Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 176 of 230 (655344)
03-09-2012 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by NoNukes
03-06-2012 7:16 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
To help clarify what you mean here, can you provide an example of an inflexible science dogma that has damaged its image?
Wellll, OK. But you won’t like this one either:
1) Whenever Science gets tangled with politics, it produces dogma almost as inflexible as when it entangles with religion. Take the Global Warming debate for example.
2) We seem to understand this year that weather cyclicity is a usual phenomenon through the eons on our planet.
3) Changes currently taking place in our climatic conditions are taken advantage of by politicians with an agenda to direct the debate in a direction of their choosing.
4) There is controversy: Not all scientists agree that man-made elevations in CO2 are a significant contributor. This controversy should be met in open forum, yet those scientists are demonized and alienated by other’s of their own simply because they wish an open and frank discussion.
5) Their publications are blocked. Speaking engagements are cancelled. They lose tenure because they have a different or deviant or aberrant concept of what the data actually shows.
THIS IS DOGMA. I detest it, and so should all scientists; but, sadly, many embrace it ---- for political reasons, --- and it damages science!
Sadly, nothing can further damage politics. That realm is already damned in most quarters, yet it continues to be misused malignantly, and poor scientists allow themselves to be sucked into the black hole.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 03-06-2012 7:16 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 178 of 230 (655349)
03-09-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Pressie
03-09-2012 4:47 AM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
Could you be so kind as to provide the following:
1) define what you mean by such an "agent";
GOD.
quote:
2) provide empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of said agent;
Impossible to verify.
quote:
3) provide a definition of what you mean by "plausible means" in this instance.
By nudging or changing either the initial condition of critical change points or any sequential point thereafter, since EACH chain of events have new beginnings for the next sequential change.
quote:
4) provide empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of those "plausible means";
See quantum theory; chaos theory, strange attractors; fractals and understand the meaning of uncertainty.
quote:
6) provide evidence that there is anything else but our "physical universe";
There is none other than the mysterious dark matter and dark energy we are embedded in but cannot see, feel or detect except by gravitational effects. Of course, there’s the extrapolations of M-theory --- though these are all just elaborations of our physical universe == we think.
quote:
7) define what you mean by "manipulated" in this instance;
Again, See quantum theory; chaos theory and understand the meaning of uncertainty.
quote:
8) provide empirical, verifiable evidence for this manipulation?
There is none. I’ve said it before, there can never be such verification! None is needed since there is no competition with science. We interpret what we see based on our knowledge base. Our knowledge base IS science.
It just appears that certain occurrences within our universe are too improbable to be by mere chance. That’s all. If you need a list of those improbabilities, get back to me.
quote:
Without this the sentence surely doesn't have much meaning. You might as well have said:
"My point is that there are plausible means by which the brain farts of the green crocodile on Betagustlust (far beyond our understanding) might manipulate the evolution both of the physical universe and of life and its evolution".
Yes, I suppose that is one primitive, angry and simplistic way of expressing it.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Pressie, posted 03-09-2012 4:47 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 6:14 PM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 182 of 230 (655377)
03-09-2012 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Taq
03-09-2012 6:14 PM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
Dark matter and energy are both physical things as much as gravity and EM are physical things.
Yes.
quote:
It seems that you want to eat your cake and have it too. You claim that ID can not be verified, and yet you claim ID is an interpretation from evidence and is verified by probabilities. You want to claim that ID cannot be evidenced, and yet you offer improbabilities as evidence. Which is it?
I’m not sure what you want me to say? Quite right, I offer as evidence only the multiple improbabilities of our existence:
1) Where we are within our galaxy;
2) where our galaxy lies within the universe;
3) when we are in its evolution and
4) how we are able to discern — basically from a fraction of a grain of sand in the enormity of scale of our universe.
5) That, because of the miracle of our brains; which are almost certainly biologic quantum computers capable of enormous creativity and imagination, far more complex even than almost any other object or collection of objects in the universe. We are thus provided the means to develop redundant and rapidly advancing technology, some of which threatens our very existence.
All this while we continue to disrespect one another; our beliefs and our interpretations, with a remarkable arrogance.
We display both phenomenal cruelty as well as open hearted generosity and kindness while warring on one another.
We are a paradox, and yet we continue to persevere.
To me, our very existence is a miracle! That alone should give us pause to consider.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 6:14 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 03-09-2012 9:40 PM jchardy has replied
 Message 186 by Panda, posted 03-09-2012 9:53 PM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 183 of 230 (655379)
03-09-2012 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Tangle
03-09-2012 5:37 PM


