Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Greater Miracle
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 121 of 199 (508379)
05-12-2009 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by GDR
05-12-2009 1:55 PM


GDR responds to me:
quote:
quote:
First, Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is a popular press book, not a scientific treatise. You seem to be ignorant of this fact. Look in the literature and you will not find mentions of his "memes" or anything else.
Why then in the book store is "The Selfish Gene" sold in the science section?
Because it is a popular press book. Do you not understand the difference between the popular press and the peer reviewed press? The subject of the book is biology, thus it falls under the category of "science," but it isn't an actual study.
quote:
And what evidence would that be?
The fact that you can watch it happen right before your eyes. Are you saying god comes down and does it?
Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It isn't very expensive and doesn't require very many materials.
Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.
But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.
How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.
But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.
Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.
But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.
What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.
But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.
Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.
So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.
There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.
You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.
We have seen evolutionary change from the smallest shifts to new species, genera, even orders and families, all right in front of our eyes.
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by GDR, posted 05-12-2009 1:55 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by GDR, posted 05-13-2009 2:09 AM Rrhain has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 122 of 199 (508380)
05-12-2009 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by GDR
05-12-2009 7:15 PM


Hegel is Dead, Long Live Hegel (conditionally)
GDR writes:
The fact still remains that Dawkins is considered as a writer of science, and when he goes off into areas that are meant to promote a materialistic view of the world in books that also does contain scientific facts, the lines get very blurred.
I agree to a point, namely that the concept of a meme, like that of a superego, is essentially literary shorthand and is not a part of science but rather lies in the realm of philosophy. I do not find this concept as well defined or empirically evidenced as others, such as the term natural selection or genetic inheritance.
In my view it is in the same category as trying to support a 6000 year old world by mixing in some legitimate science with untestable subjective theory.
Well my view diverges here. As someone with a bit of familiarity with the physical sciences, particularly the geosciences, I see no mixing of legitimate science in the YEC stance. Rather what I see is the complete rejection of every single piece of evidence, down to the level of virtually every single rock regardless of size, of all the geosciences, including every place where it overlaps with physics, chemistry, and biology, thereby rejecting even the central concepts of all those sciences in such cases.
Since I consider you a reasonable person, I propose a deal. If you don't demand that your religion be taught in a public school (except as a part of comparative religion), I won't demand science be taught in your tax-exempt church (except for any honest proposal that the contribution such a denomination may have made to the enlightenment led to science and democracy).
But of course you likely do agree in principle, and therefore we are not adversaries but rather on a different road to the same destination.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by GDR, posted 05-12-2009 7:15 PM GDR has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 123 of 199 (508382)
05-12-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by GDR
05-12-2009 7:15 PM


GDR writes:
quote:
You know that, I know that and so I imagine does every else on this forum.
Then why do you keep bringing it up? If you know it doesn't support your thesis and we know it doesn't support your thesis, shouldn't you drop it as an argument in justification of your thesis?
quote:
The fact still remains that Dawkins is considered as a writer of science
And? You seem to be implying that as soon as someone has a journal article published, that makes everything he ever writes equivalent to a journal article and never again is he capable of simply speculating on things.
quote:
and when he goes off into areas that are meant to promote a materialistic view of the world in books that also does contain scientific facts, the lines get very blurred.
Only to those who are ignorant. Are you saying that we should be beholden to those who don't have the inclination to learn? That if there is anybody who is confused about something, that is sufficient to say that the author really meant that?
We should accept known wrong answers as correct simply because there is somebody out there who doesn't know any better?
quote:
In my view it is in the same category as trying to support a 6000 year old world by mixing in some legitimate science with untestable subjective theory.
But nobody in science is claiming memes are real! There are creationists who are personally, deliberately, and consciously claiming in no uncertain terms that life, the universe, and everything are only about 6000 years old, they are not joking, they are not speculating, they mean it to the core.
Dawkins is just engaging in some philosophical musings, he knows it, you know it, so why do you keep pretending as if he thinks it's an actual theory?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by GDR, posted 05-12-2009 7:15 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by GDR, posted 05-13-2009 3:13 AM Rrhain has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 124 of 199 (508389)
05-13-2009 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Rrhain
05-12-2009 9:52 PM


Rrhain writes:
The fact that you can watch it happen right before your eyes. Are you saying god comes down and does it?
I have no question that natural selection(which I assume you would agree that this is an example of, remembering that I have no biological background), happens.
The questions then to be asked are:
1/ Did evolution begin through a completely natural process or was there an external designer.
2/ Once biological life was a fact, (and assuming there was a designer),
(a)was the design complete with evolution continuing with no interference,
(b)did evoultion continue with some interference at various stages in the process,
(c)or was the designer involved at every point in the process.
Obviously to question 1 my answer is that I believe there was an external designer.
To question 2, I believe that the answer is option (b). However, having said that I could live with any of the three possibilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Rrhain, posted 05-12-2009 9:52 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by bluescat48, posted 05-13-2009 2:26 AM GDR has replied
 Message 130 by Rrhain, posted 05-15-2009 6:28 AM GDR has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 125 of 199 (508392)
05-13-2009 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by GDR
05-13-2009 2:09 AM


