Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.

quote:

---

He also uses the several verses (17) that mention God spreading the heavens like a tent, which indicate a fourth dimension besides the 3 we are used to. But also that this hints that space is really something that can be stretched bent and so forth.

---

Or it hints that the writer viewed the sky as a solid covering over the earth, like the other people at that time did. Which is more plausible?-

quote:

---

For the Bible also mentions rolling the heavens up like a scroll.

---

I'm not aware of any physical phenomena in General Relativity that "rolls up" space. On the other hand, if you have seen a really good storm front coming on then you get a good feeling what "rolling up the heavens" might actually mean.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

But that remains to be demonstrated. If we knew what the first life was, and the conditions under which it arose, then maybe we could say whether the origin of life was high;y improbable --- or highly probable --- or impossible bar a miracle --- or completely inevitable.But we cannot assign a probability to something-but-we-don't-know-what happening under certain-conditions-which-we-can't-identify.

Could you let me know where he states this? It isn't in any of the quotes so far discussed, that's all. You forget one thing. The possibility that God created the universe, communicated it to us clearly, and that the books compiled in The Holy Bible are absolutely nothing to do with that communication. The other possibility is that God, having made the universe, was capable of communicating to us well, but didn't. Wanting instead for us to figure it out for ourselves.Any number of possibilities exist. I'm all for continuing to investigate rather than relying on 'this specific god did it as described in this specific piece of Bronze age writing'. It is such a defeatest position, it is a position of wilful ignorance. Of course, that is effectively saying that evolution doesn't rely purely on chance, but only the first living thing. That means that potentially 3.5 billion years of evolution is non-chance based. So, the first life?Who can say what kind of chance we are looking at here? We don't know what our initial conditions, so we cannot calculate these probabilities - it could be inevitable for all we know. To close on a cheap rhetorical trick:Galileo mistaken or...youEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

That's fair enough, but science could be that torch in the dark, and may never bring an answer to people. This quote covers a range of issues, does it not? It pertains to peoples' beliefs in general.In your lifetime it's unlikely that science will bring an answer to it all. Not that that will matter to you, but my point is that some would prefer an answer that makes sense, rather than a none-answer. For some, there is ample evidence to suggest an intelligent force is probable, and so they settle with that. That's not so bad.It's quite convenient that "possibilities" exist.It's like saying, "oh, my torch doesn't reach that area, but let's not use anything else to bring light to it, because it's quite possible that my torch will reach that area in the future, and my torch has been successful in the past aswell."Yet remember that TRUTH doesn't belong to science, logically?It's like you're saying, "You can't ever infer God". Frankly, people think that an intelligent force brings light. It makes sense of a number of mysteries. The universe being tuned for exmple, vaguely, or fine-tuned, same difference. Reality is. Why is reality so = this is why.God is a good answer because he answers for why things are. An example of such Theist thinking would go;"Why is time there, well, for events to unfold. Why is there light, for energy. Why is space a vacuum? To radiate heat. Why is there water? An atmosphere, why is the set-up for life correct......"Anyway, the arguments, aren't what matter Mod'. My examples can be poor, and it's academic, because my point is that a Theist way of thinking is basically to say that reality is here on purpose, and that all those things aren't just coincidences.Is it so wrong, to give credence to reality?It's an error to incapacitate a potential inference. It's like saying, "you can never conclude that 2+2 is 5". . Fair enough - Goddidit is faulty for a reason, but as long as you are not saying, "God can never ever have done it even if it makes tremendous sense, and answers well for things". What if we define 5 as "4"?The problem with God, for me, is that he's like a theory that fits all of the facts, but just can't be proven to be the correct theory.A theory that answers for all of the variables, or explains them well, is atleast one worthy of investigation. Even if it's only a personal investigation.Okay, I've had my say now.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Hi Mike,
Can I just say that it is a pleasure to receive well crafted responses such as this? You have a way with words and clearly understand the issues at stake. There may have been some communication error on my behalf that I hope to clear up now.It is perfectly fine for a human being to say "God did it", or variants thereof. It is perfectly fine for a scientist who is also human to do that very thing. No problems with anyone who does that.What I take issue with, is when people/scientists try to state that this conclusion is scientific. OR when scientists have a God Did It conclusion and consider that to be the final answer on the subject. I think once you have decided that God has done it, it becomes incredibly easy to stop looking so hard for answers - you already have one you are philosophically happy with.The philosophical conclusion that God did something is anathema to scientific discovery. Even if, at any given time, it turns out to be a correct conclusion, science should not stop until it has either demonstrated that that is the case (probably not going to happen) or finds another explanation. If it can't find one, it should still look for one.Science is a philosophy of no final answers, nothing is conclusive in science, so any conclusion that states something absolutely is a conclusion which is saying 'stop looking for a better answer'. That is something human, but should be warned against to journeymen scientists.As a human, they might be satisfied, but as a scientists it is their obligation to never be satisfied.Not only can you infer God, it is something that is done by millions, and we should not ignore that. Scientists can do it too - but in so doing they must not stop asking.Had Newton continued to ask, he probably would have solved the problem, it was well within his powers to do so. However, he chose to stop asking and was scientifically satisfied with an ID invocation. This is bad. Precisely. The problem is that we can never be sure the God theory is right this time. We know for a fact that the God theory has been invoked erroneously time and again, and has stopped a scientist from going further. It is worth investigation, but it has a problem. How can you know if God did it, or something you can't explain did it? Is the sun actually Ra's chariot coursing through the sky, plunging into the underworld to fight evil every night? Or is it a nuclear reactor 120 billion metres away?Personally, it has the same problems. How does one know that any revelation is independent of the thinker? We can say for sure that plenty of revelations are wrong, because they are contradictory. It is fine to ponder these things, but any conclusion that is reached simply ends up being little more than opinion.Science is about explaining things. We can't explain things based on our opinions. The world works regardless of how we think it works, but science allows us to do practical things and learn about our universe in a way that we can have some confidence in. I don't rate my chances with opinion.God, if one exists, is probably smarter than me. Thus: it knows the quandary well. I trust that any god that does exist will not expect me to accept my cultural opinion (religious faith in whatever has been told to me) as a final answer.My personal opinion is that faith is another word for giving up being critical. I don't take people I meet on faith when they say they have a bridge for sale for example. Nor do I take on faith what some people I will never meet say about a metaphorical bridge (salvation) that requires I change my personal morals.My opinion in science is that giving up being critical is anathema to discovery. And as such faith should not enter into a scientific conclusion. ID, is simply asserting that a Designer does exist and was involved because as people we cannot explain something. As such, we should warn students away from that. Scientists are always working at the forefront, they are testing and discovering new things. If they cannot solve how a particular bacteria manages to metabolise some chemical - they cannot say that an undetectable entity is fiddling with things and expect that to be the final word. They might privately think it, but if they stop looking, it is just saying 'I give up. It can't be solved'.I say that it is the philosophy of ignorance because if everyone followed the philosophy we would be ignorant of many things today, and will be ignorant of many other things in future. The less people rely on the ID crutch, the more discovery is made possible. Thus my conclusion that science is the philosophy of discovery, and ID is the philosophy of ignorance.

