Posted on 06/03/2009 8:42:23 PM PDT by gobucks
Exactly so, dearest sister in Christ! That seems to be the very thing that science, as presently constituted, cannot capture by its methods.
Here's another huge question. If we and everything else in the natural world finally "bottom out" and are "unified" in the realm of (seemingly inchoate, homogenous, and non-purposive) quantum particles and fields (as is nowadays widely supposed), what accounts for the "particularity" or specific thing-ness of inorganic and organic entities that we commonly observe? That is, what imbues them with the character of actual "objects" that are detectable as such by our senses? For that matter, why/how do we perceive "structure" in the world in the first place?
Just a little food for thought.... At least it's something I've been thinking about lately.
Dearest sister in Christ, thank you ever so much for pointing out what ought to be obvious but isn't so to many!
And not only the autonomy of a biological organism consisting of interactive functions which serve its autonomous existence - but also collectives of organisms, e.g. army ants or bees, which although individually spatially separated act as a whole.
Thank you oh so very much for your insights and encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!
“....rambles on about tweaking and adjusting the theory as new data comes in.
Which is exactly the position I hold, that the evos will not allow anything to falsify the ToE.”
You need to find a different line of reasoning.
Theories - all of them - adjust to new data. It is a rare theory that is not revised based on new observation and research. The question you really need to ask yourself is why hasn’t “creation science” actually come up with a reasonable refutation of Darwin? Darwin observed, documented, reported, revised, and extended - and was widely published. These are things that every competent scientist does. These are things that are either all, or significantly missing in “creation science”.
Science is not at work to shoot down your religious faith, but if you absolutely feel that science should have a role in your faith, then hold those that claim science validates Genesis to the same scientific standards.
Nobody is conspiring against religion to keep some imagined scientific “house of cards” from coming down - that your fellow creationists have you believing should also give you pause.
Believe in creation as you wish, but don’t castigate those who actually understand science for understanding it.
That is ignorance through malice - and that gets you ridiculed, but unfortunately, only reinforces the conspiracy delusion that is the most powerful tool of “creation science”.
Take wishful thinking out of your faith - and forget about “creation science” There are no answers there to anything about faith or science. In fact, creation science has no redeeming virtue whatsoever, unless, of course it follows the path that all discoveries must follow.
Creation “scientists” follow zealot psychology that refuses to let them follow “rules” set by people they think are going to hell. Don’t fall for it any longer, and live in your faith for what it is - not what you think it can be proven to be through false research by unqualified posers.
This could be a difficult question to answer scientifically, or philosophically, and even religiously.
Fortunately, we have access to poets:
"Jenny Kissed Me"
Jenny kiss'd me when we met,
Jumping from the chair she sat in;
Time, you thief, who love to get
Sweets into your list, put that in!
Say I'm weary, say I'm sad,
Say that health and wealth have miss'd me,
Say I'm growing old, but add,
Jenny kiss'd me.
-- By Leigh Hunt. That's the kind of thing that makes inanimate objects, mundane events, and even ordinary people something special.
Your first sentence is true. The second sentence is speculative and inappropriately applied."If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
Darwin's critique of his own work suggested that a Creator might occasionally be expected to co-create organisms with mutual dependencies; a flowers-and-bees and chicken-or-egg conundrum in one pretty package.
He admitted that finding such a situation would indicate that his concept was faulty in that regard. However, no such situation has been observed. Perhaps you can enlighten us with your observation that "one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species" which would, by Darwin's own admission, show his theory to be incorrect.
"I don't think it could, because neither candle, lit or unlit, would be a complex system within Rosen's meaning. In general, inorganic systems are not complex systems.
Just thinking through what you wrote, how does one "disassemble" a candle? I suppose one could melt it, or smash it up with a hammer. But to "reassemble" it would not reconstitute the original candle."
In careful accommodation to the spirit of this analysis, one could disassemble a candle molecule by molecule, and the wick thread by thread, reassembling the candle in a new place with every component in its proper place. One would be hard pressed to be able to distinguish any difference from one to the other.