Obviously to question 1 my answer is that I believe there was an external designer.
So then where did the designer come from?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by GDR, posted 05-13-2009 2:09 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by GDR, posted 05-13-2009 3:19 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 126 of 199 (508397)
05-13-2009 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Rrhain
05-12-2009 11:41 PM


Rrhain writes:
Dawkins is just engaging in some philosophical musings, he knows it, you know it, so why do you keep pretending as if he thinks it's an actual theory?
Here is a Dawkin's quote:
quote:
Another objection is that we don't know what memes are made of, or where they reside. Memes have not yet found their Watson and Crick, they even lack their Mendel. Whereas genes are to be found in precise locations on chromosomes, memes presumably exist in brains, and we even have less chance of seeing one than of seeing a gene (though the neurobiologist Juan Delius has pictured his conjecture of what a meme might look like).
and this from wiki
quote:
A meme (pronounced /mim/ - rhyming with "cream"), is a postulated unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices that gets transmitted from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. The etymology of the term relates to the Greek word mimema for "something imitated".[1]. Supporters of the concept of memes believe that they act as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures.[2] Memeticists have not definitively empirically proven the existence of discrete memes or their proposed mechanism as they do not form part of the consensus of mainstream social sciences. Meme theory therefore lacks the same degree of influence granted to its counterpart and inspiration, genetics.
Richard Dawkins first introduced the word in The Selfish Gene (1976) to discuss evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. He gave as examples melodies, catch-phrases, and beliefs (notably religious belief), clothing/fashion, and the technology of building arches.[3]
Meme-theorists contend that memes evolve by natural selection (in a manner similar to that of biological evolution) through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance influencing an individual entity's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behaviors that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Theorists point out that memes which replicate the most effectively spread best, and some memes may replicate effectively even when they prove detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[4]
A field of study called memetics arose in the 1990s to explore the concepts and transmission of memes in terms of an evolutionary model. Criticism from a variety of fronts has challenged the notion that scholarship can examine memes empirically. Some commentators question the idea that one can meaningfully categorize culture in terms of discrete units.
Memes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Rrhain, posted 05-12-2009 11:41 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Rrhain, posted 05-15-2009 8:39 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 05-15-2009 9:42 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 127 of 199 (508398)
05-13-2009 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by bluescat48
05-13-2009 2:26 AM


bluescat48 writes:
So then where did the designer come from?
Beats me. I do know that science seems to consider the passage of time something of an illusion for us, and is the way we experience change. Some theories speculate about other dimensions of time. Science talks about the world as being open and infinite. The point being is that we don't know much about time and so I suggest that one possibility, (which I accept) is that God is infinite, or that He just always was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by bluescat48, posted 05-13-2009 2:26 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 128 of 199 (508419)
05-13-2009 8:46 AM


Topic
Is it me or you guys have strayed very far away from the topic? If i only read the latest messages, I would be hard pressed to guess the topic of the thread.
Edited by Son, : No reason given.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 129 of 199 (508427)
05-13-2009 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by GDR
05-12-2009 4:49 PM


You do realize, I hope, that you're running around in circles:
"What in science is subjective."
"Memes."
"Memes aren't scientific."
"Well, I don't accept the things that are subjective in science."
"Like what?"
"Memes."
You're on a similar merry-go-round regarding other issues, too:
"You can know things objectively using a subjective approach."
"Subjective means individually true, not universally true."
"We just can't know when we have objective knowledge that's gained subjectively."
"How is that any different in a practical sense from not having objective knowledge?"
"It's not, but I still contend objective knowledge can be gained subjectively."
Maybe I'll step off your merry-go-round for a while and just watch.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by GDR, posted 05-12-2009 4:49 PM GDR has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 130 of 199 (508620)
05-15-2009 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by GDR
05-13-2009 2:09 AM


GDR responds to me:
quote:
Did evolution begin through a completely natural process or was there an external designer.
Before we can answer this, you need to answer my question...you keep contradicting yourself, so I really don't know what you think:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
Too, you are confusion evolution with biogenesis and they are not the same thing. Evolution is compatible with every method of origins you care to name. The only thing that evolution cares about is that life, no matter how it started, does not reproduce perfectly from generation to generation.
quote:
Obviously to question 1 my answer is that I believe there was an external designer.
Why? If something seems to be capable of happening on its own, where is the justification for the addition of chocolate sprinkles?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by GDR, posted 05-13-2009 2:09 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by GDR, posted 05-15-2009 9:47 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 131 of 199 (508634)
05-15-2009 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by GDR
05-13-2009 3:13 AM


