Summations Only

So, we can change the word "followers" to "adherents". As I have already said, there is no place in our society to anyone who attempts to coerce involving legal entities in promoting their particular point of view, be it secular or religious -- to the exclusion of others. JCH

Of course, in the past and subsequently all these vestigiae had purpose and, we all know, the flagellum has critical purpose in our physiology of providing motility — to reproductive cells (sperm); to a means of propelling mucus and debris in our respiratory tracts and in the critical processes of digestion in the second part of our digestive system (to name just a few).
As to Purpose in science — to me (JCH) the only purpose to science is knowledge. Application is obviously purpose, but that’s another entity.
One guided and guarded by man as his very own (he thinks).
Purpose in evolution --- like all such endeavors of nature and man --- is cluttered with vestigial components. "Shavings from the work bench" as it were — which some tails, appendices etc. most likely are. Cluttering of the evolutionary pathway are like breadcrumbs and (pardon my leap) — sort of messages from God. But they are also structures which can be accessed again in the future should they be needed. Perhaps we should be more reverent to vestigia. They likely have provided us and all animalia with latitude for survival through the eons. JCH

Dear: hooah212002
I’m sorry I did not cover your other more salient points. I know that must have seemed insulting but I had 20 responses to keep up with. I’ll try and go back and review the piece that I missed the point of.
Again, my apologies for focusing on your signature item --- but you must admit, Dawkins loads any discussion about ID; even Teleologic ID, and it loads the piece with bias from the beginning, which was the reason I wrote my entry piece in this discussion.
JCH

Jar: I agree. There is no place for fairies, magic nor (really) disdain in discussing the Universe. The quest should be for fact and reality as much as we are capable through scientific investigation. In that regard, there are two sides obvious: On one — the totally secular side — everything sprang from nothing or something in another dimension (M theory) or a bounce from a previous cyclic universe, etc.
I accept all as a possibility, though there are major obstructions in both cases. I have the most problem with all this energy and remarkable evolution springing from nothing. The amount of energy which makes up the universe in absolutely incalculable, and we only tangibly see a fraction in all our studies (e.g. -- dark matter and dark energy and even gravity about which we know very little --- except we know they exist and are pivotal to our existence).
So, springing from nothing — to me — is unacceptable. Then, there’s the direction after initiation which we feel is the Big Bang — the actuality of which we are (and always will be) blind to because it occurs over the horizon of existence. Thus: bring(ing) in the Designer and present(ing) both the Designer and the Method/model used by that Designer for examination and testing is, and always will be impossible. That’s not an excuse, it’s a statement of incontrovertible fact. So there we are. We are left with science and math; observations and probabilities; gradients and tensors; Quarks and the Cosmos to try and unravel what has become.
JCH.

FROM JCH:
Dear lbm111: I would urge that we all attempt to avoid being side-tracked. The evolution of hammers — even as a surrogate for the roots of our concerns -- are interesting, but the evolution of the universe and particularly of sentient and then sapient life is much more so (I think).
JCH

Dear hooah212002:
Secular: Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: "secular buildings".Again, your signature is off-putting. It implies your agreement that all but scientists are idiots. I don’t consider that a valid appraisal of mankind. I certainly don’t think that the Monks of Tibet or Dharmic Swamis, particularly Aurobindo Ghose (1871—1950) or Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (2 October 1869—30 January 1948) were idiots, and they had deep questions as well.
But I do NOT want to get off track. Sorry! JCH

Dear: Theodoric
Pardon me, but I got way behind (as I still am!) and focused in on the main thing that caught my eye. Give me time, I’ll learn the rhythm here.
As to your statement: it is not just atheists that believe in Evolution. Absolutely agree. So do I. I just believe Evolution MAY have been nuanced and not determined by chance out of chaos. What’s your point otherwise? JCH

