Life 2.0 (Science plays God)

The Economist ^ | 9/10/06 | The Economist

[Quark2005]

Wow, how far can we take this? I mean, tornadoes can count, then! Waterspouts, and even those little funnel cyclones that form in the tub when you pull the stopper!

Here's a good example of order arising from chaos through strictly naturalistic means: giving birth. Does it require supernatural intervention for a fertilized egg to develop into a newborn, or do natural laws suffice? Surely you won't argue that this isn't a sufficient example of order arising from chaos.

You can't just handwave the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics like this, DLR. In order to apply the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you need to draw a boundary around a defined system, and calculate the change in entropy of that system. In order to show a hypothesized process is thermodynamically impossible, you need to show that the energy input across the boundary is insufficient to cause the stated change (decrease) in entropy of the system. No creationist source citing the 2nd Law for this purpose has ever done this (including the link you provided), and without this, the 2LoT is about as useful in application towards evolution as the price of tea in China.

[ml1954]

Anti-science literal fundamentalist Biblical proselytizing spam.

[VadeRetro]

I mean, tornadoes can count, then!

Why shouldn't they? Lets don't forget the "wall cloud" at the back of the thunderstorm cell from which the tornado descends. Yes, a lot of concentrated energy and structure arise from initially diffuse moisture and warm air. If you take the water back in time, it was once probably on the surface of some lake or ocean in a much lower energy state. Isn't the Sun wonderful?

Ilya Prigogine, investigating mathematical models of "systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium," showed that "self organization" is a frequent emergent property of such systems and, no, they don't violate the 2nd LOT. His work got him the 1977 Nobel for Chemistry.

[VadeRetro]

I notice you're still waving AiG and Jonathan Sarfati around despite their having allegedly embarrassed you repeatedly. It's hard to put a good face on that.

[Elsie]

CREATING life from scratch is the sole province of G-D, ain't it?

Creating SCRATCH from NOTHING sure seems to be!

[Elsie]

You didn't say....

PLAY NICE!

[Elsie]

You left out.....

---

[metmom]

Perhaps you will bless us with an example of a living thing that actually resembles a manufactured thing in materials and workmanship.

You can't because the living thing is so far superior to the man-made manufactured thing that it's hard to make the comparison.

The last time I looked, manufactured things did not assemble themselves or reproduce themselves with variation and negative feedback.

That's right, and if those simple manufactured things are the result of intelligence and design, then the far superior living things that can do things unheard of compared to our simple machines, must have been the result of a far superior intelligence.

[js1138]

But you are missing the point. Things designed by evolution are different in almost every respect from things manufactured by humans.

The only real exceptions are manufactured things designed with the aid of evolutionary algorithms (copied from nature).

The future of design in complex manufactured goods rests with our ability to understand and copy evolution in our design processes.

[b_sharp]

"But they have no compunction, when considering life and/or "God", in jumping to the conclusion (but treating it as 'axiomatic') that God worked and thought primarily as an engineer. Why not a hacker, or even an artsy-fartsy "creative" type?"

Because that image of God does not fit in with the 'Platonic ideal' of a God that has been put forward by Christians.

[Elsie]

...the 'Platonic ideal' of a God that has been put forward by Christians.

Which 'Christians'?

A 'poll' just out shows that Americans (US type, I guess) put 'god' into mostly one of four major categories.

[b_sharp]

"A 'poll' just out shows that Americans (US type, I guess) put 'god' into mostly one of four major categories."

Which categories?

[grey_whiskers]

Because that image of God does not fit in with the 'Platonic ideal' of a God that has been put forward by Christians.

Not all of them. J.R.R. Tolkein has some interesting essays about creation and sub-creation.

Cheers!

[Elsie]

 

The '4 Gods'

---

Authoritarian
(31.4 percent of Americans overall, 43.5 percent in the South)>
• How God is seen: Angry at humanity's sins and engaged in every creature's life and world affairs.
• Believers' traits: Religiously and politically conservative, they want an active, Christian-values-based government and federal funding for faith-based social services. About one-third say God favors the United States in world affairs.

Benevolent
(23 percent overall, 28.8 percent in the Midwest)
• How God is seen: Sets absolute standards for mankind but is forgiving, like a father who embraces a repentant prodigal son.
• Believers' traits: More than half (54.8 percent) want the government to advocate Christian values. This group draws more from mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews and mainly sees a forgiving God. More than two-thirds say caring for the sick and needy ranks highest on the list of what it means to be a good person.

Critical
(16 percent overall, 21.2 percent in the East)
• How God is seen: Has a judgmental eye but won't intervene, either to punish or to comfort.
• Believers' traits: Less likely to draw absolute moral lines on issues such as abortion, gay marriage or embryonic stem-cell research.

Distant
(24.4 percent overall, 30.3 percent in the West)
• How God is seen: Followers see a cosmic force that launched the world, then left it spinning on its own.
• Believers' traits: This has strongest appeal for Catholics, mainline Protestants and Jews. It's also strong among "moral relativists," those least likely to say any moral choice is always wrong. Less than 4 percent say embryonic stem-cell research is always wrong, compared with 38.5 percent in the authoritarian model.

Source: Study conducted by Gallup and analyzed by Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion.

---

---

 

from here--->

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060912/NEWS06/609120444&SearchID=73256785614797

[strategofr]

"Yep. Toss superintelligent AIs into the mix (we'll have sufficient hardware in a decade or less, software is harder but progress is being made) and things get really interesting."

In the Chinese curse sense.