Re: purpose in science
Well, Tangle old kid, it appears you and I have nothing to talk about since you disrespect all my concepts and everything I say.
That’s OK. Just don’t bother responding if you’re not interested in exchanging ideas. Stick to your satellite and I’ll stick to mine.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2012 5:37 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Tangle, posted 03-10-2012 4:52 AM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 184 of 230 (655381)
03-09-2012 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by NoNukes
03-09-2012 5:28 PM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
But teleologic ID concepts are also NOT random speculations and guesses divorced from any and all evidence.
You've already admitted that those concepts are not evidenced.
To me, they’re evidenced by probability and complexity. That’s the only evidence.
quote:
No, but if I don't accept those concepts, I'm in denial of the truth, according to you.
Not at all. If you don’t accept those concepts, you MAY be in denial of the truth. Neither of us will know that until we die. That’s OK with me. If I’m wrong, I’ll be set straight; or not. If there’s nothing; that’s OK too. But I hate surprises, and so contemplation is what I do while I’m here. All I do is share my ideas. I don’t impose them.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2012 5:28 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 03-09-2012 10:16 PM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 188 of 230 (655397)
03-10-2012 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by subbie
03-09-2012 10:16 PM


Re: purpose in science
Much of what follows is from Michael Mallary's book: "Our Improbable Universe"
Mallary writes:
It's clear that many things had to be just right for life to evolve in this universe. It's also true that, in the past this fact has been used to claim that the universe had to have been designed for it to have been so suitable for us. More recently theories that involve the random creation of sub-universes in a larger meta-universe are being considered. If there are enough randomly structured sub-universes, (e.g., quantum foam), then the odds aren't so bad that at least one will have all the processes lined up just right. In this unique universe, intelligent life would marvel at the improbability of it all. However, IF THE MULTIVERSE THEORY IS CORRECT, that improbability cannot be used as the soul evidence for a creator.
In order for the sub-universe to produce witnesses it had to be just right. This is known as the Anthropic Principle. It replaces belief in a creator with belief in the random creation of a huge number of randomly structured universes; only a minute fraction of these mindlessly structured universes would evolve minds.
The odds of the sequenced events from the Big Bang onward being just right for life are miniscule. Therefore either the Universe was created with deliberation or there had to be a zillion randomly generated universes before this very creative one happened along.
In the former case life has value derived from the mind of the Creator.
Much of that value must reside in the creative processes of life. In the latter case, its value derives from the fact that this universe is the one rare gem among a collection of a trillion-trillion sterile universes.
So, we highly improbable "witnesses" must make up our minds. DISCOUNTING the most special time and locations within our galaxy located within our improbable universe; Which is more likely:
  1. The improbability that we owe our existence of an almost infinite number of universes, with our presence in the only one emerging with the ideal conditions for life or
  2. The seemingly equally improbable likelihood that we are somehow the engineered project of some Creator?
Neither scenario is "provable" by any means now or in the distant future.
Because there is a lot more "special requirements" to OUR specific existence (see mention of the "DISCOUNTED" information above) -- I, and most teleological IDers choose to believe #2.
JCH
Edited by Admin, : Make an attempt at providing paragraphs and separating quoted text from member's text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 03-09-2012 10:16 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 12:55 AM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 189 of 230 (655398)
03-10-2012 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Theodoric
03-09-2012 9:40 PM


Re: purpose in science
Understanding, eloquence and kindness are not one of your strengths, I take it?
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 03-09-2012 9:40 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2012 1:15 AM jchardy has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 193 of 230 (655473)
03-10-2012 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Tangle
03-10-2012 4:52 AM


