|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
quote:GOD. quote:Impossible to verify. quote: 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: See quantum theory; chaos theory, strange attractors; fractals and understand the meaning of uncertainty.
quote: 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:Again, See quantum theory; chaos theory and understand the meaning of uncertainty. quote: 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: Yes, I suppose that is one primitive, angry and simplistic way of expressing it. JCH
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
quote: Yes.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
quote: To me, they’re evidenced by probability and complexity. That’s the only evidence.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
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:
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
Understanding, eloquence and kindness are not one of your strengths, I take it?
JCH
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
OK: Here's a conversation of note:
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
It's clear that many things had to be just right for life to evolve in this universe.
quote: 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: I just ignored the request because I didn't think you were serious. What work do you want me to show? What detail? JCH
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
Well, as Forest Gump would say: "Simple is as simple says (does), sir!"
JCH
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
quote:Meaningless! quote:No, but reality should change our own personal definitions should it not? JCH
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
quote: 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: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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
Apparently not. JCH
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jchardy Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 85 Joined: |
quote:OK, I’ll play; that’s more like it. Riddles waste time. I agree with your general surmise. quote:Or, just as correctly, the water might think the hole it fashioned was now perfectly designed by itself for its purposes. quote: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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024