Posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
The inverse square law does not hold under all conditions. What is it that you think admits of no exceptions?
I'm sure you feel this is a rebuttal of some sort to my point, but I suspect you are alone in this.
Science became self-sustaining, despite the environment it developed in, because it increased the speed and reliability of research into the natural world.
Now, there are, of course many unsolved problems, and scientists are the first to admit this. There are aspects of human subjective consciousness that are deeply mysterious. Neither Steve Pinker nor I can explain human subjective consciousness -- what philosophers call qualia. In How the Mind Works Steve elegantly sets out the problem of subjective consciousness, and asks where it comes from and what's the explanation. Then he's honest enough to say, "Beats the heck out of me." That is an honest thing to say, and I echo it. We don't know. We don't understand it.
He then rightly states that just because there is no deterministic model which cannot explain it, this does not "prove" that some supernatural theorem is true. All this is true enough.
My problem with Dawkins is that he makes a wild jump from this "God of the gaps" charge to inferring that this firmly anchors "true science" as being done within a mechanistic, or materialistic framework, and that anything else is mystical hocum, a step away from bringing in the witch doctor to chant and dance away the evil spirits.
While I can understand that coming from some first year biology student, that kind of silly horseshit is precisely what does NOT belong in science. It is philosophy masquerading as science. Dawkins is smart enough to see that, but his unreasoning hatred for all things religious pushed him into an arbitrarily defined universe where he blithely pronounces his philosophical presuppositions concerning the natural universe as "science" itself. It is not only arrogant, it is fundamentally dishonest.
And...., did you miss the fact that I thought him a wee bit arrogant?
Mega Barf alert.
Oh dear. So why does double negation result in an affirmative in English, but a negative in Russian, if these correspond to universal principles?
Basically, what you're doing is assigning whatever you can't assign to an identifiable person to God, and then deducing from that, that all laws must have a giver.
My understanding too. The statement you quote was not mine.
Organic simply means the compound contains carbon, and there are not plenty of organic compounds floating around in space. There are some very simple organic molecules. Methane, some alcohols, formaldehyde, the simpler amino acids.
We're talking about the real moleclues of life, if you will. How about the protein chains required for the Krebbs cycle? What about ATP or ADP?. These molecules cannot exist outside of living organisms. The intermediates are unstable outside of very specialized conditions and the presence of specific enzymes to catalyze the reactions.
And the geometry of the proteins is essential, too. They have to form in such a way with the proper helper enzymes so that they fold into the correct shapes, otherwise they are usless or even harmful. These compounds simply cannot form or exist outside of living organisms; the physical laws governing the formation of their chemical bonds prevents it.
There are actually statements of some sort of religious belief long after the publication of "Origin." However, he announced that the reason he dropped out of divinity school was the rejection of some of the seminal tenets of orthodox Christianity. So, maybe he was a "believer" of something related to orthodoxy. Not to try to get a measuring stick out to see who knew more about Darwin (I am sure that you do!)..., just stating what little bit I am familiar with.
Dawkins is the illusionist. Remember all his computer simulations? He used many unrealistic assumptions that favor evolution. His simulations assumed away everything that could prevent evolution.
They did not allow extinction, which normally would terminate all further evolution
They did not allow error catastrophe, which normally would cause a degeneration away from any target sequence
They did not allow canyons and hills in the fitness terrain (which BTW is never defined) which normally would prevent evolution
In short, they assume naive natural selection - that evolution is upward, ever upward.
So having artificially disallowed all possible failure modes, it is not surprising that the evolutions simulations worked.
Dawkins' readers got the impression he casually threw the computer simulation together and speedy evolution just happened automatically.
So Dawkins, in his computer simulation aids the ILLUSION that evolution is simple in concept, inevitable, and fast.
One could go on and on and on about the ab surdity of this THEORY, but the cultists refuse to leave the plantation.
Ooops.I pinged the wrong post. Sorry.
Doesn't matter much. The actual target is room temperature.
It's a cause and effect thing. I don't know of anything, aside from God, that is uncaused. Similarly, I know of no law that has no "law-giver" or creator, etc.
In some contexts it does, in others it doesn't. If you're truly a fan of Aquinas, you should be able to make such distinctions.
What's your point?
with regard to this question of Professor Ruse's sex life, that's the question you never answered (referring to our earlier exchange): How could you possibly know what sort of attitudes Ruse and his partners had towards one another?
From his own words. Let me put it to you this way. If some dude at work mentioned something like this at coffee break, would you question his character? I sure as hell would.
Your willingness to condemn the man without evidence...
Publicly declaring, without prompting, that he sleeps around, doesn't constitute evidence of a lack of morals? I suspect that your confusion regarding his character would evaporate if he was dating your sister.
...is disturbing and calls into question your judgment.
Oh dear.
Moreover, even if he were a libertine (which I don't grant), his personal habits are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the scientific and philosophical claims he makes. You should know this.
But the issues which he positions himself to judge the truth or falsity of will determine whether his promiscuity is the result of matter in motion or a sinful character.
He has a vested interest in the debate and should recuse himself.
No, merely noting that, per evolutionary theory, the first-whatever-we-now-call a chicken had parents who were not-quite-yet-what-we-call-chickens.
Hence, the egg came first.
e and o in obstreperous. sorry, dyslexia of the fingers
God, ultimately. Basically, my point is that this orderly and intelligible universe reflects an orderly Intelligence.
#####....and then deducing from that, that all laws must have a giver.#####
Do you know for a fact that there is no giver to the laws of physics or chemistry?
Well, Mr. Dawkins, is there objective truth or is everything a matter of perception ? If the latter why do you insist so vigorously on the truth of what you say?
It is rational to assume that where there is a law there is a law-giver, and where there is design there is a designer.
Dawkins answers:
"-- Any entity capable of deliberately designing a living creature, to say nothing of a universe, would have to be hugely complex in its own right. --
-- The designer's spontaneous origin ex nihilo would have to be even more improbable than the most complex of his alleged creations.
Unless, of course, he relied on natural selection to do his work for him! And in that case, one might pardonably wonder (though this is not the place to pursue the question), does he need to exist at all? --"
Can you [or anyone here] answer the resulting rational question? -- Who designed the Designer's "spontaneous origin"?
Because both English and Russian speakers recognize the underlying principles of negation and affirmation. The specifics are irrelevant, otherwise English speakers and Russian speakers would be unable to communicate the notions of affirmation and negation, and you would be unable in principle to pose your problem.
However, it is a comfort to know that the evolutionary curia has representatives here in Freep to make sure that orthodoxy is maintained. Personally, I'll stand with Cranmer and urge Ridley to make such a blaze as shall ignite all Christendom!!
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.