Posted on 04/14/2002 12:31:25 AM PDT by sourcery
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"/>
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||
Is something like that possible? It is like having a super accurate prediction of the weather. We can make out general trends, but accurate predictions are really tough.
That's not the relevant question. Obviously each one of us ultimately must decide for ourselves. The relevant question is, "how do we decide which ones (if any) are correct?"Surely you don't deny that everyone has subjective beliefs, and that many people are certain that other people are telepathically communicating to them by way of voices in their head? My point is we have 250 million conflicting "datasets" in America alone.
Preposterous question since a belief by definition is subjective. 250 million is low, but is a "valid" observation. Now, who gets to decide which ones (if any) are correct?
Well, how do you decide which subjective belief is objectively true? Obviously it's the belief that turns out to correspond to reality in the real world. And how do you determine which ones correspond to the real world? By seeing which subjective belief can be verified by many separate observers. Strictly speaking, each of those observers' beliefs that they saw the verification of the belief in question are themselves subjective beliefs, but since they're different people the inherently private nature of a purely subjective belief is filtered out, and the objective truth component remains.
Intersubjectivity. You can't build a technological civilization without it. (I believe you knew that!)
1. Physical phenomena have a natural explanation.
2. Passage of time doesn't change how things are explained.
So, gravity explains the orbits of the planets, and the orbits of the planets obey Newton's laws now, did so in the past, and will in the future. The premise of religion is that there is a supernatural explanation for physical phenomena. For example, a prayer to your deity can cause him to use his supernatural powers to heal the sick.
Maybe am I confused?
(yes, Newton's laws are inaccurate...)
In this vein, Evolution can be considered both a science AND a religion.
I feel like I am butting in on these threads.
Anyway, evolution is not considered a ladder of life anymore, with man at the top of the ladder. The natural kingdom is more of a branching bush, with no species more important than any other. Secondly, the two driving principles of evolution are random mutation and natural selection based on those random mutations. For example, natural selection may cause us to be like the Eloi, or like the Morlocks, or like something else. Or it could be that we won't change at all, just as horseshoe crabs haven't changed for over 500 million years.
(Note, this isn't to say people don't consider humans more important than animals. It only says what evolution considers important.)
Can Human Aging be Postponed? Michael R. Rose, Scientific American, Dec 1999Aging does not occur because of some universal defect in all cell types. If some singular, unavoidable flaw caused every cell to fail eventually, no animal would escape aging. But some do. For example, asexual sea anemones kept for decades in aquariums do not show failing health. Nor does aging derive from a genetic program designed by nature to block overpopulation. Instead senescence is the by-product of a pattern of natural selection that afflicts humans and other vertebrates but not vegetative sea anemones. More specifically, aging arises in sexually reproducing species because the force of natural selection declines after the start of adulthood.
This concept follows logically from general evolutionary theory. Heritable traits persist and become prevalent in a population - they are selected, in evolutionary terms - if those properties help their bearers to survive into reproductive age and produce offspring. The most useful traits result in the most offspring and hence in the greatest perpetuation of the genes controlling those properties. Meanwhile traits that diminish survival in youth become uncommon - are selected against - because their possessors often die before reproducing.
In contrast to deleterious genes that act early, those that sap vitality in later years would be expected to accumulate readily in a population, because parents with those genes will pass them to the next generation before their bad effects interfere with reproduction. (The later the genes lead to disability, the more they will spread, because the possessors will be able to reproduce longer.) Aging, then, creeps into populations because natural selection, the watchdog that so strongly protects traits ensuring hardiness during youth, itself becomes increasingly feeble with adult age.
[For example, progeria, which strikes children with premature aging, are very rare, compared to Huntington's Disease, which strikes during middle age.]
In the 1940s and 1950s, J. B. S. Haldane and Nobelist Peter B. Medawar, both at University College London, were the first to introduce this evolutionary explanation of aging. W. D. Hamilton of Imperial College and Brian Charlesworth of the University of Sussex then made the thesis mathematically rigorous in the 1960s and 1970s.
