The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[PatrickHenry]

I remain aloof.

PatrickHenry: an Equal Opportunity Evolutionist, defending freedom, truth, reason, the American Consitution, and Western civilization against the ever-present evils of socialism, theocracy, any other irrational belief systems, and plain old ignorance, regardless of your age, race, religion, national origin, physical handicap, marital status, intellectual capacity, or the configuration of your genitalia.

[balrog666]

Nor more than Spontaneous Generation is science, since it deals with matters of metaphysics by begging the question.

If it is phrased as a scientific question capable of being assessed by valid research, then, yes, it is science (see the previous threads about "RNA world" research). Saying "Goddidit" or advocating ID/IOT are not science.

However, for an honest, 'liberal' education both creationism and godless life by poof should be discussed, as ontological and epistemological backdrops for the sciences.

What utter nonsense. We don't teach children about the monsters under their bed, pixies and elves, Giant Chickens and pink unicorns, or demons from the underworld in science class either.

It is a fallacy and an epistemological usurpation to say that hypothetics regarding utterly spontaneous generation are science while hypothetics regarding any intelligent design are not.

We are not talking hypothetics. We are discussing scientific questions that we may be able to answer someday about spontaneous generation and banning any such study on the other.

You cannot claim that a coin about this question must only come up "tails" (i.e., without a creative Head) in science class. Or to put it another way, if you do, you're wagging the dog.

We do not, nor do we assume that the "coin" has only two sides.

That is censorship, along the same lines as the Inquisition (albeit, without the red-hot pokers or the rack).

Really? Should we include the Giant Chickens or pink unicorns because some other religion wants them included too? Where would you draw the line? Would you force us to include your Creation story and then exclude all others?

Furthermore, scientists should also have the intellectual honesty to admit that if there is an all-powerful God, he could have developed all that we might see as evolution within seven of something that he calls days (or one in one moment).

We do, but it's so trivial a point that it's not worth discussing. And, of course, the logical fallacy from that point is that there would still be no relevant connection between such a god and your religion or your particular religious book, so starting with your religious book and attempting to work backwards to the first point, is not considered a fruitful endeavor to a scientist.

I hope this answers your questions.

[RenegadeNC]

"'TONS' of evidence"

I would think that one or two complete fossil T-Rexs would weigh tons :)


Well...that may be. But all that proves is that T-Rex existed at some point in the past. It says nothing of evolution...doesn't show that T-Rex came from something different or later became something different. All of the creationists I know accept the existence of T-Rex.

[Southack]

"When you replicate DNA, you don't write to the same tape you read. The key feature, as I understand it, of a bidirectional one dimensional Turing machine is it reads a bit of information, and then writes back to the same tape according to the state of the machine and the rules. You can't do computation simply by replicating a string of bits N times."

Ahhh, but you can see that it does "write", at least! A calculator doesn't write back to the same tape that it read from, either, but it still performs calculations and computations, and can (for most of them) still qualify as a Turing Machine.

Moreover, the entire theory of Evolution is dependent upon there being mistakes mutating their way into the "written" output of DNA replication! If DNA systems (ooops, for Sentis "cellular systems") truly didn't "write" anything, as you stated above in this thread, then that would put quite a damper on things, wouldn't it?!

Not to worry, however, as DNA systems do indeed qualify as Turing Machines because such systems do indeed read commands and data, process said commands and data, as well as generate output (i.e. the "written" aspect of the Turing test) from those commands and data.

[f.Christian]

I overindulged - - - was merciless . . .

if you weren't sufficiently soused // brainwashed // indoctrinated ==== I was a teenage hooligan ===

banger // basher of all things true -- sincere -- good and holy !

[balrog666]

So, you want me to study your holy book but no one else's, you didn't like science class in school and don't want your children taught science, and, after sufficient "study", if I don't come to the exact same conclusions as you about the gods (and presumably join your church), then I'm "evil".

Oh, yeah, that makes perfect sense, if you live in the Bizarro World.

[f.Christian]

There is hope -- -- -- FR saved me . . . seek and you will find !

[DeathfromBelow]

Well actually I graduated with a 3.96 gpa with a BS. So like all your other suppositions you are wrong again.

Since you obviously have never studied anyones "holy" book you are the one living in a BIZZARO World.

[Southack]

"When an E. coli goes through 10 cycles of division, all that results is you have 1024 identical copies of the same E. coli. In what sense is information processed, rather than simply duplicated?"

Nice question, by the way (easy answer, though)!

When the E. coli (or any other organism) goes through cell division, its DNA system processes the mathematical instructions contained in its genes.

Because these instructions are processed instead of merely expressed (i.e. copied/templated/et al), all genes therein will be replicated in their entire-ity EVEN THOUGH some of those genes may be turned off.

But a blind "expressive" system will merely copy something (think of a photocopier). To turn off a part in an expressive system, that part of the template must be entirely deleted, overwritten, or erased. Thus, whatever is copied in a blind, expressive system must be active / turned ON.

In contrast, an active processing system can turn off part of itself without deleting it, without erasing it, without overwritting it, etc. A system that processes instructions can be told to copy, but not execute, the commands/data in question.

Thus, your E. Coli example will copy ALL of its genes even though some of those genes are turned off.

[unspun]

You haven't answered my questions so much as demonstrated your position to be pro thought control, pro intellectual subterfuge, and pro Marxist-like atheistic revisionism.

No Giant Chicken or Pink Unicorn has told mankind that he is God, nor shown positive evidence of his being resurrected from the dead to multiple witnesses, etc.

But then, neither did Charles Darwin, who has brought you your religion.

[PatrickHenry]

PatrickHenry remains aloof.

[balrog666]

Again you avoid my questions and label me with your fears. If you cannot approach such simple subjects as these with an open mind, I suggest we quit wasting each other's time.

[f.Christian]

Are you a DU missionary -- 'evangelist' ==== prophet . . .

the new moses --- joseph smith --- kool aid kid ? ? ?

[balrog666]

BTW, here's but one link to The True Reformed Sect of the Invisible Pink Unicorn

[f.Christian]

Drink up kiddees (( 555 )) !

[js1138]

PatrickHenry remains aloof.

I'm trying to get the connection between Patrick Henry, Joseph Smith and KoolAde. Besides, it wasn't even KoolAde; it was the cheap imitation stuff. And Everybody knows it wasn't Jo Smith; it was Bob Jones. ;^)

[PatrickHenry]

I'm trying to get the connection between Patrick Henry, Joseph Smith and KoolAde.

Clearly, Satan has clouded your mind. It's the same obvious connection as between Darwin, Stalin, and teen pregnancy.

[f.Christian]

The threat of creationism ?

Look at yourself !



This was stated on the FR by 'patrick henry' . . . "total" - - - "only" - - - "no competition" ==== amazing !

[js1138]

Why didn't I think of that?

[unspun]

My mind is open as to all sorts of theories of how the universe got to where it is, by nature.

My mind is not open to the abrogating of the well-reasoned principles, hypotheses* and theories of Christians, in all schools of thought, including as to how the created universe has gotten to where is, by nature.

___________________________________
*BTW, I'll leave it up to you as to how you can call something a hypothesis while objecting to it being called hypothetical.