Dear: Warthog: Msg 47 Thanks for your response and I appologize for my tardy one.
You said:
Science suggests that the intelligence of cephalopods is a result of developing their amazing physiology as well as an active predatory lifestyle.
There is no evidence that intelligence is a goal or 'pre-loaded' as used in another thread. Of course there would be no hard evidence of such. That’s just a speculation. It takes intelligence to evolve a successful predatory life style. We can’t know any of that was directed by any other than evolution. I was more interested in the potential stemming from that development and the road block placed in its way to advancement. Our advantage (since we evolved out of the same predatory life style, basically) is that we have a legacy system whereby information from previous generations are stored; reused and built upon. Why are we the only intelligent species so endowed? Just because we have thumbs? Very complex questions and impossible (really) to answer. You’re quite right, ultimately, when you note:
None of this requires us to assume any form of creator. There is no measurable pattern here that demands a higher power or any form of direction. If there is actual evidence of a creator, I'd love to see it.Quite right, and to your last point: Wouldn’t we all? But that can never be for reasons I have elaborated on in the past. So we are left to our own devices ---- and speculations and biases.Then you state a more important point:
I think the biggest problem here is the conflation of two meanings of purpose. I have never seen the use of the term purpose in science to mean anything other than function. I agree with Tanypteryx that function is a better term in this debate.JCH response:
Purpose in science (to me at least) is the accumulation and analysis of data to support or refute a hypothesis or theory. Nothing more. Only if the process also results in applicable information does it otherwise take on a function beyond the initial purpose.
In short, the purpose is curiosity (investigationally) driven in science.
The function applications are needs and wants driven.
They are Totally different platforms and should not be conflated.
JCH

WOW! Finally some guidance on how to resond cogently in this format. Thankyou so much MODULOUS. Let me digest this and enter it into my formatting. thanks again!!
JCH

Dear Modulous:Re: ID is creationism in disguise,,, Sounds like you're a secularist. That does not address the point you were quoting when you said it. That is:
quote:
________________________________________
And that is the main problem with teleological accounts: they assert the existence of a purpose-giver, but do not provide any evidence for the existence of said purpose-giver, or indeed what purpose they are even giving. ________________________________________
I (as a teleologist) am not offended, but it seems that teleology is at least as valid as any other discipline (including multiple components of science), --- most of them being unproven as absolute truth or fact.
All scientific knowledge is tentative and is thus 'unproven as absolute truth or fact'. The difference is that teleology has no supporting evidence for its defining feature: A purpose and a purpose giver. Unlike with say, what we know about the respiratory system, or ant behaviour, or the mass of the moon. All tentative, all unproven as absolute truths.
Teleology is 'valid', but it isn't supported by evidence. And that's the essential claim of the ID movement: That teleology is supported by the evidence. And that is not true. Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes.

JCHardy put both Blue Jay's text and his own responses in quotes, and he was inconsistent in which quotes he used. I believe I've straightened it out properly.

​

To JCHardy: Could I suggest you use the Preview button before posting or spend some time in the Practice Makes Perfect forum. --AdminOf course, I believe ALL OPINIONS deserve respect; I believe INFORMATION based (when possible) on valid studies and review are the ONLY ones which deserve respect. This is a personal preference of course, but is also the one followed by most credible institutions. I would only ask that each of us entertain the other’s idea’s, hypotheses and data sets in a respectful light, at least in the beginning. Sort of like an attitude of assuming a person is perfect when you first meet them, and then --- as time and information is accumulated --- you reject their behavior (a sort of synonym for the sum of information and presentation) --- in such a way that they can actually hear what you’re saying, rather than closing their ears (minds) and learning nothing. So, the cornerstone of all information exchange is respect — at least in the beginning — and through the process of communication — doubt or conviction will set in; in one or the other of the two sides. Calling the proponents of one point of view or the other idiots at the outset accomplishes nothing. It placates the base of one’s belief system, but advances nothing ultimately except an exchange of vitriol. I absolutely agree! But the presentation of those boundaries (those standards) of acceptance or rejection is pivotal. If the standards are presented as dogma (i.e., something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet ) without flexibility at all, the standards had better be so well established that the deviant opinion, theory, hypothesis etc. is incontrovertible by everyone’s experience and observation. The seasons’ changes, for example, are set and everyone agrees how, why and when they occur. That (to me) is valid dogma. What we are discussing requires either proof or acceptance of certain levels of probability and the bar for dogma should be established at a very high level. The value in this discussion is the discussion itself. It is the respectful consideration of ideas we might impulsively (knee jerk) otherwise reject. So---it’s worthwhile asking why that is so? What is it about the concept of faith that is so absolutely unshakable. So immutable in the minds of those that cling to it? What is the value, if it’s all just bunk. And if there is NO value to faith, (and certainly no validity to it --- according to many) — why does it then endure? I would submit the hill — so far as some of us are concerned — is at least bimodal. If IDists (particularly the teleologists) have a hill to climb --- (when they already KNOW they cannot really reach the top or ultimately convince anyone with solid scientific proof); then so do Darwinists and many Cosmologists; biologists; geologists etc.etc. -- if they want to convince us that all we see evolved sequentially and logically out of initial conditions, without perturbation from an outside influence, via chaos and fractals; strange attractors; following laws of universe which we really barely understand in detail — then I think we are both on even ground.
Therefore, if we are to advance at all, we must get our boots off each other’s throats and allow the free transfer of information --- no matter how dumb or blasphemous the other thinks that information might be.JCHEdited by Admin, : Fix quoting.