In their most important result, Hamilton and Charlesworth established that for organisms that do not reproduce by splitting in two, the force of natural selection on survival falls with adult age and then disappears entirely late in life. Because natural selection is the source of all adaptation, and thus of health, the hardiness of older organisms declines as natural selection fades out. Eventually, with the continued absence of natural selection at later ages, survival may be so imperiled that optimal conditions and medical care may be unable to keep the older individual alive.
Since the 1970s the original mathematical proofs have been confirmed experimentally many times, most often by manipulations that deliberately prolong the period of intense natural selection in laboratory animals. Investigators extend this period by delaying the age at which reproduction begins; they discard all fertilized eggs produced by young animals and use only those produced late in life. As a result, only individuals who are robust enough to reproduce at an advanced age will pass their genes to the next generation.
If the declining strength of natural selection after the start of reproduction really does explain the evolution of aging, then progressively retarding this drop for a number of generations in a test population should lead to the evolution of significantly postponed aging in that lineage. This prediction has been shown to be true in fruit flies of the genus Drosophila that have had reproduction delayed across 10 or more generations. As a result of these experiments, scientists now have stocks that live two to three times longer than normal and are healthy longer as well.
The flies that display postponed aging are surprisingly perky. They do not merely sustain normal biological functions for longer periods; they display superior capabilities at all adult ages. In youth and later, they are better able to resist such normally lethal stresses as acute dessication and starvation. They also show more athletic prowess than their like-aged counterparts do, being able to walk and fly for longer periods.
Colin Patterson, Evolution, 2nd Ed. (1999)Ch. 14 - Proof and disproof; science and politics emphases mine, [paraphrases in square brackets], my comments [in small print].
Turning now to the second or special theory of mechanism, many critics have held that natural selection, as the cause of evolution, is not scientific because the expression 'survival of the fittest' makes no predictions except 'what survives is fit' and so is tautologous.... Indeed, natural selection theory can be presented in the form of a deductive argument, for example:
In this sense, natural selection is not a scientific theory but a truism, something that is proven to be true, like one of Euclid's theorems... [Genetic drift & neutral drift can also protect natural selection from the possibility of falsification.]
- All organisms must reproduce.
- All organisms exhibit hereditary variations.
- Hereditary variations differ in their effect on reproduction.
- Therefore variations with favourable effects on reproduction will succeed, those with unfavourable effects will fail, and organisms will change.
[Patterson seems to be saying that natural selection is actually more than a tautology - it's axiomatic - proven true like Euclid's theorems!]
...But the essence of scientific method ... is to test two (or more) rival theories, like Newton's and Einstein's, and to accept the one that passes more or stricter tests until a better theory turns up. We must look at evolution theory and natural selection theory in terms of performance against the competition.
[The general theory of evolution] has only one main competitor, creation theory.... All creation theories are purely metaphysical. They make no predictions about the activities of the Creator, except that life as we know it is the result of His plan. Since we do not know the plan, no observation can be inconsistent with it. ...
In 1978 Popper wrote that the Darwinian theory of common descent 'has been well tested' (he did not say how) and 'That the theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. ... Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research programme to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioural programme.'
Alvin Plantinga makes a philosophical assault on Darwinism, claiming that it is self-undermining. Suppose the Darwinian theory of evolution were true. Then, Plantinga submits, our mental machinery, having developed from that of lower animals, would be highly unreliable when it came to generating true theories. (As it happens, Darwin himself once confessed to the same ''horrid doubt'' about his theory in a letter: ''Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind?'') In other words, if our belief in Darwinism were true, then none of our theoretical beliefs would be reliable -- including our belief in Darwinism. Theism, by contrast, escapes this difficulty: if we are made in the image of God, the ultimate knower, then divine providence can be counted on to have supplied us with reliable cognitive faculties.Ah, but many creationists on these threads have claimed that we are "fallen" - all human imperfections are explained by The Fall. Therefore, any inabilities we may have are explained by Original Sin. So Plantinga's argument fails.
