Posted on 05/30/2002 7:40:53 AM PDT by Gladwin
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Dictionaries contain lots of slang and made-up words, and "Darwinist" is one of them. If such terms pass into common usage, they're included, and rightfully so. That doesn't change the fact that "Darwinist" conveys a distinctly different meaning from "evolutionist." I'm glad you understand the distinction.
I suppose there's nothing here, either . . .
You're right about that. Even if we found a little bacterium somewhere busily chunking away and producing the works of Shakespeare we can't discount the possiblity that a human actually wrote the originals. If your point is that the scientific method can not prove the requirement for a designer I would agree. My point is that the scientific method is then required to demonstrate a non-deterministic source for the information. Otherwise the source can be posited, but it can not be assumed.
Shalom.
When I studied Pasteur's experiments I studied that he proved that there was no abiogenesis. However, I had not ever heard that those who believed in abiogenesis thought that some supernatural force was creating the life. If they had believed that G-d was creating the life that would not have been abiogenesis since G-d is alive.
I learned that Pasteur was debunking the idea of an unknown origin of living beings, not a supernatural one.
I could be wrong.
Shalom.
"Based on this idea, any signal is processed to determine whether it exhibits the behavior of a random signal or information. This is what is used in the SETI project to mask the noise in the universe from a possible signal."
The way you've stated it is not exactly true. For example, information in the form of a string of 1's and 0's can be turned into a random signal by "randomly" switching each successive bit. The information can still be extracted if the recipient knows the sequence of random switches. To anybody else, the signal is just noise.
Part of information theory addresses how much information can be packed into a given signal. Turns out (almost intuitively) that if a signal is fully loaded, i.e. it has as much information as it can carry, it is indistinguishable from a random signal. That's because if you can detect any regularity or non-randomness in the signal, you can exploit that regularity to pack in more information. Our own electronic communications are becoming more and more noise-like -- just listen to your modem.
SETI depends in part on the aliens either being too primitive to exploit the full information carrying capacity of their signals, or deliberately trying to attract our attention. I don't have a lot of hope for either -- among humans, at least, there will be a window of only a hundred years or so in which our "inadvertent" signals differ significantly from noise, and I don't see anybody scrambling to beam intential beacons at hypothetical aliens.
Bottom line is that absense of evidence of a signal (or of Intelligent Design) can't be construed as evidence of its non-existence. Since there is no way to falsify hypothesis of Intelligent Design, it's not science.
I assume the reciprocal teaching of
evolution in all church Sunday Schools will be mandated.
I agree as far as the scientific proof goes. But I have no problem with a Scientist saying, "because G-d did it," out of his personal faith. I don't think Einstein proved himself an idiot when he said, "G-d does not play dice with the universe."
But science should never feel wrong about saying, "We don't know. If you want to believe it was G-d, you go right ahead."
Shalom.
The point is, those premises say nothing about God one way or the other, but they do raise a number of questions that shed light on the problem. Let's look at them:
1) Observed phenomena have natural causes.
What is a "natural" cause? Is "nature" limited to what we can observe? Does the existence of "natural" causes tell us what "nature" is, or how it came to be? Is God separate from "nature?"
2) Time does not change explanations for observed phenomena.
IOW, gravity will work the same way tomorrow as it did yesterday. If I read this correctly, you're simply restating the first premise: observed phenomena have objective causes -- mechanisms remain constant with time. Why this should be so, however, is not addressed.
It boils down to this: if we accept these statements to be true, their logical consequences are identical whether or not God exists. However, if we accept these premises we must also ask the elemental question: how is it that they are true? It is in that question -- not in the premises themselves -- where the presence or absence of God is at issue.
I see your point. However, as I understand it, the genetic code is not very tightly packed. Since you've kindly taken on the role of educator, can you tell me whether that has any impact on your statement?
In addition, I presume that the application of the mathematics of information theory is farely straightforward (if non-trivial). Have the ID supporters who apply IT to the genetic code misapplied this mathematics?
Shalom.
You completely misread the post to which you replied.
As you probably know, the theory of evolution does not address the origins of life.
The origin of all life? As in a beginning point?
Yes. That is the question.
Abiogenesis-related?
Ok. Let's define that. Abiogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions.
I subscribe to no particular theory there because I have yet to read enough on the various theories surrounding abiogenesis.
Don't waste your time. The answer is that currently there is no accepted theory on abiogensis. Many have been proposed but all have eventually been rejected. But don't worry. Scientists are still working on it and no doubt another theory is right around the corner. One of the first was the "random" theory, which said that if conditions were just so that over a long time through trial and error amino acids and, eventually, proteins would arise. Of course, as soon as someone did the math, they realized that the probabilities were such that it was effectively impossible. Some scientists, in their frustration at their inability to come up with an adequate theory for abiogenesis, resorted to an extraterrestrial explanation. I kid you not - and these were respected scientists. However, even that theory doesn't solve the assembly problem and only moves the issue to another place. Since Darwin, the problem of the origin of life has been the thorn in the side of naturalistic science. Even today, it is still deeply planted.
I think that eventually will be discovered....For now, I will accept that eventually there will be a naturalistic explanation, just as there is to other processes in this world.
Your acceptance that eventually there will be a naturalistic explanation is quite the exhibition of the strict definition of FAITH.
Finally, your original post included this:
Do you see the people of that time understanding the scientific mechanisms used that allowed for life to come in existence as it is now?
It would seem that, when it gets right down to it, we understand it not at all.
It would be for the best... Really.
Curiously enough, this was once a topic of serious and heated debate among Christian theologists.
The bone of contention is whether there is any limit to how small God can make an angel? If not, then there can be an actual infinity of angels on the pin, contrary to Aristotlian philosphies underpinning the Medieval church. If so, then there is a size limit to God's power of creation.
I don't think Christian theologists worry about it much any more. Serious scholarship isn't what it used to be among them.
The scientific definition of reality is what, exactly? You seem to be saying that it does not include God. Can you provide us the scientific justification for such a claim?
The answer "because God wanted it" or "because God did it" has no place whatsoever in a science curriculum. And this is independent of whether the actual statement is true or false.
Oh, really? Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something is true "because God did it." Are you seriously proposing that a science curriculum should deliberately ignore such a fact? How very unscientific that would be!
To me and other Christians the truth of God's word is undisputable.
I should have said that God's word has never, despite many attempts over thousands of years, been proven false.
Matter of fact, God's word has been proven true so many times only a fool would doubt that all of it is true. However, the world is populated with many fools, as you can see on this very thread.
Indeed it does become messy, and not because of "multiple universes." You've undertaken to define reality to suit your ideological needs. You certainly have no scientific basis for limiting reality as you have.
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.