The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[unspun]

Irrelevant.

[Phaedrus]

But the difference is that QM phenomena can be studied.

It is the implications of QM that are not understood. One is forced, ultimately, to contemplate the intangible. The Western Mind is not accustomed to this (to say the very least) and the common response, even among scientists, is denial.

Numinous experience is, I surmise, quite common among humanity but it is not a socially acceptable topic of conversation. This is due, I believe, to our strong Materialistic bias. Some few, such as bb above, have the courage to share their experience with others. This is where the contemplation of intangibility leads.

Consciousness and will and intent and truth and love are all intangibles. But they are the drivers. And I believe they came first. As you see, I have some evidence for this POV. That POV emerged from the evidence and not the other way around and it did not emerge from wishful thinking.

And do you now see why I earlier quoted Leonard Cohen (thank you, beckett)?

There is a crack
A crack in everything
That's how the light gets in

Not California La La Flaky but "hard" science ...

[unspun]

Or -- there seems to be little else, but cracks ;-)

[Phaedrus]

What can I say, unspun?

[unspun]

Well, I may be manifisting my own self too much right now, here, but thank you for relating. Very interesting to the mind and pleasing to the heart, to read. If the story has been told in further detail, it would be a joy to see.

As it's happened, I've had a few little dreams that I believe have been revelatory too. One even concerned our man, W.

I've been trying with you and others to humbly? explain? that the matters of religion/theology/discipleship/ontology/epistemology provide context for the natural sciences and the application of the scientific process, not vice versa. Shouting it out into the echoing e-ness.

It is irrational to "disallow" consideration of what comes through those aforementioned cracks. Especially when it's the very breath we breathe.

[unspun]

...though the natural sciences do wonders at allowing us to handle the substance.

[unspun]

...and the scientific process is one of the critical tools to check any apparent truth.

[unspun]

...where the scientific process addresses it.

[jimt]

In reference to Thomas Paine...

There are many works of apologetics that treat the objective and propositional evidence that a fella named Jesus relates, including ones that specifically deal with apparent contradictions.

As to your earler reference to evolution, see immediately preceding posts. The science involved with theories of evolution do not hang in a vacuum and are not walled off from other considerations, even though some evolutionists may be in the epistemological masonry business.

Maybe I didn't say it right.

I'm saying Paine makes an undeniable case that the KJV is not word-for-word the literal Word of God.

That says nothing about the validity of creation or intelligent design. I happen to believe in them, but that's from observation, not hard theory and evidence.

Evolution is a scientific theory, and therefore always challengeable. If I'm not mistaken, there have been many modifications and additions since Darwin.

It seems to me perfectly compatible with creation and intelligent design. God has apparently given us free will, and doesn't seem to micromanage our affairs. I see nothing incompatible between belief in God and the theory of evolution. Of course, there's a great deal of incompatibility in believing the Bible as the literal Word of God, and evolution. But I think Paine demonstated clearly the former is patently false.

[unspun]

Yeah. The application of contextul 'criticism' does one a whale (or "great fish") of a lot of good in this. Leaving the natures of God's Scriptures and His use of writers open to God's determination is good too, eh? I think King David would hope that we say so.

That is, if we also may be so relieved as to know that the purpose of Scripture is generally for revelation, not for mystery, even if "through a glass darkly" compared with being face to face.

I really need to shut up now and work. "And there was much rejoicing."

[PatrickHenry]

PatrickHenry remains aloof.

[Southack]

"Falsifiability is what ID needs in order to be considered as science."

Really?

So what's the "falsifiability" of Evolution?

I mean, you can post it here to show that in your words Evolutionary Theory is science, right?!

HINT: I doubt that you can post it at all...

[Doctor Stochastic]

It is the implications of QM that are not understood.

What implications of QM do you not understand? It's a well-tested physical theory.

[balrog666]

I'm saying Paine makes an undeniable case that the KJV is not word-for-word the literal Word of God.

That oughta be pretty simple. Did the original writers put it into English?

[Southack]

will the organism in our experiment behave differently ... or change in any way due to our new command?

"Certainly it will be different. It probably will behave differently. But it also may not if, for example, that gene you disabled was functionally duplicated elsewhere." - edsheppa

And now you've done it. You've admitted that the cellular system processes genetic instructions, rather than merely expresses them.

Thus, the whole issue of the Turing Test is moot. If the cellular system processes commands and data without dispute on this thread, then there is no need to tie ourselves up in senseless semantic arguments over the Turing Machine (which is good, because your claim that the Turing Test was about "intelligence" rather than processing was pretty bizarre, especially in a biological discussion).

[js1138]

I can't do as well as many who have posted it before, but here goes:

• At the time Darwin proposed his theory there was no knowledge of genetics. No one knew how changes in the bloodline might occur. The first opportunity for falsification occurred when genetics was discovered. From the vantage point of 1860 it was possible that there might be no mechanism for minute changes. If genes had been proved to be immutable, evolution would have been disproven.
• In 1860, Darwin admitted that millions of years might be needed to account for the observed tree of life to have evolved. At the time, and prior to the discovery of radioactivity at the end of the century, Maxwell calculated the maximum age of the sun to be far less than needed. From Darwin's viewpoint, if this calculation had stood, his theory would have been disproved.
• Radioactive dating could still disprove evolution by the discovery of fossils out of sequence.
• Astrophysics could suddenly discover something that would completely discredit the accepted age of the earth or the universe.
• Fossils could be discovered that have no recognizable relationship to their contemporaries.

  This is just off the top of my head, and I'm not qualified to argue these in detail. But for ID to be accepted as a science, it needs to make some claim about yet undiscovered evidence. It needs a research program that makes verifiable claims and sets out to test them. When it makes claims about "irreducible complexity" it needs to be careful, lest someone discover a piece of some "irreducible" mechanism performing a useful function in another organism. When this happens it needs to respond and explain how this affects the original assertion of "irreducible".

[Phaedrus]

What implications of QM do you not understand? It's a well-tested physical theory.

Well, yes, I should have made an exception for you, Doctor.

[Southack]

"This is just off the top of my head, and I'm not qualified to argue these in detail."

None of what you posted rises to any serious level of "falsifiability" of Evolutionary Theory, as each point could easily be dismissed or rationalized (e.g. discovering a fossil "out of sequence" would hardly get any committed Darwinist to jump up and say that Evolution was suddenly disproven).

And if you don't have falsifiability for Evolution, you stand on shaky ground by asking for the same re: Intelligent Design.

Moreover, here's the real kicker, Intelligent Design is the PROVEN solution for how pigs are currently growing human substances. There's no way to "falsify" that fact, it simply "is". Anyone who denies that Man intelligently intervened in pigs to produce useful human substances should rightly be mocked out of this thread, in fact.

The converse can not be said for Evolution, however.

[js1138]

Designer pigs and designer bacteria are simply cut and paste jobs. If you want to prove ID, design an entirely new biological function, create the gene that will produce it (careful not to harm the organism's viability) and deliver the working product.

My point is there is no way to predict viability from code structure or "information".

If you want to make ID a science that would be a good line of research; demonstrate that you can make something entirely new that will survive. Demonstrate that you can predict the outcome of a previously untested mutation.

[Southack]

"Designer pigs and designer bacteria are simply cut and paste jobs."

Well, our genetic programming abilities are still in their infancy, I admit.

Nonetheless, it is man's Intelligent Intervention, not natural, unaided "evolution" that is responsible for the examples that you mention above.