Re: purpose in science
OK: Here's a conversation of note:
quote:
In summary, this remarkably creative universe had to be exactly the way that it is for intelligent life to have evolved out of the raw energy of the Big Bang. If this was all due to design, then the creator had to get it just right for protons to turn into people automatically. The story of how it actually happened is much more intricate and astounding than any of the mythological products of human creativity. The fact that many things had to be just right for life has been emerging for many centuries. In the past this fact has been used to claim that the universe had to have been designed for it to have been so suitable for us.
This is exactly my point!! It’s too much detail for chance alone!!
What are the actual probabilities of this precise sequence of COUNTLESS events occurred as a result of the settling out of the strange attractor model that the universe began as, to thus result in where we are? Infinitesimal I would propose.
BUT THERE'S MORE: Now, in order to escape the concept of a Designer or Creator, science must reach eagerly for the multiverse theory: I.e., that out of the quantum foam that may or probably did accompany the big bang, countless --- almost all sterile — universes evolved but ONLY ONE had the totally remarkable balance of quantum mechanics to result in THIS universe!
Well, that’s OK, if it would just stop there. But if it is to lead to homo sapiens (or the equivalent in THIS situation), there MUST be an enormous NUMBER of such very special universes wherein the Milky Way Galaxy equivalent evolves; each containing a main sequence yellow dwarf star (our sun equivalent) located in an un-crowded outer arm evolved, and around which an accretion disk --- the remnants of a previous supernova billions of years previously -- provided the metallic products for life.
Then, on top of that, a planet, earth (or its equivalent), condensed and then took position around that stable main sequence yellow dwarf star just precisely within the Goldilocks zone; with an enormous amount of liquid water; a single moon to eventually regulate reasonable tides; posessing a rotating iron molten core within a liquid mantel generating a protective electromagnetic field, protecting its atmosphere and ocean from the solar winds; evolving granitic tectonic plates with continent migration over billions of years; evolving first life, then sentience, with numerous extinctions of lesser life forms, but then finally evolving a sapient form, ending with us. What are the chances? JCH
quote:
This is a far greater achievement than the detailed meddling that is depicted in mythological explanations of creation.
WHAT detailed meddling??? The writers or creators of the ancient chronicles gave NO details. They couldn’t!
Even if they were --- by some mystical means — provided the real details of what had and was happening, the mythological or biblical writers of creation could only detail an exceedingly simplified version of what was, since it is/was WAY beyond the comprehension of themselves or the common man of the time. They could neither conceive, nor document the actual detailed meddling that MUST have occurred within the maelstrom of chaos and entropy that was the evolving universe.
The original ancient writers of creation could, at best, provide simplistic versions. It was the best they could do. There were NO CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS nor were there even WORDS TO EXPRESS such occurrences and processes.
Hell, the reality is, it’s still WAY beyond us today!
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Tangle, posted 03-10-2012 4:52 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 03-10-2012 5:37 PM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 195 of 230 (655476)
03-10-2012 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by subbie
03-10-2012 12:55 AM


Re: purpose in science
It's clear that many things had to be just right for life to evolve in this universe.
quote:
It's not clear (to me) at all. Before you can even begin to determine what characteristics a universe needs to have to produce life, you need to know all the different possible ways that life can arise.
There is no use to discussing the unknowable. We can only discuss what we know, from our science that provides us the reasons our universe provided the foundations for life. Our process is deductive, not inductive. Inductive reasoning leading to conclusions, especially about the evolution of life, is fraught with peril, since initial conditions vary radically from one environment to another. All we can deal with is what we know or can analyze. Otherwise, we a dealing with something even less reliable than speculation.
quote:
BTW, you seem to have skipped over the part where I asked you to show your work. Not that I'm the least bit surprised by that, I fully expected it. But I thought I'd make note, just for kicks.
I just ignored the request because I didn't think you were serious. What work do you want me to show? What detail?
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 12:55 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 8:25 PM jchardy has replied
 Message 207 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 10:23 PM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 196 of 230 (655481)
03-10-2012 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by jar
03-10-2012 5:37 PM


Re: purpose in science
Well, as Forest Gump would say: "Simple is as simple says (does), sir!"
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 03-10-2012 5:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by jar, posted 03-10-2012 7:31 PM jchardy has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 197 of 230 (655484)
03-10-2012 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Theodoric
03-09-2012 9:40 PM


[quote] Re: purpose in science
quote:
I offer as evidence only the multiple improbabilities of our existence:
And don't you find it amazing how the water in a puddle so neatly conforms to the hole.
Meaningless!
quote:
We may not understand exactly the how but we have the general gist. I find it amazing that you claim you do not posit a god of the gaps argument and then you use it. Using your own personal definitions does not change reality.
No, but reality should change our own personal definitions should it not?
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Theodoric, posted 03-09-2012 9:40 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 10:31 PM jchardy has replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 198 of 230 (655486)
03-10-2012 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Panda
03-09-2012 9:53 PM