In my example of the lit candle, even this careful and laborious procedure is met with difficulty. For the bottom of the candle, one would proceed as above. Once you arrive at the area of melted wax, you will begin to perceive a few extra dimensions to the problem.
In theory, one could record the temperature of the wax, and continue further. Eventually, when you reach the flame, trying to record the temperatures of the atoms of carbon incandescing in the rising prodicts of combustion become even theoretically perhaps impossible.
The clever student will suggest that the practical thing to do is to extinguish the flame and then re-ignite it. But that is not the same thing at all.
We poets often accord candles a propensity to imitate or allegorically stand in for living things. One begins to understand why this is effective in studying the question I posed.
Well granted, one could "in principle" or "theoretically" disassemble and reassemble a candle as you describe — on the presupposition of limitless possibilities that would accrue to the presupposition of limitless time. If you have limitless time, then sooner or later everything turns out "right." [By whose standard of "right" is not a piece of information that is usually disclosed.]
But to people for whom "endless time and no constraints on 'possibility'" is not the presupposition, your argument is unconvincing.
To make it convincing, you would have to show how you would "disassemble a candle molecule by molecule," and then later reassemble it molecule by molecule back into its precisely identical original configuration. And then give a reason for why the candle resulting from this process would in any way BE the "original" candle. And these two things I believe you cannot do.
But if you want to take a crack at it, I'm all ears.
The point is, if you can't do that, then consideration of all that follows in your post is premature at best. In the judgment of some of your readers here, what you wrote may have indicated a desire to steer us into an impossible (and quite fruitless) wild goose chase....
Your final point — "One would be hard pressed to be able to distinguish any difference from one to the other" — implies that a universal standard according to which truthful judgments can be made, and on which they depend, is completely unnecessary. Because the way reality appears to us is its "final truth."
Which is the same as saying: There is no "objective" truth in reality. Thus Everyman must be his own logos.
If you want to impress me with your line of argument, try T. S. Eliot....
As if the sanctity of "ordinary people" depended on the "blessed" oracles of poetry....
What is wrong with people nowadays? Are they so entranced by sterile doctrines and lesser poets that they have forgotten how to LIVE??? AS MEN???
The poets can't do your living for you — or for me, NicknamedBob.
Actually, I wrote more than one paragraph.
My purpose was not to have anyone actually attempt to do this exercise, but to embark upon a mental journey of experimental procedure.
Doing so, one quickly determines that there is a difference between a lit candle and an unlit one. This determination can also be made with one’s eyes closed, by a method akin to practicing Braille reading.
It is not poetry that makes special our memories of people and events, or gilds the ordinary luster of a wooden chair.
One would think that a very religious person would appreciate this concept.
For an example of a species that evolved.... look at the banana. Yes, it was selected by a particular human for its traits, but multiple mutations resulted in a new species.
So sad that creationists use a humanly developed plant as their example of intelligent design by G-d.
For instance, teleportation happens routinely in Star Trek, i.e. "beam me up, Scotty."
And I recall an old sci-fi/horror movie where the "original" had to be killed so it would not duplicate the recreated copy.
And surely someone has filmed a horror/sci-fi flick that has the teleported copy zombified (alive but without a soul) - an evil copy of the original.
The latter would be closer to the "lit" v "non-lit" candle - or our breaking down rocks and rabbits if it were possible to teleport "life."
In my view that is the poison pill of teleportation and the key to the Rosen review.
Or to put it another way, in the case of the live rabbit - or man - the whole really is greater than the sum of its parts. The whole, reduced to its physical components, cannot be reconstituted.
Oh goodie. It's always best to "lose reality" as often as possible. This sort of recession into abstraction gives a pleasant divertissement from the gritty necessity of having to function in the real world of direct experience. Which, as human beings, it is incumbent on us to do. At least insofar as we truly desire to understand our world.
Aha! The real "missing link" right there! That is, the irretrievably lost information, the price paid for reductionist methods.
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your informative and most engaging essay/post!
Hey! Wait-a-minute!
Whose side are you on, Lady?
