Posted on 11/01/2005 6:27:26 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
38; DOH!!
IMHO, the Discovery Institute threw a prime rib roast into the arena of hungry theologians and scientists. It seemed as if the effort stopped with the hypothesis – and they sat back waiting for investigators to come up with the experiments to evidence or falsify the hypothesis.
Personally, I believe they are excellent strategists and it was intentional to separate the politics and legal aspects so they could play out separately – that they always knew the mathematicians and the physicists would vindicate the hypothesis.
I have no other explanation for the cautious, superb wording of the hypothesis which says:
The “intelligent cause” keeps it from being theology and opens the door to phenomenons such as emergent properties and fractals.
The “universe and life” changes the focus from strictly biology to cosmology, physics and math (which is the key).
The “undirected process such as natural selection” reveals the target: randomness. In that regard, I can think of two unequivocal statements which will make the point without any help at all from the Discovery Institute:
Order cannot rise out of chaos in an unguided physical system. Chaotic systems, by definition, must be bounded, be sensitive to initial conditions, be transitive and have dense periodic orbits. Order requires a guide.
That subtle change of expression from “random mutations” to “variations” leaves the door open to “autonomous biological self-organizing complexity” and thereby the vindication of the hypothesis even if every single one of the investigators deplored the entire "intelligent design movement".
I have absolutely no idea of what you mean by an "unguided physical system", or what you might mean by a "guided" one. How does this not flatly contradict your earlier paean to the concept of "emergent properties"? Emergence is all about order (or higher levels of organization) arising spontaneously, i.e. without specific guidance, in complex systems.
Physical causality is itself a guide. Thus the only scenario under which there are no guides "in" the physical system is the void from which there was a beginning of geometry (cosmology). That there was a beginning from the void points to guides which are not "in" the physical system, the geometry.
In the void there is no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no physical laws, no physical constants, no mathematical structure, no logic, no physical causality. There is no physical causality in the void.
The cause of a beginning must be uncaused - and the only candidate for uncaused cause is God Himself.
Thus when I say "order cannot arise from chaos in an unguided physical system" I'm making a very obvious and unequivocal statement about physical systems.
When we examine guides to physical systems more deeply - taking it to the void of cosmology - it also becomes a theological statement. As Jastrow said (paraphrased) the fact of a beginning is the most theological statement ever to come out of science.
These attractors are the additional "guides" in self-organizing complexity. Self-organizing Systems
Well, maybe I should say that's what it's all about to the New-Agey types at the SantaFe Institute (as well as to many more conventional thinkers and researchers). But more simply "emergence" can simply mean the observation that higher levels of organization are often not entirely reducible in explanation to the most fundamental applicable principles. For instance it's been claimed that you could know everything possible to know about hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and yet still be unable to predict in advance all of the properties of water.
But this still seems to contradict your dictum that "Order requires a guide".
It is not unusual to find many investigators who still regard space/time as three dimensional space evolving over time. That, even after nearly of a century of relativity. But it happens; relativity is not intuitive - elegant, yes - intuitive, no.
And that may contribute to the misunderstanding here as well - geometric physics is generally not intuitive. Therefore, a steady state universe or infinite past may be intuitive to some even today although both have been banished to the dustbin for decades.
But it is true that emergence can be the "nature did it!" catch-phrase for that which defies explanation:
There is no consensus amongst scientists as to how much emergence should be relied upon as an explanation. It does not appear possible to unambiguously decide whether a phenomenon should be classified as emergent, and even in the cases where classification is agreed upon it rarely helps to explain the phenomena in any deep way. In fact, calling a phenomenon emergent is sometimes used in lieu of any better explanation.
That is an unequivocal statement. There exists a guide "in" every physical system by definition (whether chaotic or not) - and there must exist a guide pre-existing physical causality for there to be a beginning of geometry and therefore, physical causality itself.
O.K. I understand you now. The problem is your statement is far too obvious, and therefore trivial. It amounts to saying, "the universe exists". This we already knew.
"Why in the world would you post this trash here and why should anybody take ANYTHING this moonbat says, seriously?"
I agree. The article is a vile rant, reminiscent of Hitler addressing a Nazi rally. Since were not dealing with fact or logic here, the only thing to discuss is the mental pathology of the author.
The Intelligent Design debate itself, which is an interesting one, has to be conducted elsewhere.