Generally speaking 'life' is the beginning of evolution - but then we need to define 'life' eh? More difficult than it seems at first. (see Definition of LifeOn the other hand, what we need for evolution to work is a replication system involving copies that are variations on a theme, where the variations are passed on to the copies in the replication process and then new variations on those copied themes produced, copies where natural selection can operate in restricting which variations are available to the next generation based on those from the previous generation that best enable the survival or replication of the mechanism.We could define life as any replication system where evolution is part of the process.Crystals replicate but are not subject to natural selection in the way the copies are made and passed on.Viruses replicate using materials outside the virus, but they are subject to evolution - they adapt and change over time due to mutation and natural selection.The first replication systems may well not have qualified for 'life' by any current definitions, but still have provided a platform where natural selection operates.So one way to define life would be any system where natural selection operates on variations within a population of self replicating mechanisms such that change over time occurs within the population that improves the chances of the self replicating mechanisms to survive or to self replicate.This could be a single organic molecule -- we don't really know at this point, but evidence is pointing in that direction:SELF-REPLICATION: Even peptides do it
By Stuart A. Kauffman
This article originally appeared in Nature 382 August 8, 1996.
Copyright 1996 by Nature.
available on-line

quote:

---

The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix and having a structure based on a region of the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by accelerating the amino-bond condensation of 15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution (see Fig. 1 on page 525).

---

The RNA World
by Brig Klyce
on-line article

quote:

---

RNA has the ability to act as both genes and enzymes. This property could offer a way around the "chicken-and-egg" problem. (Genes require enzymes; enzymes require genes.) Furthermore, RNA can be transcribed into DNA, in reverse of the normal process of transcription. These facts are reasons to consider that the RNA world could be the original pathway to cells.

---

RNA-catalysed RNA polymerization using nucleoside triphosphates.
By Ekland EH, Bartel DP.
Nature. 1996 Sep 12;383(6596):192. - PubMed Abstract

quote:

---

The hypothesis that certain RNA molecules may be able to catalyse RNA replication is central to current theories of the early evolution of life. In support of this idea, we describe here an RNA that synthesizes RNA using the same reaction as that employed by protein enzymes that catalyse RNA polymerization. In the presence of the appropriate template RNA and nucleoside triphosphates, the ribozyme extends an RNA primer by successive addition of up to six mononucleotides.