Even beings with perfect mental function would not be omniscient, and would still be subject to the same fundamental limitations regarding what can be known/proven.
Reality by committee, I don't think so.
We should throw out the legal system then, since judges don't believe in natural law. Ha!
OK, then you tell me: How do you decide what's true and what's false?
Yes.
Even beings with perfect mental function would not be omniscient, and would still be subject to the same fundamental limitations regarding what can be known/proven.
Perhaps, but that's not Plantinga's argument. He's saying that evolution says we're finite beings, since we evolved from even more finite beings, therefore human thought is "highly unreliable". He disagrees that human thought is highly unreliable, but other creationists claim our thinking is precisely that, for basically the opposite reason: We're fallen from a prior perfection. They can't have it both ways.
Alvin Plantinga makes a philosophical assault on Darwinism, claiming that it is self-undermining. Suppose the Darwinian theory of evolution were true. Then, Plantinga submits, our mental machinery, having developed from that of lower animals, would be highly unreliable when it came to generating true theories. ... In other words, if our belief in Darwinism were true, then none of our theoretical beliefs would be reliable -- including our belief in Darwinism.
I pinch myself.
Unbelievable! Natural selection drives evolution and its absence drives evolution. Remarkable science.
Funny thing is that it's not logical. The creationists are starting off with a logical fallacy (false dichotomy) at the basis for their strategy to get converts. They have not even tried to do scientific study to produce positive evidence of ID, just tried disproving evolution.
Okay, fine, let's say evolution is found completely false and falls apart as a scientific theory. Then these 'neo creos' they'll think they've won, and believe ID is the only scientifically acceptable answer. WRONG, they've started with a false dichotomy and produced no evidence for their side. At that point, there will be NO scientific theory as to our beginning.
Remember, whenever you read anything on the subject about randomness, just put the word "apparently" before it and you should be okay. After all, science can only operate on what we see and detect ("appears" to us), and we wouldn't know the difference between something supernaturally structured to appear random and something truly random, so the addition can be safely assumed in any discussion. Can we let the God of Random retire now? I'm an atheist, so one fewer gods in the world means nothing to me.
YES! IDers, please write this a thousand times on the chalkboard.
They keep saying their religions answer all questions, give ultimate truth, and then they attack science for not being able to do the same. But it can't, different rules.
Come back to me tomorrow, I'll have a new religion ready with a new set of ultimate truths for you. A new body of science will take a bit longer, since I actually have to go out and find evidence, do experiments, etc. This sucks because after all that work, I'll only be left with a reasonable explanation for things, not ultimate truth. The religion path is easier.
This pretty much describes me. I always thought simple lack of personal belief (atheism) is the only scientifically tenable position since you can't give scientific evidence for or against the supernatural at the level we're speaking of. To consider it would add an unscientific variable to the equations. It's as in "This dropped ball isn't accelerating at 9.8 m/s2. God's slowing it down!" No, before you bring in your deity, let's consider air resistance, etc.
Don't tell me that after all these years I'm not really an atheist, but an agnostic.
At least not without some really good hallucinogenics. :^)
(please turn on humor receptors before you get mad)
Perhaps you're just agnostic concerning whether or not you're an atheist? :-)
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.
n the last decade or so, creationism has grown sophisticated. Oh, the old-fashioned creationists are still around, especially in the Bible Belt. They're the ones who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that God created it and all its inhabitants in six days and that fossils are a product of Noah's flood. In the early 1990's, however, a new breed of creationists appeared. These ''neo-creos,'' as they have been called, are no Dogpatch hayseeds. They have Ph.D.'s and occupy positions at some of the better universities. The case they make against Darwinism does not rest on the authority of Scripture; rather, it proceeds from premises that are scientific and philosophical, invoking esoteric ideas in molecular biology, information theory and the logic of hypothesis testing. 