The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[Phaedrus]

At some point, Alamo-Girl, I would hope that the public face of Western Science would drop its insistance upon neutrality toward the existence of a Vastly Superior Intelligence, of God, the evidence being so massive, crushing, overwhelming. It is, in my view, simply a bad institutional habit with negative cultural implications. Human curiosity is an incredible force and while some may sip their beer and be satisfied with "God did it", those who think and who lead are driven by this deep need to know. That won't change. We forget that the womb of Christianity spawned modern science.

My rant for the day ...

[unspun]

Then you haven't understood at all.

Understandable that you've said so. I'll get back to you in a few hours or days. Thanks.

[unspun]

Then you haven't understood at all.

Understandable that you've said so. I'll try get back to you in a few hours or days. Thanks.

[MEGoody]

According to your post, you claim blonde hair is a genetic mutation? On what do you base your assertion that it is a mutation?

Also according to your post, blonde hair somehow enhances one's reproductive advantage? Again, on what do you base this assertion?

I'm hoping you were joking with this statement.

[PatrickHenry]

Singularly ill-equipped placemarker.

[MEGoody]

Couple of questions on your post.

1. Were these remains of the different species found in the same geographic location?

2. How complete were the skeletons and/or fossils on which the hypothesis is based?

3. Exactly why is it presumed that figure b represents a transition from a to c? I can see how one could make the presumption, but we are still stuck with the problem of transitioning from fins to legs, from gills to lungs.

[Lev]

Where's Scully? Where's oldcats? Where's Stultis? Where's Godel? Where's Lev?

I am in Massachusetts :o (shhh, don't tell anybody)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your excellent posts!

You statement is much like Einsteins and I also agree that whereas perception is overwhelming and convincing - it is not reality. The wave/particle duality is an example, as is Bell’s inequalities, space/time and geometry/dimensions. We are blissfully unaware (LOL!)

Particleness is an illusion to me also, a necessary construct to do science, but I see particles more like placemarkers and messengers. Perhaps they are “riding the waves” or are like the “crest of the wave” as you suggest and therefore have substance and meaning for all intents and purposes but again, are not the whole story. Indeed, without the waves, the fundamental forces, they would not be. What we discover about quantum gravity, supersymmetry and extra dimensions ought to be quite illuminating. We live in exciting times!

I would hope that the public face of Western Science would drop its insistance upon neutrality toward the existence of a Vastly Superior Intelligence, of God, the evidence being so massive, crushing, overwhelming. It is, in my view, simply a bad institutional habit with negative cultural implications.

I agree. The oft quoted reason for materialistic epistemology is that saying “God did it” forecloses all further inquiry. I find that argument disingenuous since further inquiry is foreclosed even more broadly and sooner by writing anomalies off to the anthropic principle. Moreover, believers are expected to inquire. Notably, the Jewish Kabbalists believe we will be held responsible for not inquiring.

[VadeRetro]

1. Were these remains of the different species found in the same geographic location?

No. Have you tried clicking the links?

2. How complete were the skeletons and/or fossils on which the hypothesis is based?

How much exactly did you read? Why don't you know?

3. Exactly why is it presumed that figure b represents a transition from a to c?

What exactly do you imagine Darwin_is_passe is asking to see in the fossil record when he asks "Where are the transitionals?" If what we do see in the fossil record is different from this, what is a fossil-record transitional and how would you know?

I can see how one could make the presumption, but we are still stuck with the problem of transitioning from fins to legs, from gills to lungs.

Your ability to get stuck may not be science in the purest sense of the word.

[Diamond]

One major premise of ID is that design can be detected by scientific principles. You're arguing against ID by saying the designer's purpose is ineffable.

The incompleteness of a theory does not necessarily equal forfeiture or even the unwarrantedness of its scientific status. For analagous example, even though I might lack exhaustive knowledge of the ultimate purpose of the designer and sculptor of Mount Rushmore, that subjective inscrutablity does not preclude the immediate defeasible inference that the work was the product of intelligence, as opposed to wind erosion.

Cordially,

[unspun]

Does this imply that physical reality flashes on and off at incredibly short time intervals, like the still frames of a motion picture? Our consciousness certainly has no difficulty putting the picture of motion together in our minds to yield a smooth simile of reality but that picture is nonetheless based upon a series of still frames. Is there a sort of natural "putting together" mode for mind and consciousness which the motion picture industry exploits? This is written just to drive everyone crazy (and perhaps to show my ignorance) ... ;-}

So maybe the whole universe is just one etherial but very complex Japanese quartz watch. Could you roll that back maybe just a few septillion ticks and give it to me again? ;-`

[f.Christian]

dmd ...

Mount Rushmore, that subjective inscrutablity does not preclude the immediate defeasible inference that the work was the product of intelligence, as opposed to wind erosion.

Cordially,


1050 posted on 02/27/2003 11:27 AM PST by Diamond

[unspun]

Does this imply that physical reality flashes on and off at incredibly short time intervals, like the still frames of a motion picture? Our consciousness certainly has no difficulty putting the picture of motion together in our minds to yield a smooth simile of reality but that picture is nonetheless based upon a series of still frames. Is there a sort of natural "putting together" mode for mind and consciousness which the motion picture industry exploits? This is written just to drive everyone crazy (and perhaps to show my ignorance) ... ;-}

So maybe the whole universe is just one etherial but very complex Japanese quartz watch. Could you roll that back maybe just a few septillion ticks and give it to me again? ;-`

[unspun]

Sorry for the redundant posts (oops, here's another one) coping with the uncertainty principle per FR's servers today.

[js1138]

Particleness is an illusion to me also, a necessary construct to do science, but I see particles more like placemarkers and messengers.

Mama (Bohr) warned us not to attempt to visualize the particle/wave phenomenon. Doing so will lead you astray.

I find it interesting that some are castigating physicists for not getting their minds around "immateriality", while physicists are the only ones actually able to, because it takes math to deal with the formalisms of QM. Deep down there are no particals and no waves, only the immaterial formalism.

Of ciurse, QM could be wrong, but it would be wrong at a very high level.

[js1138]

You are correct about your career. Industrial applications of science include many positions that do not require inquisitiveness. So how do you like the cover of the latest Scientific American?