere lay person in regards to science, but I accept as a definition in this case to be the established scientific process. I may be rusty on it, but I believe that would mean for something to fall under 'the realm of science' it would need to begin as a testable hypothesis. Now if you are also asking me to provide empirical proof that this is how science works, then I fear I am not the right guy for the job. As I said, I'm just a lay person here.
Who are we mere "midgits" to deny the wonderfully complex Creation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may peace be upon Him).
Irreducible complexity is a conclusion based on a model. The questions already existed. Behe and the others composed the model to contain the questions and fix the outcome of their calculations to fit their desired concluison. The conclusion is that "organisms, organs, or organelles" are "irreducibly complex", that's where "arbitrary design" comes in. To answer the original questions.
Thats very sacri-licious of you.
I caught a discussion on CNN last night where some schill from the Discovery Institute and Deepak Chopra represented the ID side.
More specifically, ID is the desired conclusion and irreducible complexity is merely a convenient model, with no substantiation to the assertion that IC is evidence of ID.
And thus why tests aimed at falsifying irreducible complexity are in no way also trying to falsify ID, as Diamond wants to claim.
And that is the unfalsifiable beauty of ID.
Why such hostility? I must have struck a nerve.
Also, I wasn't trying to BE funny in the post you were replying to.
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.