This appears to be a duplicate of Message 90 for which I just fixed the odd use of quoting. I've hidden content of this message. --AdminEdited by Admin, : Hide content.

I initiated this thread as A Plea in favor of Purpose’ ‘ on 2/20. The discussion has periodically been interesting, but much of it has deteriorated into semantic arguments. so I would like very much to refocus it back to the original objective:
A clarification to understand the conflicts between adherents of faith and science.
Teleologic adherents of Intelligent Design test their concepts by their compatibility with current scientific knowledge.
Many have developed their conviction that the universe -- improbable as it is without an incredible amount of fine tuning in the pathway to evolving human intelligence — SEEMS to be TOO fine-tuned not to have had some rather incredible engineering to realize what SEEMS to be an outcome that most of us would deem as pretty phenomenal.
Some of us have come to that conclusion only after we understand the concepts of Cosmology (including quantum Cosmology) from the Big Bang through the mysterious Quark epoch and into inflation leading to the final release of photons to carry information forward through time beginning at 440,000 years after the BB. At that point, we see the evolution of the microwave background BEYOND WHICH WE CANNOT SEE. On top of this self-evident limitation, there is the SCALE of the universe overall, beginning at a level of 10-33 Cm (the Planck length at the quantum level) where theoretical strings might reside and which MAY be the fundamental component making up Quarks, but which we can never hope to see or define. All of this sequence PRIOR to the CMB is informed speculation, done by mathematical projection --- which we accept as probable since it is based on everything we know from:
Newtonian physics; Maxwell’s equations on electromagnetism; Special and General Relativity; Chaos Theory and Quantum mechanics etc. etc. all well tested theories which have a few major holes in them. None-the-less, they are serving us very well indeed.It’s as if BARRIERS or WALLS have been built into the universe from the very beginning making it impossible to actually SEE what actually took place, or HOW matter is really constructed --- so WE CAN NEVER KNOW!
So our concepts of seeing purpose and/or goals in the universe are fundamentally based in the concepts of its evolution. Very concrete overall.The same can be said of the evolution of life and finally intelligent life. Darwin’s theory is not a law, but its concepts are reasonable and bear up to testing to a great extent, BUT THERE REMAIN QUESTIONS, and the questions really appear to emanate from inconsistencies.
FOR EXAMPLE:
GRADUALISM (The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes) is a major tenant of Darwinian evolution, but the history of many fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.' If a living thing survives in a flawless form down to the present day with all the features it displayed millions of years ago and having undergone no change whatsoever, then this evidence is very confusing if we are to consider the Darwinistic concept of evolutionary gradualism valid.
Moreover, far from there being just one example to demonstrate this, there are in fact millions. Countless organisms exhibit no differences from their original states, which first appeared millions or even hundreds of millions of years ago. This is an embarrassing observation. Evolutionists look in the fossil record for the evidence they need to prove the process of evolution, but fossils provide few of the intermediate forms they seek. Furthermore, reveal that living things alleged to have undergone a process of change over time never underwent any evolution at all, even after hundreds of millions of years. Living forms are identical to how they appeared originally, and never underwent the gradual change predicted by Darwin.
(for reference see:
Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p. 14,
Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate, [1995], phoenix: London, 1996, p. 95
"Evrimin Cikmaz Sokaklari: Yasayan Fosiller" (Cul de sac of evolution: Living Fossils), Focus, April 2003)Then we have information from CHAOS THEORY which states that miniscule changes -- only one part in a million or a 0.0001% variation in the initial conditions of any process -- WILL change the outcome very significantly over TIME. And TIME is the one commodity the universe has had plenty of.
The Teleologic proponent of ID makes the point:
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.
MY Teleologic ID point is: Too much about the evolution of our universe and too much of the evolution of life and then intelligence on this planet (and perhaps others) SEEMS too well directed and too well organized to be by chance, and much of scientific study seems to support that concept.
Of course, then, there’s our PERSONAL experiences which, time and time again seem to show intersections with guidance --- such that we make the right decisions (or the wrong decisions) --- sometimes highly improbably. Then there’s the Near Death experiences some of us bear witness to.So that’s it. My last shot. I will be off line for the next month or so.
.
JCHEdited by Admin, : Remove quote codes.