GDR responds to me:
quote:
Here is a Dawkin's quote:
Another objection is that we don't know what memes are made of, or where they reside. Memes have not yet found their Watson and Crick, they even lack their Mendel. Whereas genes are to be found in precise locations on chromosomes, memes presumably exist in brains, and we even have less chance of seeing one than of seeing a gene (though the neurobiologist Juan Delius has pictured his conjecture of what a meme might look like).
And how is that in any way contradicted by my original statement, which you quoted:
Rrhain writes:
Dawkins is just engaging in some philosophical musings, he knows it, you know it, so why do you keep pretending as if he thinks it's an actual theory?
He admits that there is no physical evidence of them, that we haven't seen one and probably won't, so how is that not "philosophical musing"?
quote:
and this from wiki
Wikipedia is not a science journal.
So you've got the author, writing in the popular press, directly stating that he's not talking about a physical thing and a cobbled-together collection of half-sources and you still claim that memes are an actual scientific theory?
Where are the journal articles regarding them?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by GDR, posted 05-13-2009 3:13 AM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 132 of 199 (508641)
05-15-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by GDR
05-13-2009 3:13 AM


I somehow missed this post in favor of memes as legitimate science, let me comment now.
You're arguing that memes is too a scientific theory. If by this you mean that it is a broadly accepted interpretation of data that scientists believe represents something true about the real world, then no, it is not an accepted scientific theory.
But if you instead mean that there is a community of scientists working to establish memes as a broadly accepted scientific theory, then this isn't true, either.
Even worse for your case, even if memes were currently a legitimate area of scientific investigation, it belongs in the field of psychology, one of the soft sciences. While some areas of psychology are rigorous and are attempting to establish things that are true about reality, other areas like psychoanalysis are incredibly subjective. Memes are definitely not on the rigorous side of the fence.
But just the fact that you're arguing the point means that you're missing the key issue. At any given time within science there will always be theories (they should more properly be called hypotheses, but let's not quibble about labels) striving for legitimacy. Some will make it, some won't. Maybe one day memes will make it, maybe not. But the important point that we keep making to you is that science strives for objectivity, which means discovering principles that are true for everyone everywhere regardless of world view or the model car that they drive or their favorite sports team or anything else.
In other words, the problem isn't with your ideas but with your use of an approach that doesn't strive for objectivity. If your approach cannot identify any aspects of ID that are impossible to ignore, then you don't have objective knowledge. Whether or not you believe in gravity, you'll still fall down and not up. You have to find those things about ID that whether we believe in ID or not still happen. With evolution, whether you believe in speciation or not we can still show you examples of speciation. You need the equivalent for ID. Whether I believe in an IDer or not, if you can produce the IDer then it doesn't matter what I believe. Of if you can find life that can't be fit into our hierarchical classification system and so must have had a non-evolutionary origin then it doesn't matter what I believe. That's what objectivity means.
Unfortunately for science the consequences of denial are almost never as severe as for things like gravity, inertia and so forth. You can believe that the Big Bang never happened or that there's no such thing as plate tectonics and still live a full and healthy life. Or you can go the other way and believe in things that don't exist like homeopathy or talking to the dead or miracles, and except for the waste of money you'll again suffer no consequences. What difference could it possibly make if you want to believe that it's ESP and not coincidence that your Aunt Ethel called just as you were thinking of her? Just don't make the mistake of thinking that these are things that are objectively true of reality
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by GDR, posted 05-13-2009 3:13 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by GDR, posted 05-15-2009 9:30 PM Percy has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 133 of 199 (508741)
05-15-2009 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Percy
05-15-2009 9:42 AM