Good grief NicknamedBob, I really don't understand your question! Side??? Francis Bacon tells me not to take sides. At least he felt scientific progress was best advanced by a certain neutrality WRT contending arguments.
But I can take the science hat off if you'd rather discuss poetry. That would be most welcome!
Teleportation in Star Trek is a mechanical process, even though one of the supposed technical explanations related that it was akin to the Warp Drive.
As described through action in the series and the movies, the process disassembles an object and subsequently reassembles it, unavoidably involving exactly the question about "original" versus "recreation".
This, by the way, was always Doctor McCoy's objection to "beaming". He felt that he was leaving his soul behind. (Presumably, this should only happen on the first beaming occasion, right?)
Anyway, other methods of teleportation may not be entirely encumbered by this problem. So-called "natural" teleportation, as done by the X-Men, other comic-book superheroes, and Gully Foyle from Bester's "The Stars My Destination", seem to involve disappearing from one location and reappearing in another without aid from mechanical contrivances. It's more a matter of making the space between places disappear than of making an object disassemble itself and then reassemble itself.
So these characters should be able to retain their souls, if they have them to begin with.
A much more likely scenario to present us with this dilemma is the notion of assisted reincarnation. This would be a process of transferring thoughts and memories from one body into another. Presumably, the purpose would be to move from an unhealthy or aged body into a youthful and vibrantly healthy one. (Let me note at this point that it is unethical in the extreme to use an occupied body).
I got around this problem fictionally by gradually transferring memories from an older, failing brain into the growing new brain of a clone, slowly migrating the individual into its new location before a separate individual could come into awareness.
Whether this constitutes a transmigration of the soul is left as an exercise for the gentle reader to determine, as even the reincarnating individual was unable to discern any difference between his old state and his new one.
Another mental exercise to consider is that if someone, somehow, developed the ability to live for a very long time, or even become effectively immortal, he would still be plagued by doubts about the presence or absence of a soul.
And, of course, he would never learn about the rewards due him in his afterlife.
"Natural teleportation" seemingly is a reference to wormholes — which are mathematical objects that have not yet been directly observed in nature as far as I know. I understand the folding of the spacetime "fabric" is mathematically tractible; but what the math describes has not yet been seen in physical reality.
In Star Trek, the "beam me up Scotty!" method of teleportation is probably physically unrealizable — that is, by means of Newtonian assumptions and methods. I don't know whether it's mathematically tractible.
But this was the pip:
Another mental exercise to consider is that if someone, somehow, developed the ability to live for a very long time, or even become effectively immortal, he would still be plagued by doubts about the presence or absence of a soul.Really cute, NicknamedBob. Not that you believe in souls or the afterlife. You seem to suggest one moots the entire problem of afterlife if one can become immortal. [Science is probably working on it.] Then, one never has to face Judgment. All you have to do to evade Judgment is to never die. Plus you seem to assert that such an effectively immortal person would never have any awareness or confidence that he had a soul. Are you suggesting that a person has to die physically before he becomes aware that he has a soul??? [Reply in the affirmative would posit soul as a real entity (LOL! but then so would a reply in the negative); but the respondent couldn't know that for certain ('cause he's not dead yet, being virtually immortal.... Don't get whiplash here folks!)] So he dismisses the issue as irrelevant to him.And, of course, he would never learn about the rewards due him in his afterlife.
Plus on such a view it follows that if one cannot learn anything about "the rewards due him in an afterlife," one has no reason to alter his behavior in the here and now. Since he cannot (because he doesn't need to, being virtually immortal) see the measure of Justice, he might as well make himself his own measure.... And so he does.
Diagnosis: Total spiritual closure. Prognosis: Utter despair sooner or later. For as Francis Schaeffer starkly put it, the most rational thing a nihilist can do (given his worldview and presuppositions) is to commit suicide.
I'm trying to understand your thinking here. At this point, I'd have to say you seem to be rather attracted to the doctrines of atheism, a/k/a nihilism. Which is a kind of party trick....
If this picture isn't correct, then please correct it!
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.