---

RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization: accurate and general RNA-templated primer extension.
By Johnston WK, Unrau PJ, Lawrence MS, Glasner ME, Bartel DP.
Science. 2001 May 18;292(5520):1278. - PubMed Abstract

quote:

---

The RNA world hypothesis regarding the early evolution of life relies on the premise that some RNA sequences can catalyze RNA replication. In support of this conjecture, we describe here an RNA molecule that catalyzes the type of polymerization needed for RNA replication. The ribozyme uses nucleoside triphosphates and the coding information of an RNA template to extend an RNA primer by the successive addition of up to 14 nucleotides-more than a complete turn of an RNA helix. Its polymerization activity is general in terms of the sequence and the length of the primer and template RNAs, provided that the 3' terminus of the primer pairs with the template. Its polymerization is also quite accurate: when primers extended by 11 nucleotides were cloned and sequenced, 1088 of 1100 sequenced nucleotides matched the template.

---

There is more, but essentially what we increasingly see is that cellular life doesn't need to exist for the processes of evolution (variation in copies and selection of those copies that are more 'fit' to survive or replicate) to operate on the replication of molecular systems.So when we talk about for formation of life by natural means (eg -- abiogenesis), we are talking about the chemical formation of these replicating molecules, and what kinds of chemical processes can cause these molecules to form and what kinds of building blocks did these chemical processes have available to work with.Chemical processes are not entirely random - molecules only form in certain ways, bonds can only form under certain conditions.We also know that certain prebiotic and organic chemicals were readily available.Building Blocks of Life
by RAZD on EvC Forum
RAZD - Building Blocks of Life

quote:

---

In the farthest depths of the universe polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) molecules have been found by the Spitzer Space Telescope, 10 billion light-years away (4 Hill 2005). Other deep space organic compounds that have already been found are the 7-atom vinyl alcohol (5 anon 2001), the 8-atom molecule propenal and the 10-atom molecule propanal (2 anon 2004),

​

In the immediate stellar neighborhood we have data from our gas giants and their moons. The IRIS-Voyager infrared spectrometer detected prebiotic molecules on Titan as well as complex organic molecules on Jupiter and Saturn. The Cassini satellite found an organic ''factory'' of hydrocarbons in the upper atmosphere of Titan (7 Martinez 2005). Carbonaceous material has also been observed in the immediate surroundings of Comet Halley's nucleus, implying these materials are also readily available in the OORT cloud surrounding the planets (8 Encrenaz 1986). These findings, tells us that such prebiotics are formed in an interstellar medium by non-living procedures. Furthermore, even if they are not uniformly available in the early formation of the system, they are certainly available for transport from such locations where they are available to any planets in the stellar system.

​

Moving farther in, we have detected a host of prebiotics on meteorites. Mono- and dicarboxylic acids, dicarboximides, pyridine carboxylic acids, a sulfonic acid, and both aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons (9 Pizzarello et al 2001) have been found. In addition, hollow, bubble-like hydrocarbon globules, similar to early membraneous formations (10 Watson 2002), and ''polyols,'' components of the nucleic acids RNA and DNA, constituents of cell membranes and cellular energy sources (11 Koczor 2001 & 12 Cooper et al 2001) have been detected in material from meteorites as well.

---

We do not need to consider how these molecules could have formed or what kind of chance is necessary for them to form: they were available.Thus, while we may need "chance" to make the proper connections - the actual chemical bonds between available prebiotic molecular building blocks to form a replicating molecule - the readily available material, the basic chemical behavior of molecules that only bond in a certain number of ways (not endless) and the minimum basic replication requirements needed, all mean that the possibilities could well have been such that it was more just a matter of time rather than a matter of "impossible" odds.We may need "chance" to toss a coin and get a heads instead of a tails, but no one will argue that no matter how long you keep tossing the coin that you will never get a heads result.And once a replication system has started producing more replicating molecules it is no longer a matter of chance, but a faits accomplis.At this point the best we can say from a scientific point of view is that we don't know.Some people may choose to conclude that their preferred god is responsible, but that is -- as all faith truly is -- the leap of faith.So whether Newton was right or not to assume a designer is open to debate. It could be the same as assuming that a designer is responsible for all the patterns seen in a kaleidoscope, when it is as much a matter of the point of view of the observer whether a pattern truly exists or not:One person only looking through the eyehole sees marvelous patterns.Another person looks at the back and sees jumbled block of random colored chips, opens the kaleidoscope and finds mirrors that cause the appearance of patterns.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This is a false dichotomy. If the Bible is the indeed the work of humanity then there is no reason to expect the universe to conform to any kind of biblical description.