Percy writes:
I somehow missed this post in favor of memes as legitimate science, let me comment now.
You're arguing that memes is too a scientific theory. If by this you mean that it is a broadly accepted interpretation of data that scientists believe represents something true about the real world, then no, it is not an accepted scientific theory.
But if you instead mean that there is a community of scientists working to establish memes as a broadly accepted scientific theory, then this isn't true, either.
Even worse for your case, even if memes were currently a legitimate area of scientific investigation, it belongs in the field of psychology, one of the soft sciences. While some areas of psychology are rigorous and are attempting to establish things that are true about reality, other areas like psychoanalysis are incredibly subjective. Memes are definitely not on the rigorous side of the fence.
But just the fact that you're arguing the point means that you're missing the key issue. At any given time within science there will always be theories (they should more properly be called hypotheses, but let's not quibble about labels) striving for legitimacy. Some will make it, some won't. Maybe one day memes will make it, maybe not. But the important point that we keep making to you is that science strives for objectivity, which means discovering principles that are true for everyone everywhere regardless of world view or the model car that they drive or their favorite sports team or anything else.
I do not in any way think that Dawkin's theory of memes is science. Frankly I don't believe he does either but my point is that in his popular writings he writes as if they are real and mixes it in with real science so as I said earlier, the lines become blurred. It is the atheistic equivalent of a theist writing a book and claiming that there are spiritual cultural replicators and passing it off as legitimate scientific theory.
Percy writes:
In other words, the problem isn't with your ideas but with your use of an approach that doesn't strive for objectivity. If your approach cannot identify any aspects of ID that are impossible to ignore, then you don't have objective knowledge.
There are no aspects of any theism that are impossible to ignore. If there were we would all be theists. Theists however exist amongst highly intelligent people. They must base there conclusion on something even though there views aren't objective.
Percy writes:
Unfortunately for science the consequences of denial are almost never as severe as for things like gravity, inertia and so forth. You can believe that the Big Bang never happened or that there's no such thing as plate tectonics and still live a full and healthy life. Or you can go the other way and believe in things that don't exist like homeopathy or talking to the dead or miracles, and except for the waste of money you'll again suffer no consequences. What difference could it possibly make if you want to believe that it's ESP and not coincidence that your Aunt Ethel called just as you were thinking of her? Just don't make the mistake of thinking that these are things that are objectively true of reality
Other than that I do believe that there have been miracles I would agree with you. That is my subjective view. The statement that miracles etc. don't exist represents your subjective view. Miracles may or may not exist but there is no way of proving it one way or the other.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 05-15-2009 9:42 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Percy, posted 05-16-2009 6:25 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 134 of 199 (508742)
05-15-2009 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rrhain
05-15-2009 6:28 AM


Rrhain writes:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
If you go back to your post #63 in this thread you quote me as agreeing to the point that some things happen on their own. Why do you keep asking the same question that has already been answered?
Rrhain writes:
Why? If something seems to be capable of happening on its own, where is the justification for the addition of chocolate sprinkles?
Presumably, as you won't even make clear what it is you actually do believe, you subjectively believe that all that has, is and will happen can, and so likely has, happened on its own. I sujectively disagree. Neither view can be proven so we hold our views, whatever views it is that you do actually hold, by faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rrhain, posted 05-15-2009 6:28 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Rrhain, posted 05-17-2009 8:58 PM GDR has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 135 of 199 (508780)
05-16-2009 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by GDR
05-15-2009 9:30 PM


GDR writes:
I do not in any way think that Dawkin's theory of memes is science.
Uh, do you recall that twice previously you gave memes as an example of science that was subjective?
Frankly I don't believe he does either but my point is that in his popular writings he writes as if they are real and mixes it in with real science so as I said earlier, the lines become blurred.
For laypeople, yes, the distinction between the science that is what scientists actually do and the science that appears in the popular press can become confused. Not helping matters is that clearly pseudo-scientific books are often included among the science books, like books by Behe and Dembski, and I'm even willing to include Dawkins' books about memes and selfish genes where he's not simplifying science for the layman but is instead presenting ideas that have no scientific consensus nor even much if any technical literature supporting them. When I read a science book I want to know what science thinks, not what one particular scientist thinks.
But is the realization that memes aren't really science a recent one for you, a confusion recently resolved in your own mind, or do you sometimes think they are and sometimes think they aren't. I only ask because you're not scoring real high on the consistency scale in this thread. We've argued around in circles several times, and not just about memes. You've just asked Rrhain why he keeps asking the same question that's already been answered, and it's because you keep giving different and mutually exclusive answers, and apparently don't even realize you're doing it.
Theists however exist amongst highly intelligent people. They must base there conclusion on something even though their views aren't objective.
No one's arguing for differences in intelligence between theists and non-theists. And course much of what both theists and non-theists do throughout their lives is not objective. Science is what a scientist does as a job, not as a life style.
The statement that miracles etc. don't exist represents your subjective view.
It is not my view, subjective or otherwise, that miracles do not exist.
Miracles may or may not exist but there is no way of proving it one way or the other.
This is closer to my view.
An answer to Rrhain's question ("Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?") consistent with what you've said in this thread is, "Objectively, there's no way to know. Subjectively, I have my own set of beliefs concerning God's degree of involvement with the natural world." Would you agree with that? Or are you again going to insist that objective knowledge can emerge from subjective beliefs, we can just never know what that objective knowledge is? If the latter then at least you'll succeed in getting your internal contradiction into a single sentence instead of spreading it across several posts where it is difficult to recognize.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by GDR, posted 05-15-2009 9:30 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by GDR, posted 05-16-2009 10:21 AM Percy has replied
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 05-16-2009 12:53 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024