Re: purpose in science
Questions become evidence when they are not answerable. The law of parsimony, Occam's razor. "-- principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect".
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Panda, posted 03-09-2012 9:53 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Panda, posted 03-10-2012 8:01 PM jchardy has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 200 of 230 (655493)
03-10-2012 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Taq
03-09-2012 5:09 PM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
Then I am confused as to why you would keep saying things like this:
1) "My point is, complete confidence in our knowledge base such that we are assured there are no possible outside influences we cannot detect or track down. I think this is virtually impossible. We seek certitude in all things. There is no possible certitude I can imagine right now."
2) "I am a scientist who believes teleological principles MIGHT have led to and through the processes ending in where we are today. In my 50 years of searching, I have not found any evidence to absolutely rule out a "Designer" implicit in our existence."--message 29
3) "Unless you can prove to me that --- in this case --- one side is right and the other is wrong; I am entitled to my belief, and you to yours."--message 32
4) "IF there is a creator or designer somehow initiating and then viewing events from afar (i.e., behind a curtain of His own design as well), He might direct evolution this way or that by minor nudges of our molecular DNA — once it came into being; OR, He may have implanted it early on. We would never really know."--message 111
5) "There is none, obviously other than the probability/improbability argument. Faith is the belief in something. It is not evidence except in personal experiences which convince some that such a power exists. On the other hand, the impossibility of certitude in certain areas of science is also a big problem for science --- especially quantum mechanics. It all has value, but some small part is still based on faith in the validity of our tests and testing of concepts."--message 116
Overall, your position seems to be that God is acting in areas that we cannot currently verify. How is that anything other than a God-of-the-Gaps?
Wow, I am impressed. You actually read and collated what I wrote!! Thank you!
I confess, I may be applying that logic. I just disdain the label. God-of-the-gaps is such a manufactured concept and obviously prejudicial. I think that’s why I reject the term.
If there are gaps, God already filled them --- otherwise we wouldn’t be here. But the evidence from astrophysics and quantum mechanics strongly suggests a sequential requirement of absolute necessity to get to where we are. Just because we can’t understand some of the gaps is irrelevant, since they obviously have been attended to in the evolution of our improbable universe (and galaxy; and solar system and earth; and life; and us etc. etc.).
It’s the immutable apparently required sequence I find so compelling.
JCH
quote:
Obviously, you have not read much ID literature. Many IDers argue vehemently that NS can not produce an increase in fitness over long time periods. Sanford and "Genetic Entropy" come to mind, and Sanford was a speaker at an ID convention not too long ago.
Quite right. I am not an aficionado of ID literature since I have found its science attempts all over the place and ultimately uninteresting. I read it only under duress and then with a very critical eye and find most of it rambling and without substance.
I find all of my affirmations in real science; especially quantum cosmology and cosmology in general as well as the biologic sciences (since I was first a Zoologist; then physician; then internist then immunologist).
My feeling is that, while well intentioned, classical IDers are attempting to do the impossible: To make logical sense out of fable and allegory and to somehow extract science there-from. In so doing, they frequently make fools of themselves. They take upon themselves an unnecessary task: To make sense out of mythical rhetoric: Sacred as it is read, but gibberish as applied to reality. That’s not blasphemy, I write; just fact.
If ID would stick with fundamental real science as argument, they would find themselves less ostracized and more included in conversation.
JCH
quote:
So what are these questions, and what experiments can be run to answer them?
The experiments are being run as we common folk dither on. New information is coming forth every day. There is a continuum of both information and hope, and lots of time for mankind collectively to contemplate.
None-the-less, there will always be those who believe we are simply the result of chaos, entropy and probability and those who believe that, at some layer, our creation and evolution were planned from the beginning by God. Others will sort of mix the two concepts.
Whatever,--- it’s OK. We are, after all, sapient beings and part of the universe together, and I think it’s just our job--- our purpose --- to contemplate that simple fact. Probably the only one we all can’t deny.
JCH
Edited by jchardy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 5:09 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 8:50 PM jchardy has replied
 Message 222 by Taq, posted 03-12-2012 6:17 PM jchardy has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 203 of 230 (655498)
03-10-2012 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Percy
03-10-2012 8:25 PM


Re: purpose in science
Apparently not. JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 8:25 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 03-10-2012 8:55 PM jchardy has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4390 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


Message 209 of 230 (655512)
03-11-2012 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by subbie
03-10-2012 10:31 PM


Re: [quote] Re: purpose in science
quote:
The fact that you don't understand the point doesn't mean it's meaningless.
The conditions on earth are suited to support life because life has adapted to suit the conditions on earth. We don't see life forms that require 10% of earth's gravity to flourish because any such life forms that might have arisen would have been outcompeted by organisms better suited to the conditions that do exist.
OK, I’ll play; that’s more like it. Riddles waste time. I agree with your general surmise.
quote:
Similarly, the water in the hole might think that the hole is perfectly designed to hold it, just the right shape and depth.
Or, just as correctly, the water might think the hole it fashioned was now perfectly designed by itself for its purposes.
quote:
But the fact of the matter is that the water's shape and amount are determined by the hole instead.
Unless, of course, the hole was made by the impact of the water, (e.g., a glacial lake), in which case the hole might fit the water perforce.
Water is very persistent and forceful stuff on the move, particularly when in solid state.
I am still at a loss to determine your point here in contrast to my position. Enlighten me!
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 10:31 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by subbie, posted 03-11-2012 12:31 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024