"What is considered "legitimate science" these days -- that is, methodological naturalism (the term which I continue to interpret as "scientific materialism") -- manifests fundamental philosophical presuppositions at its very base."
Thyis presumption is made for one reason only, without it there can be no science. This is not an issue for you and I to solve. Science solved this centuries ago. We use methodological naturalism because it works. Period. To call it a philosophical assumtion that makes science philosophy, is to misunderstand at every level the concepts at play.
Methodological naturalsim makes science not philosophy. To say it the other way is simply wrong.
"You know I've noticed that those that accuse of lying easily are probably liars themselves.. One thing you get over and over from "Evos" is accusation of Lying.. not being ignorant or misinformed but lying.. Why is that?.."
Repeatedly posting things that are easily fact checked, and completely wrong, is lying in my book. Being called on it, and attacking the accuser, is equally dishonest.
" Your logic is unintelligible to me. My statement does not aver that chaos is non-existent, rather that you cannot get from chaos to order in a physical system without guides which are, by definition, minimally part of a chaotic system. Therefore the statement that ”order cannot rise out of chaos in an unguided physical system” should be obvious and unequivocal to any physicist"
And yet, all reputable physicists believe the opposite. Perhaps it is you who misunderstand. My logic is very clear, and the fact that you are conflating two sperate, and imcompatable sets of ideas is the real stumbling block.
Also, since you dropped your canard about the ID hypothesis, I'll assume you do agree with me that ID is not science.
Alas, I am sorry you do not wish to talk with me further, and sorry my actions have pushed you to that. In any case, I am going to return to lurking.
Thanks to all who participated in the debate. Sorry if I stepped on any toes.
Good luck at overturning the foundation of post enlightenment thought. I'm sure you'll find a lot of Islamo-fascists and flat earthers eager to run to your aid. Just don't be upset if your elected officials don't want to have their photo's taken with you guys.
To the contrary, I assert that Truth is always hidden in plain view.
Thus when we examine the guides deeply looking at the structure of space/time, we are drawn to the void of cosmology and affirm Jastrow's observation about beginnings.
The subtle point is that the guide at the beginning opens the gates for additional non-corporeal guides to physical systems across the geometry of space/time - or, in the jargon of the intelligent design hypothesis, "intelligent cause" by agent (God, in this case) - as well as by phenomenon.
IMHO, this is what the "universe and life" phrase achieves in the intelligent design hypothesis. The origin of "intelligent cause" doesn't matter - that is, whether it is a phenomenon (emergent or fractal) or agent (God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia).
On the other hand, calling someone a liar for not agreeing with you is just ignorant.
In fact if all these things are "guides," then nothing in the universe can be "unguided". Which makes it trivial and useless to talk about things being "guided," since it's only the same as saying that they exist in this universe. Yet you do talk about some things (within the universe) being "unguided," which is contradictory and confusing.
What you call "wishy-washy relativism," I call local control of schools. I don't favor some gang of atheist "philosopher kings" dictating an educational curriculum from on high that everyone is forced to go along with.
Joe,
There it is. Education must be a grass roots democratic process. The same is true of science. When either become captive by elitist cadres of gaurdians of education or of science all is lost. Education and science are the business of people, not experts.
I understand the phrase "natural selection" in the intelligent design hypothesis to mean failures or more specifically failures with respect to apparently random processes, i.e. mutations.
Failures destroy order rising from chaos in a physical system; they are not guides to the order or complexification of that which they destroyed. The mechanism of failure might itself, however, be ordered by other guides in a physical system, including a chaotic system.
For instance, an otherwise successful complex species may become extinct from a tornado destroying its habitat. The natural catastrophe was not a guide to the complexity of the species it destroyed. The tornado itself however was the result of other guides in a chaotic system.
The failure itself will reduce and thus change the potential for order to rise from possibily different combinations of guides. (autonomous biological self-organizing complexity)
All of this of course applies to "certain features" not "all features" - thus the apparently random mechanism of mutation also remains a source of variation which may be reduced by natural selection (failure).
You can not simply deny the legitimacy of your opponent's statements. You must enter into their logic and establish a Socratic dialog. To do this you should at least act as if the person with whom you disagree is your intellectual equal. Using derogatory language does not achieve dialogue.
No one here is interested in assaulting you or belittling you. Your insistence upon using such devices only limits your ability to communicate.
Try persuasion instead of assaultive accusations. Or are you simply trying to show off to your fellow belligerents?
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.