Thanks Mod. I also enjoy your posts and am aware that you have a good knowledge span. I also perceive that you understand that negative personal comments are never necessary. I also employ this philosophy. Excellent. We have a 100% record in constructive debate. I'm satisfied with your in-depth explanation.

RickJB touched on this issue, but I'll go a little further. Or rather, in a different direction. could it be, that if God was the author, he just left some stuff out? You know, like it's not really that important to know how gravity works or the correct physics compared with getting into heaven.Wouldn't, and doesn't, all that science mumbo-jumbo just confuse matters in the "good book"?Is the book about salvation or science? It's damn good if you're using it as a life guide. Piss poor as a science guide.Does this, then, not lead to the conclusion that perhaps science is not the focus of the bible?Do you use a bird-book for looking up what type of lizard you're looking at?As to the whole gallileo deal:
you do realize he was being persecuted by the Inquisition, right? His comment, about not abandoning reason, was in response to the Inquisition demanding that he do just that, and accept at face-value what is in the bible as true.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Maybe you confuse me with whoever has a God Did It conclusion. I do not believe that science is evil. I believe science is a tool for us to understand the world around us, but also to glorify God with the marvel at how the creation works. I believe naturalism is a philosophy(religion) that is never conclusive because it assumes there is no God. But not science. I'm surprised that one such as you made a statement like this. The reason why we continue in science is not because there are no conclusions, but because there is so much depth, intricacies, beauty just waiting to be explored.For instance, we can conclude that atoms exist. We have observed them, but we can continue farther, electrons and protons exist. But what makes up protons and electrons? ... science, delving deeper into the glory of God. It is a continuous quest, because the Creator is infinite in wisdom. Who knows how much farther we can go into the nature of the basic elements that we know right now, or the limits of the universe? Laws of physics, mathematics. The weather, the human mind. All wonders of creation to be explored.Just a reminder that the Creator might not take to well to have His handy work being attributed to randomness. Or whatever forces other than Him you might attribute it to.

---

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’*Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

It would help if you replied to the correct message.your response has nothing to do with my message 24. I am not sure who's message you are replying to.It'll also let the person who you intended to reply to know that you have, without a doubt.care to take a go at my message 24, though?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Hi there. Welcome to the forum. Science works from theories based on induction. This means that one can make a theory that would explain the facts, in the least and that would satisfy the parameter of making predictions. Then the build up of evidence (induction) to favour that theory, would give it merit.I think that this is why Mod' says that science doesn't have conclusions, in the absolute sense. This is because
one would seek evidence that would confirm his/her theory, with a strong emphasis on falsification. (Evidence to the contrary of that theory).Naturalism, as far as I am aware, has not been mentioned. Science doesn't bring any assumptions, except valid ones, based on work which has been confirmed as factual.So far, scientifically, "God" isn't mentioned in proper theory, because he does not pertain to any experimental results.It's quite true that God could be a conclusion, but then he would also have to be a tentative conclusion, because of what Mod said. He would then be subject to modification by dissent.There's also a problem with that which we would expect to evidence God. For example, in a theory, one builds his/her construct and then can simply look for evidence to fit with that framework. Whereas with God, no one can say what would evidence him. God is beyond falsification, because of ad hoc improvisations; which is to say that one can "fix" it so that God can still pass as a theoretical truth, because of a posteriori reasoning.This is why I said that God is a theory, but he can't be proved. Because there is no evidence that would allow valid inference, technically.That's my problem, he makes all the sense in the world to me, but he can't be proved. As long as he is allowed to be inferred, which he is, then I have no problem. (What I mean by that is that he can possibly be inferred if he is done so logically, which he hasn't been thus far.) Mod' is fine with that opinion. He mentioned that in the post you responded to.I also have this opinion.

This agnostic has no objections to such an opinion either...

Are you saying that science is not inherently tentative? We haven't really seen atoms. We can certainly conclude that they exist - but that conclusion isn't inherently final. We can use it to build our base of knowledge more and more. At any time, it could be shown to be false. Given the usefulness of the concept it may be that something else exists at that level that gives us similar results to atoms, but that some other model explains things even better. I take it then, that you are pro-evolution being taught to our students. We wouldn't want to bar discovery just because some people think that God did it. We want to go into the nature and limits of the universe right to the core, so we need to teach children what we already know, so that maybe they can add to that knowledge base. And a reminder that it might not take too well to its handy work being attributed to some bronze age superstition. It might not take too well to us psychologically ceasing discovery because we don't want to upset some fiction we made up. Since we don't know what this creator is, we cannot know for sure what will upset it - if anything. If it is Yahweh, then I'm sure he'll be really annoyed...but the level of annoyance from this creator entity depends on its capacity to be annoyed and how absurd and petty it is. Edited by Modulous, : childlike spelling errorEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Good man.